Israel and the ICC: Human Rights and Human Wrongs

Recent developments at the International Criminal Court (ICC) have reignited fierce controversy—not over arrest warrants themselves, but over Israel’s fundamental objection to the Court’s authority. A few days ago, the ICC’s Appeals Chamber ordered a reconsideration of Israel’s argument that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Gaza and the West Bank. Israel, which is not a party to the Rome Statute, maintains that it falls outside the ICC’s mandate.

To its supporters, the proceedings reflect a longstanding pattern of disproportionate targeting. To its detractors, they represent long-overdue accountability.

As with any deeply contested conflict, reality lies between polarized extremes. Honest debate requires the recognition of systemic bias alongside an unwavering commitment to true accountability.

Double Standards, the ICC, and the Burden of Scrutiny

For years, Israel has enjoyed an undeniable disproportionate scrutiny from global institutions, particularly within the United Nations. During the period from 2015 to 2023, the UN General Assembly adopted more than 100 resolutions critical of Israel—more than those adopted against North Korea, Syria, Russia, Yemen and Iran combined. This is not just a subjective view but a documented one that nourishes valid accusations of institutionalized bias.

The ICC’s choice to seek warrants against Israeli leaders serves to deepen this sense. Even while atrocities unfolded on a mass scale in Myanmar’s genocide against the Rohingya, the people’s war against the government and its military forces in Sudan’s Darfur, and Syria’s decade-long massacre of citizens, the Court focused on targeting a democratic government—one with an independent judiciary, an active free press, and internal systems of accountability.

Reducing Israel to the status of Hamas—a declared terrorist organization that makes deliberate efforts to target innocent people—undermines the moral authority of international law. It obfuscates the vital difference between a government struggling, imperfectly so, to preserve its citizens and an organization intent on their annihilation.

But to highlight double standards is only half the task. Israel’s transparency—its free press, raucous public debates, and judicial scrutiny—means its imperfections are more evident than those of oppressive regimes that conceal theirs behind censorship. Israeli transparency paradoxically serves to be the very magnifying glass by which it is stringently critiqued.

Accountability: A National Imperative

Emphasizing hypocrisy may never be an acceptable excuse for dismissing genuine criticism. Israel repeatedly calls its military “the world’s most moral military”—something that requires perpetual, sober reconsidering. Conflict in Gaza has caused actual harm. Civilian deaths and the targeting of vital infrastructure, schools, hospitals, water treatment facilities—sometimes without definite evidence of Hamas presence—are not propaganda slogans; they are human atrocities that need to be addressed. For instance, in the 2014 war in Gaza, more than 2,100 people were killed, including hundreds of non-combatants.

Israel, acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, launched more than 500 internal criminal probes and disciplinary actions—a near record by international standards. Yet the low rate of prosecutions highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability. Israel needs to consider this not a weak spot to be concealed, but a pillar of national power to be reinforced.

Transparency as Strategic Strength

In answering the ICC, Israel needs to understand that transparency is not only an ethical imperative—transparency is a strategic interest. Fending off biased accusations requires more than defensiveness—proactive credibility. Building the military’s internal investigation apparatus, opening itself up to responsible outside audits where appropriate, and streamlining battlefield procedures to reduce harm to civilians shouldn’t be viewed as appeasement to critics.

They are the way that Israel asserts its adherence to its baseline values. Advances in technology, such as AI-based targeting protocols that can sort out combatants from non-combatants, ought to be pursued and publicized. Military instruction needs to stress not only the technical requirements of international humanitarian law but also its ethical facets, so that it is not only instructed but internalized at all levels of command. Repeated, tangible adherence to these standards won’t end all criticism. They will make one-dimensional stereotypes of Israel more difficult to maintain.

Living Democracy: Engaging Criticism

Israel needs to refrain from retreating to a posture of defense. Rather, it must engage forcefully—even with those human rights groups that are critically outspoken. Engagement need not be innocent. It may be firm, reflective, and confident, acknowledging that there are those critics who will always be dissatisfied, yet many world publics are amenable to nuance. Diplomacy efforts need to highlight not only the security challenges facing Israel but also its internal debates—featuring Israeli journalists, activists, and military lawyers who debate ethical issues candidly.

Internally, Israel’s greatest strength is its robust democracy. Maintaining public debate—over military ethics, settlement policy, and the essence of occupation—is not vulnerability, but the vitality of an enduring and moral polity. To its international friends—particularly to those who are committed to democracy and human rights—its credibility will come to depend more and more on its capacity to respond to criticism by conducting accountable self-reflection, not phoned-in defenses.

Seizing the Moral High Ground

Finally, Israel’s strongest defense is not to deny all culpability, or to complain of global biases, but to consistently and visibly strive to do better. The ICC war crimes warrants may amount to a gross error. But Israel must not let outside injustice divert its gaze from its internal task: to emulate a fair-abiding democracy that holds itself to the highest possible standards, even when—and particularly when—others do not. By voluntarily exceeding even the variable standards of international institutions, Israel can reclaim its story—not just that of a defending people, but that of a beacon of moral responsibility in a stormy region.

The way ahead is challenging. Yet Israel’s founding ideals demand no less: a nation that defends human rights not only against external threats but also by confronting its own human wrongs with honesty and courage. Only by walking this difficult path can Israel answer its critics, uphold its values, and fulfill the promise of a just and resilient democracy.