Israel follows international humanitarian law; now it needs to speak like it - comment

Israel’s ongoing military operations since October 7 have not merely been on the radar for international attention; they have been under the microscope, micro-analyzed for any mistakes.

True enough, the world is biased against Israel. It is what the Palestinian movement has always had that Israel has always lacked: moral empathy in the public eye, which directly affects international policy.

This is evident in so much that has happened recently. Spain, Ireland, and Norway recognized a Palestinian state. Even the US has criticized Israel, despite being our closest ally.

International humanitarian law

This is most apparent, however, in the recent motions against Israel in the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.

Therefore, Israel must manage its campaign with a keen understanding of international legal standards and scrutiny, particularly from the ICC and ICJ.

This careful approach is essential for several reasons, including avoiding potential legal repercussions, maintaining international support, and adhering to international humanitarian law (IHL) principles.

International lawyer and former deputy to the state attorney of Israel Yuval Sasson spoke to me this week for the JPost Podcast and explained that “a lot of the time, people are talking the talk but not walking the walk; Israel is walking the walk but not talking the talk.”

He was referring to our actions in the international arena. “We take action according to International Humanitarian Law, but then we have a minister saying, ‘I’m gonna use a bomb on Gaza.’ We are actually doing the opposite of what we’re expected to do,” he continued.

This implies that Israel is making deliberate efforts to follow IHL, despite having far-right extremists within its coalition who state the opposite. Where’s the logic?

The ICC is mandated to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. While Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, its jurisdiction can still extend to Israeli nationals if alleged crimes occur on the territory of a state party to the Rome Statute.

For example, the ICC has recognized the Palestinian territories as falling under its jurisdiction since the “State of Palestine” acceded to the Rome Statute in 2015.

Any Israeli military operation that results in substantial civilian casualties or targets non-military infrastructure could be subject to an ICC investigation. While we have ample grounds to argue for the justification of the IDF’s operation in the Gaza Strip, it is legally bound to come under public scrutiny.

Addressing the issue

So why are members of this government arguing in favor of going against IHL, while Israel is working so carefully to tiptoe around it?

The issue, on the other hand, is, of course, that the ICC fails to recognize that the reason for the high civilian casualty rate is that the Hamas terrorist organization is hiding hostages, weapons, and senior members in civilian areas; in other words, they are using human shields.

Nevertheless, ICC probes are inevitable in operations such as this one.

They can lead to international arrest warrants for Israeli military and political leaders, such as that which is currently on the table for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant; complicating Israel’s diplomatic relations, like the challenges we are facing with some long-time allies who are now criticizing Israel’s methods in Gaza; and restricting travel, like the challenges Netanyahu would face should an arrest warrant be pushed forward.

Excessive civilian casualties or apparent disregard for IHL could erode crucial support. This is particularly pertinent in multilateral forums, such as the United Nations, where international opinion can significantly impact diplomatic outcomes and sanctions.

On the subject of IHL, Israel, as a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, is obligated to uphold the principles of protecting civilians and limiting the destruction of civilian infrastructure.

We could spend another seven years justifying every single destroyed building, school, or hospital in Gaza, but the truth is that the IDF has left destruction in its wake, and one day, we will wake up to find all fingers pointed at us.

In IHL, the principle of proportionality, or jus in bello, requires that any military advantage gained is not outweighed by the harm inflicted on civilians and civilian property.

Adhering to these rules is not just about avoiding ICC and ICJ scrutiny; it is about maintaining a moral high ground and demonstrating a commitment to international norms and humanitarian principles.

The writer is deputy editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post.