I intended to write about the ICC in The Hague yesterday, but was overtaken by events. This afternoon South Africa will present the case against Israel, centered on an accusation of genocide. I believe the real reason that this is happening is because the US has vetoed attempts by the Security Council to demand a cease-fire in the Gaza War. Imposing a cease-fire allows Hamas to remain in power and claim a victory. Since the Hamas leadership is indifferent to suffering of Gazan civilians (except for the propaganda value it can give them) The whole exercise of filing a complaint with the ICC is actually just an attempt to avoid another American veto. Enough editorializing! Let me return to the facts.
The Court’s founding treaty, called the Rome Statute, grants the ICC jurisdiction over four main crimes, one of which is genocide. The crime of genocide is characterized by the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing its members or by other means: causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. This wording is taken from their own site.
Under this definition could organized crime, like drug cartels or the mafia, find protection? Perhaps they could, but only if they were recognized by the court as deserving protection from some actual nation. There are certainly Salafid (radical) Islamic movements that might be included. They are national religious groups. But they want Islamic religious law, and don’t recognize the authority of the court. That’s why South Africa, and not Hamas, has filed the complaint.
The complaint will be presented with supporting evidence. Much of it will be taken from actual statements of Israeli officials (and probably presented out of context). Visual or video recordings will likely be used to show examples. These must be carefully screened. Items from the Gaza Medical authorities can hardly be acceptable as real. Hospital scenes that omit the mention of Hamas military facilities in tunnels underneath them are obviously prejudicial. And one must not forget the possibility of presenting manufactured evidence, real Fake News. Material presented from some UN sources, such as UNRWA or WHO, also falls into the category of biased propaganda. The tainted source of such items must be noted and taken into account (or, perhaps, not be allowed to be entered into evidence). How the court deals with these problems may indicate what it may decide.
Wetherhorn 