Is the ICC 'antisemitic' for issuing arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu?

Israeli political leaders and supporters of Israel from across the political spectrum have reacted against the International Criminal Court (ICC) after it issued arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for potential war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The charges, based on extremely detailed evidence presented to and gathered by the court, relate to Israel’s brutal war on Gaza, which has killed over 44,000 people since October 2023.

One of the accusations levelled against the ICC, including by Netanyahu himself, is to accuse the Hague-based court of being "antisemitic", as well as the related accusation that Israel is somehow being "singled out".

The New Arab takes a look at the charges of antisemitism levelled against the ICC by Israel and its supporters, including why Israel is using such accusations and why many believe it hugely undermines the meaning of antisemitism.

The ICC, motivated by antisemitism?

Reacting to the ICC's arrest warrant against him, Benjamin Netanyahu characterised them as "an antisemitic decision" and said they were "equivalent to the Dreyfus trial", referring to referring to the 1894 trial of a French army captain of Jewish descent that was one of the most prominent pre-Holocaust instances of antisemitism.

"Israel rejects with disgust the absurd and false actions and charges against it by the international criminal court, which is a biased and discriminatory political body," Netanyahu continued.

In another statement, the Israeli government said the ICC's "decision was made by … biased judges motivated by antisemitic hatred of Israel".

Similarly, describing the warrants as "an unprecedented disgrace", Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said the ICC "once again demonstrates that it is antisemitic from beginning to end".

Once again, while the arrest warrants are based on a huge volume of evidence compiled and received by the ICC, there is not a shred of evidence that court is in any way motivated by antisemitism.

In fact, despite Israel having been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity by the UN, numerous states and independent human rights bodies during its almost six-decade-long illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, no Israeli leader has ever had ICC arrest warrants issued against them.

Alongside the arrest warrants issued for Netanyahu and Gallant, one was also issued for Hamas’s military leader Mohammed Deif – a man who Israel says it has killed.

Prior to his assassination by Israel, Hamas' former leader Ismail Haniyeh was on course to receive an arrest warrant. His successor, Yahya Sinwar, was also set to receive a warrant, however was killed in combat.

Is Israel being singled out?

Another accusation levelled against the ICC is that Israel is somehow "singled out" for undue criticism.

Writing after the release of the arrest warrants, Israeli writer Shaiel Ben-Ephraim wrote on social media site X: “Israelis feel aggrieved that they are being singled out.”

"There is some truth to that. We are always examined with a microscope, while other crimes are ignored," he continued.

This argument disregards the arrest warrants for Deif and the planned ones for the now dead Haniyeh and Sinwar. Furthermore, no other Israeli is on the list of those wanted by the ICC, which includes former Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir for crimes against humanity and Vladimir Putin for war crimes.

Another frequent charge used by Israel and its supporters is whataboutism, particularly with regards to other human rights abusers.

In a now deleted post on X, the self-described pro-Israel UK Shadow Justice Secretary and runner up in the recent Conservative Party leadership contest, Robert Jenrick, wrote: "The ICC has no credibility as it turns a blind eye to the crimes of tyrants like Khomeini [sic] and Assad."

While Ayatollah Khomeini, the first Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has been dead since 1989, the Assad charge is one frequently repeated by Israel’s apologists.

Assad, the tyrannical president of Syria who has waged a brutal war against Syrians since 2011, would almost certainly have been issued with an ICC arrest warrant if they could actually legally do so.

The reason that the ICC finally issued arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant is because even though Israel, like Assad’s Syria, is not a signatory to the ICC, it is committing crimes to a state that recognises the court's jurisdiction, namely the State of Palestine.

The only way for non-signatory states such as Assad's Syria and Israel to be prosecuted by the ICC is through the UN Security Council (UNSC). There have been UNSC resolutions aimed at allowing the ICC to go after Assad, but these have been vetoed by Assad's Russian and Chinese allies.

So, despite what Israeli apologists want people to believe, there’s no conspiracy to single out Israel – it's just that the State of Palestine put itself in a position where it could hold Israel accountable for its crimes through the ICC.

Is Israel’s accusation of antisemitism against the ICC itself antisemitic?

Israel has long weaponised antisemitism, equating criticism of the State of Israel, or even criticism of a specific Israeli government or government policy, with hatred of Jewish people.

The term antisemitism, given the historical connotations of the term in connection to the Holocaust and the very real modern instances of it, is a powerful accusation. To be labelled antisemitic can ruin people's careers and lives.

However, given the brazen nature of Israel's crimes against Gaza, there is a real danger that the use of antisemitism to defend crimes against humanity and war crimes by his government, that the term will begin to lose its meaning.

This will only empower actual antisemites. Many critics of Israel believe that Netanyahu using antisemitism in this way is in itself antisemitic, as it assumes that all Jews are supporters of or represented by the State of Israel – or by its policies and the policies of his far-right government.