This post is also available in:
English 
Русский (Russian) 
Français (French)
Short answer
The ICC prosecutor’s accusations against Israeli leaders raise significant legal and ethical concerns. Key issues include:
- Lack of explicit authority: The Rome Statute does not authorize the prosecutor to form external expert panels. Israel as a state is not even a part of the Rome statute
- Potential for bias: Sharing confidential evidence with external experts could compromise fairness and impartiality. In addition the ICC is a reflection of world politics as an agency of the UN, which harbors many countries that are already biased against Israel due to religious and geo-political reasons
- Public pronouncements: Public statements by the prosecutor and the panel could influence public opinion and potentially prejudice the case. Especially as in no shape or form is there any evidence known to support the prosecutors announcement
- Weak evidence: The accusations lack solid legal basis and factual support. In addition, Israel is a sovreign nation, a democracy with its own judicial and investigative institutions
- Neglect of Israel’s rights: The ICC often ignores Israel’s security challenges and the atrocities committed by other parties. The false equivalence between a prime minister of a sovereign nation to leaders of a designated terror organization is preposterous
The ICC’s actions undermine its credibility and exacerbate tensions in the region. It’s essential to hold the ICC accountable and defend Israel’s right to self-defense.
Long answer
The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor accused Israeli leaders of war crimes and crimes against humanity. To support his claims, he formed a panel of legal experts to review his evidence. However, there are concerns about the legality of this action.
Key issues:
- Authority to appoint external reviewers: The Rome Statute, which governs the ICC, doesn’t explicitly give the prosecutor the authority to form a panel of external experts to review his evidence. Israel as a state is not even a part of the Rome statute
- Fairness and impartiality: By sharing confidential evidence with the panel, the prosecutor risks compromising the fairness of the process. The panel members, not being bound by the same ethical rules as the prosecutor, might have a biased view of the evidence. Especially since the ICC is a reflection of world politics as an agency of the UN, which harbors many countries that are already biased against Israel due to religious and Geo-political reasons
- Public pronouncements: The prosecutor’s public praise of the panel and the panel’s public support for the accusations could influence public opinion, including that of ICC judges, and potentially prejudice the case. Especially as in no shape or form is there any evidence known to support the prosecutors announcement
- The facts behind the accusations don’t stand up to close examination: For example, the laws about war don’t force a country to let in aid if the enemy will take it or use it for fighting.” Moreover, the law says that to be guilty of “starvation as a method of warfare”, you must intentionally starve civilians by willfully stopping aid supplies. The UN said that the predicted famine in Gaza didn’t happen. There’s no real proof that anyone has died from starvation because of what Israel has done. Similarly, proving genocide requires demonstrating both the act itself and the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.
- The rights of the accused side (Israel) are not protected: The ICC’s accusations against Israel are often based on flimsy evidence and biased reports, without considering the complex security challenges faced by Israel. The ICC frequently turns a blind eye to the atrocities committed by other parties in the region, particularly those perpetrated by Hamas and other terrorist organizations.
By ignoring these fundamental principles of justice, the ICC is not only undermining its own credibility but also exacerbating tensions in the region. It is crucial to hold the ICC accountable for its biased actions and to defend Israel’s right to self-defense.
