The Hague. Israel is deeply troubled by South Africa's lawsuit to the International Criminal Court, alleging that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. This is not the recognized criminal court, where cases against Israel are already being heard, but the Court of Justice, which also derives its power from the UN.
The ICC was established to adjudicate disputes between states by agreement, and can also provide an advisory opinion on various matters. Israel has been dealt with twice in the past: the first time in 2004, when the ICJ asked for an opinion on the issue of the separation fence ("wall"), which was then built along the Green Line, and the second time last year, when it was asked about the issue of Israel's occupation of the territories (a hearing on the matter is scheduled for next month).
The South African claim is based on the 1948 Convention on the Prevention of Genocide, to which Israel is a signatory along with 142 other countries. The convention states that in case of conflicts, any country can appeal to the ICC, where the petitioner does not have to be the one affected, because genocide is a universal issue (a similar discussion is currently taking place in Gambia's lawsuit against Myanmar). This is also the reason why Israel will appear in the process and not boycott it: it cannot deny its signature on the treaty and may be harmed if it ignores the discussion.
, Photo: Moshe Shai
The court always convenes with a full panel of 15 judges from all over the world. The discussions themselves take time and will probably take years, but South Africa has not only asked for a ruling in principle but also for temporary relief, for which hearings have been scheduled for the coming week. Such relief can be granted relatively quickly, as happened in a similar request filed by Ukraine against Russia at the beginning of the war between the countries (Russia beeped at the decision at the time).
The fear is that the ICC will issue an order ordering Israel to stop the fighting in Gaza. The chances of this happening are not high, but the court can also issue softer language instructing Israel to refrain from actions that endanger or harm civilians. Such an order ostensibly has no meaning (see Russia), but there will be countries that will take it to the UN Security Council and demand that sanctions be imposed on Israel.
Documentation: IDF forces operating in Khan Yunis // Photo: IDF Spokesperson
Seemingly, again, not a big deal. Another discussion of a body that hates Israel, another expected anti-Israel resolution, another demand for the UN Security Council, another veto for the United States. So that's it, no. If the ICC rules against Israel, half the world and its sister will see this as proof that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. This issue will permeate every possible forum: in the institutional and social media, in academia, in living room conversations and in street demonstrations. This will lead to pressure on governments – primarily American – to toughen their positions on Israel. Instead of Hamas paying the price for the crimes of the October 7 attacks, Israel will pay with compound interest: both for the damage caused to it then, and for international measures that will severely damage its legitimacy and may reach the point of undermining its very existence.
Col. (res.) Pnina Sharvit Baruch, former head of the International Law Department in the MAG Corps and now a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), believes that this is a dangerous process that serves Israel's enemies. She expressed concern that in the future such a process would lead to sanctions and demands to declare Israel a pariah state, as well as a demand for a parallel investigation at the International Criminal Court in The Hague to investigate the "genocide" in Gaza – a move that could eventually lead to criminal proceedings against senior Israeli officials.
Dangerous dandruff
Israel alone will not be able to defend itself in this process. As always, it needs the United States by its side, behind it and in front of it. It is likely that the Jerusalem-Washington axis is already working overtime on this issue, with behind-the-scenes pressure on anyone who can, and through it on other countries, block moves that could make it difficult for Israel in the fighting and beyond.
This is the umpteenth time in this war that Washington has turned out to be a cast concrete backrest. It was preceded by unprecedented military, diplomatic and civilian aid, and especially a loving embrace from President Biden, who (rightly) described himself as "the last Zionist." We can and should be concerned about what will happen when he retires, regardless of who sits after him in the White House. It is doubtful whether Israel will once again get a president willing to risk his political future, his name and his legacy.
, Photo: AP
A normal country with responsible politicians would open every morning and close every night by thanking Biden and his administration. The State of Israel is different: large parts of it have been taken over by an irresponsible gang that constantly sabotages the national interest. This is the case with National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who mentioned again this week in a tweet that Israel is no longer a star in the American flag.
There is no need to explain how ungrateful it sounds: on the one hand to accept American money, American weapons and American vetoes, and on the other hand to tell the Americans to go look. If the U.S. decides to seek, or let us go, Israel will be lost in so many ways – political, security, economic, commercial, and even freedom of movement and work – that no prayer can save.
Israel is indeed not just another star in the American flag, but you have to be rude and minimally irresponsible to say it this way and at such a time. This, of course, is further proof that this group, of which Ben-Gvir is a clear representative, understands nothing about strategy or national interests, but the prime minister is expected to silence it out of an understanding of the damage it is causing.
This week, the US State Department issued an unusual statement explicitly naming Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, in light of their repeated statements that the residents of Gaza should be exiled. The statement claimed that their "explosive and irresponsible" rhetoric did not represent the position of the Israeli government and its head and should stop immediately. The Americans also reiterate that Gaza is Palestinian land and will remain so, but without the control of Hamas or other terrorist organizations that could threaten Israel.
There are three elements in this message that need attention. The first is the absolute backing that the administration continues to give Israel in the war against Hamas, until the threat is removed. The second is that any solution that includes the exit of civilians from Gaza is not on the agenda (in any case, these are delusional dreams: no Arab or Western country will accept 2.2 million poor Gazans). The third is that Washington is fed up with the extremist statements in Israel, and is issuing the government a yellow card, a kind of warning, which may be followed by action.
Now put all these together: the Hague and the headache at the International Court of Justice, the increasing pressure on the issue of the war in Gaza, Israel's need for weapons and international backing for Gaza, but also the possibility that the campaign will expand in the north (and other sectors), and the fear of sanctions or political isolation. What did we get? A country that shouts that it is not a star on the flag of the Stars and Stripes, but is far from dependent only on itself.
In times like these, wisdom and discretion are required – two commodities that large parts of the government and the Knesset lack. Take Moshe Saada of the Likud, who was interviewed this week and said the following sentence: "You go everywhere and they tell you, 'Destroy them.' In the kibbutzim, as well as my colleagues in the prosecutor's office who fought with me on political matters, they tell me, 'Moshe, it's clear that all Gazans must be exterminated.'"
The South African claim to The Hague includes a slew of such Israeli statements, including by politicians and senior public figures, who have been painstakingly assembled and allegedly present an Israeli plan to commit genocide in Gaza. If the statements made in the heat of the moment and events can still be understood (even though leaders are expected to breathe deeply and speak from the head and not from the stomach), there is no way to explain the harmful stupidity that continues to this day and provides fuel for Israel-haters around the world.
And you can also say a word about morality. We are not like them. They [Hamas, Hezbollah] are murdering us because we are Israelis. We fight only the terrorists among them. That's what makes us unique. This is what gives us legitimacy. This is what enabled Israel to kill its enemies in all past campaigns, and along the way also to kill masses of civilians but to enjoy legal protections because we have always been perceived as good and moral and those who adhere to the laws of war.
Moreover, the enlightened world, which Israel despised with one hand and wanted to ask for assistance and backing with the other, sided with Israel, among other things, because it has an independent judicial system. There are many examples of petitions to international tribunals being rejected on the grounds that the Israeli Supreme Court is debating the issue and should accept its decisions. This legal bulletproof vest – which separates IDF commanders and soldiers from The Hague and between Israel and various sanctions and boycotts – has been tried here over the past year, but it turns out that the attempts are not over. MK Zvika Fogel, from Ben-Gvir's party, made it clear this week that after he is done with Hamas and Hezbollah, he will be free to deal with the High Court of Justice.
Forget the style: put the Supreme Court on the same line with the worst of Israel's enemies. And forget the damage: threatening the judicial system at a time when Israel needs it and its independence more than ever. But where is the togetherness, when soldiers are killed, when the whole country is mobilized in uniform or on civilians, when Israel is at war, literally, on every possible front? It turns out that Fogel, and not only him, is still alive on 6 October, and his real enemy is Israeli civilians.
Commanders in front
As of yesterday, the IDF had 504 fatalities since October 7. Their division crosses every possible criterion: men and women (from the Black Sabbath offensive), combat and rear officers (at the bases that were attacked), adults and young people, and of course every social segmentation - secular and religious, Jews and minorities, urbanites and those who live in other localities (with a significant percentage of kibbutzniks and kippah-wearers).
There are two data points worth paying particular attention to. The first concerns reservists: 28% of the fallen come from the reserves. It's a system that's been battered in every possible way over the past few decades, proving once again that you can rely on it and can't do without it. This is important in countless aspects of looking ahead: the need to train and equip them on a regular, perennial basis, without cutting corners; the need to honor them in every possible way, from personal reward to prioritizing studies, to tax discounts and encouraging purchase in their businesses; and the need to solve their remaining problems on the home front, from helping women and children (including mental health assistance) to helping with business and school.
The second figure concerns commanders. 26% of the fallen are officers, including senior officers. Among the dead are four permanent and one reserve colonels, eight lieutenant colonels, 23 permanent majors and six reserve majors, 29 permanent and 16 captains in the reserves, 26 permanent and two reserve lieutenants, and seven officers with the rank of second lieutenant. Alongside them there are dozens of other resistors in the permanent and reserve forces.
We can learn from this that in this war the commanders lead from the front. No more plasmas, but "after me" in the deepest sense. This was evident on Black Saturday, when commanders came from every possible place and charged themselves to save civilians in the kibbutzim (and because of the chaotic situation also paid a high price in many cases), and it is also evident in the fighting in Gaza.
Future investment
There is hardly a dilemma in combat whose solution does not end with the words "commanders in front." The fear of harming abductees? Commanders in front. Two-sided shooting? Commanders in front. Dilemmas in the use of massive fire versus harming innocent people? Commanders in front. Even more mundane matters such as TS problems, food or homesickness are almost always resolved in the presence of commanders alongside the soldiers, with the understanding that everyone travels in the same vessels, is exposed to the same dangers, eats the same battle rations, does not shower and homesick equally.
The IDF command has eaten a lot of straw over the years. They skits on him, violated his rights, beat him in every possible way. This led to many good people choosing to leave, certainly when the reward outside was many times greater than what the IDF knew how to give, and when there were no existential security challenges on the agenda that put the country ahead of anything else.
The second issue, of the existential threat, has now changed. There is no need to explain to anyone the importance of service and defense of the homeland. It is likely that after this war we will see a significant desire not only to sign a permanent contract, but also to return to service, and it is likely that this will also be necessary because the IDF will be required to increase units in order to meet all the security needs on the various borders, which are expected to increase significantly.
The first issue, of remuneration, requires immediate change. The Ministry of Finance battered the permanent servants incessantly and in every way. The agreements reached were problematic, causing many in the middle ranks to leave before they had exhausted their service. If the IDF wants to improve, and especially to excel, it must undergo a system overhaul in this area of reward and conditions, so that it can entice the best to stay in the service (or return to it).
This is true in all systems. After this war, more combat commanders will be required in the field systems, but also in the air and naval systems. As a result, more officers will be needed in the systems that support the fighting, especially intelligence: the tendency is to think that after the terrible failure of October 7, we don't need more intelligence because it can't be trusted, but the truth is quite the opposite: much more intelligence, and especially better intelligence, is needed in order to prevent the next time. In order to have such intelligence, the best people must serve in the IDF, and in order for them to come to the IDF (especially in the technological systems), they must know how to reward them appropriately.
In order to give security for years to come, we must first win the battle, but then we must also invest in the future: building the appropriate systems, adapting combat and defense methods, and harnessing the right people. It is a necessary correction with considerable financial cost on its side. The dividend it will generate will be many times more significant.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us