The world is increasingly rejecting the impunity long granted to Israel, and America’s benefactors, with the global majority leading the charge for accountability and justice, writes Samar Saeed & Layth Malhis. [GETTY]
Following the International Criminal Court (ICC) issuance of arrest warrants for prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity, the reactions by US leaders are emblematic of American exceptionalism.
Senator Lindsey Graham said, “the Rome Statute does not apply to Israel, or the United States, or France, or Germany, or Great Britain, because it was not conceived to come after us. We have our legal systems in place so that’s the right answer and quite frankly the only answer.”
Another Senator, Tom Cotton, remarked that the ICC was “a kangaroo court and Karim Khan is a deranged fanatic.”
The warrants issued are backed and to be followed by the United Nations and 125 member states that are parties to the Rome Statute.
The reactions and broader effort to undermine the ICC, has also demonstrated US hegemony over the international system at large, and the implicit racial hierarchy that undergird global institutions.
On February 6, the Trump administration issued an executive order to sanction the ICC, claiming that it had engaged in “illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel.” The Biden administration similarly dismissed the court’s move, calling the issuance of arrest warrants against the Israeli leaders “outrageous.”
Fearing accountability
The US has long positioned itself as above the law, leveraging the utility of international organisations, including the ICC. This is evident by its habitual use of the veto power in the United Nations Security Council to protect Israel – 48 times since the 1970’s and four times since October 2023 – its threats to defund the UN, and its rejection of Amnesty International’s conclusion that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza.
In 2023, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that “Israel’s acts [in Gaza] could amount to genocide” which also triggered widespread political backlash in the US. Some explained this by citing fear that holding Israel accountable could lead to a precedent for prosecuting American officials and military personnel in the future.
Established in 2002 under the Rome Statue, the ICC was ostensibly created to prosecute individuals responsible for committing crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Yet, its effectiveness has been fundamentally undermined by the refusal of major powers like Russia, Israel and the United States, to ratify the statue, rendering them beyond its jurisdiction.
This refusal embodies the contradictions inherent in the ICC’s mandate, where its purpose is to uphold international justice while it sits idle as the most egregious perpetrators of these crimes remain immune by virtue of their geopolitical dominance.
The words of Senator Graham reveal how the US perceives the post-WWII international order: not as a framework for justice and accountability but as a system that cements its own supremacy and to protect itself and those it considers central to its agenda of expansionism and control, i.e. Israel.
Graham escalated his rhetoric further, name calling key allies, “Canada, Britain, Germany, France” and sending a clear threat: “if you try to help the ICC, we’re going to sanction you,”.
The ICC is a flawed institution
The ICC has historically faced criticism for its disproportionate focus on persecuting African leaders, with cases against figures such as Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir, Ivory Coast’s Laurent Gbagbo, and Kenya’s Uhuru Kenyatta reinforcing perceptions that the court functions as a neo-colonial tool.
By contrast, Western leaders responsible for war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine have remained untouched. This selective application of justice has long exposed the court’s inherent biases and structural limitations.
In March 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin over war crimes in Ukraine, a move that was praised by Biden as “justified” and “makes a strong point,” — though he simultaneously acknowledged that the US does not recognise the ICC’s authority.
The court’s decision to pursue Israel’s leaders marks a notable shift, signalling a willingness to challenge the impunity of powerful states. However, this newfound assertion is constrained by the fundamental weakness of the ICC: its reliance on state cooperation for enforcement. Since Israel and its key allies refuse to recognise the court’s jurisdiction, the warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant remain largely symbolic.
The ICC’s lack of enforcement power has been on display not just in the US but by other European states. Poland, for example, cleared Netanyahu to visit the Auschwitz memorial despite the ICC ruling. In Germany, Friedrich Merz, the likely next chancellor, dismissed the court’s decision as “completely absurd,” vowing to ensure that Netanyahu could visit Germany without being arrested.
Only a handful of European States, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovenia and Spain, said they would comply with the ICC’s ruling.
This refusal to enforce International Law against powerful actors exposes the broader structural limitations of the ICC and raises fundamental questions about its legitimacy. If the international court lacks capacity to hold the most influential states accountable, can it function as an instrument of global justice?
Serving American interests
Randall Williams, in his book, Divided World: Development and Violence, critiques the concept of human rights as a tool that, rather than being a force for good, often aligns closely with US imperial interests and hegemony. He argues that the international system, shaped by the aftermath of WWII, has primarily served to entrench American expansionism rather than deliver justice for victims of state violence.
It is within this context that the US response to the ICC’s ruling should be understood – not as a partisan issue, but rather as an ideological and racial divide of global dominance.
The Biden and now Trump administration’s unwavering defence of Israel and its condemnation of the ICC’s ruling is not merely a diplomatic posturing; it is an affirmation of a larger, racist, hierarchical, hypocritical system that privileges one group over the global majority.
However, the court’s actions – along with South Africa’s case against Israel for genocide – signal an emerging rupture in this hierarchy. The world is increasingly rejecting the impunity long granted to Israel, and America’s benefactors, with the global majority leading the charge for accountability and justice.
The ICC’s ruling on Israel’s genocidal conduct in Gaza, alongside rumours of an investigation into Biden and Blinken’s role for complicity in war crimes, further illustrate that the cracks in this unjust system are widening.
The question now, is whether these fractures will expand into a true dismantling of the structures that have long protected imperial violence, or whether the forces of hegemony will once again reassert their control. Either way, the fight for justice in Palestine does not rest with institutions alone, but with the movement and its voices demanding a world beyond US exceptionalism and empty human rights rhetoric.
Samar Saeed is a Ph.D. candidate in the History Department at Georgetown University.
Follow her on X: @Samarsaeed
Layth Malhis is a grad student at the Center of Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University. He writes on Settler Colonialism and Necropolitics in Palestine and the broader Arab World.
Follow Layth on X: @laythco
Have questions or comments? Email us at: [email protected]
Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.
