ISSN 2330-717X

The ICC And Israel’s Charge Of Anti-Semitism – OpEd


We are at a critical historical juncture in which it is becoming increasingly difficult to criticize Israel without being branded an anti-Semite. You are an anti-Semite if you support the International Criminal Court’s recent ruling that it has jurisdiction to open a war crimes investigation against Israel. But you are also likely to be called an anti-Semite if you reject the logic informing the court’s decision.

Target List

The ICC is on Israel’s target list. This becomes clear when searching for the terms “ICC ruling” and “Israel” together; instantaneously, an ad pops up at the very top of Google’s list of 1,390,000 results: “ICC & Israel: No Standing. No Jurisdiction. No Case.” Clicking the ad, will take you to a slick blue and white website (i.e., the colour of Israel’s flag) called “ICC Jurisdiction” with the large “No Standing….”  slogan at the centre of the page.

Under the slogan one reads that “The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established as a court of last resort to try the perpetrators of some of the world’s worst crimes. It has been widely recognized that the ICC has no jurisdiction over Israel. Any other conclusion is the outcome of a politicized process which upholds a wrong interpretation of international law.”

Israel’s official view, then, is that the ICC has no standing to investigate alleged war crimes in the Palestinian territories that Israel had occupied in 1967. Israel, so the claim goes, is not a party to the Rome Statute that established the ICC; moreover, the Palestinian Authority is not sovereign and therefore cannot delegate jurisdiction and request that the ICC intervene on its behalf as required by the Statute. This is why Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu angrily rejected the ICC’s recent ruling that paves the way for a war crimes probe, averring that “The decision of the international court to open an investigation against Israel today for war crimes is absurd. It’s undiluted antisemitism and the height of hypocrisy.”

Several Israeli allies, including the US, Germany, and Hungary, appear to agree with Israel’s analysis. Although US Secretary of State Antony Blinken did not invoke the anti-Semitism charge, he did parrot Israel’s Prime Minister when he declared that “the Palestinians do not qualify as a sovereign state and therefore, are not qualified to obtain membership as a state in, participate as a state in, or delegate jurisdiction to the ICC.”

Avoiding Hypocrisy

Yet, if one insists that the Palestinians have no standing before the ICC since they lack sovereignty, then the only way to avoid Netanyahu’s accusation of hypocrisy would be to infer that the entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River as well as the people living in it are controlled by Israel.

This, however,  would mean agreeing with Israel’s foremost human rights organization B’tselem, which has claimed that the Palestinian territories are ruled by one regime—namely, Israel. B’tselem goes on to explain that this regime is “organized under a single principle: advancing and cementing the supremacy of one group—Jews—over another—Palestinians.” The human rights organisation concludes that “a regime that uses laws, practices and organized violence to cement the supremacy of one group over another is an apartheid regime.”

But the claim that one regime controls the entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River is also considered anti-Semitic. After the publication of B’tselem’s report, professor Eugene Kontorovich, head of the Kohelet Policy Forum’s International Law Department, said that the rights organization’s charge of apartheid was akin to an anti-Semitic “blood libel.” In a similar vein, NGO Monitor claimed that B’Tselem’s report is informed by anti-Semitic tropes, while specifically flagging the phrase from the “River to the Sea” as extremely disturbing.

Of course Palestinians who have dared to talk about “Israeli apartheid” or students who have organized an “Israel Apartheid Week” on campuses have frequently been subjected to similar accusations.

Parallel Universe 

There is, of course, one way to speak about Israel without being cast as an anti-Semite. But to do so one would have to have a very creative imagination or live in some kind of parallel universe, where Israel does not have a colonial project, where Palestinian rights are not continuously violated, and where, in fact, Palestinians do not even exist.

Click here to have Eurasia Review's newsletter delivered via RSS, as an email newsletter, via mobile or on your personal news page.

Neve Gordon

Neve Gordon is the author of Israel's Occupation, for more information click here. Neve's website is

2 thoughts on “The ICC And Israel’s Charge Of Anti-Semitism – OpEd

  • March 15, 2021 at 1:38 am

    You have to be entirely blind to what is going on in the world of genocide and war crimes to eve for a moment think that the ICC should have Israel’s wartime record as its top priority. What about Syria? What about Iran, Russia and Hezbollahs role in the killing of over half a million Syrians? What about photographic evidence of Syria’s Bashar El Assad using chlorine gas to kill civilians and their children? What about the killing of 3000 Palestinians living in Syria’s Palestinians refugee camps? Where is the ICC’s outrage towards China, and its detention in concentration camps of the Uighurs Muslin minority?
    How about the actions of the Taliban against Afghani civilians?

    What about Myanmar and the repression and killing of its citizens by its own government?

    This list is greater when one considers genocide and war crimes committed in the recent past in other conflicts whether one considers Sebian crimes in Srebrenica or Russian crimes in Chechnya

    No. The ICC chooses to target the Jewish people in Israel. The very same people, Jews, whose genocide in WWII was the basis for the ICC (and where war crimes against Jewish by the Nazis and other European nations (eg. Ukraine and Poland) against the Jews still have not been completely prosecuted)

    No you cannot call the ICC’s moves anything BUT anti-semitism. Anti-semitism is traditionally and historically a move by non-Jewish Christian Islamic Western authorities to scapegoat Jews for their ‘sins’ inflate Jewish responsibility and role for societal crimes, conflict and catastrophes(see the plague in the Middle Ages). The iCC prosecution against Israel is just another anti-semitic Christian Islamic western trope, the most recent of the thousands propagated by nonJews over the ages.

  • March 18, 2021 at 1:00 am

    The comment above illustrates beautifully how little the ICC’s critics know about how the Court operates.

    The Court is currently investigating Mynamar’s forcible deportation of the Rohingya, the Taliban’s crimes in Afghanistan, and Russian crimes in Georgia. It will soon begin to investigate Russian crimes in Ukraine. The OTP has also already explained why its jurisdiction over China’s genocide of the Uyghur is so limited that an investigation is not warranted. And it has no jurisdiction at all over crimes committed by Syria, by Iran, or by Russia against the Chechens.

    Antisemitic double-standards indeed.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.