The Washington Post editorial dismissing the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant exemplifies a troubling double standard. By arguing that Israel’s democratic status precludes scrutiny akin to that faced by so-called “authoritarian regimes,” the editorial perpetuates narratives of Western exceptionalism while undermining international law. This article examines the editorial’s flawed reasoning, the racialised dimensions of its arguments, and the necessity of holding Israel to account, particularly through the lens of African experiences with the ICC.
The editorial’s most glaring weakness lies in its implicit claim that democracy and human rights violations are mutually exclusive. This argument betrays historical ignorance and disregard for evidence, as democratically elected leaders have frequently engaged in heinous crimes. Adolf Hitler’s rise to power via democratic mechanisms is a grim reminder that democracy does not immunise leaders from accountability. Similarly, Israel’s repeated targeting of civilians in Gaza—documented extensively by organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch—requires impartial investigation, irrespective of its political system.
The Washington Post editorial also exemplifies the longstanding bias that plagues international justice. The suggestion that prosecuting Israeli leaders would somehow delegitimise the ICC reflects an entrenched belief that international law is a tool to discipline African and Middle Eastern leaders, while Western or allied nations remain untouchable. The ICC has faced accusations of racial bias for its perceived focus on African cases, despite the fact that many such cases were referred to the court by African nations themselves. The editorial’s implication that the ICC’s credibility hinges on shielding Israel reinforces the perception that the court’s reach is curtailed by geopolitical and racialised considerations.
African legal scholars and activists have long criticised this imbalance. Professor Makau Mutua has argued that the ICC must address its credibility crisis by pursuing cases involving powerful Western nations and their allies. The reluctance to do so perpetuates what he terms “racialised justice,” where African leaders like Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir or Kenya’s Uhuru Kenyatta are held accountable while figures like Netanyahu are shielded. The ICC’s warrants against Israeli leaders represent an essential step towards correcting this imbalance, asserting that no nation is above the law.
This racial bias is further reflected in the editorial’s framing of the Gaza conflict. By suggesting that Israel’s actions are justified because of Hamas’ alleged use of human shields, the Post editorial adopts rhetoric frequently used to dehumanise victims of Western military campaigns in the Global South. African scholars have drawn parallels between these justifications and the colonial narratives that excused atrocities by portraying colonised peoples as inherently culpable. The framing shifts blame from perpetrators to victims, denying the humanity of the oppressed while absolving the powerful.
The editorial’s argument that Israel’s internal mechanisms suffice for accountability is equally unconvincing. Reports from Israeli and international human rights organisations consistently highlight the inadequacy of Israel’s judicial processes in addressing alleged war crimes. For instance, as of 2024, fewer than 20 indictments have been issued against Israeli soldiers for crimes committed during military operations in Gaza, with none involving civilian killings. This mirrors the failures of domestic justice systems in some African nations, where political interference and institutional weaknesses have undermined accountability.
In cases such as Kenya’s 2007–2008 post-election violence or Sudan’s Darfur conflict, the ICC intervened precisely because national systems were unable or unwilling to act. Israel’s claim of self-investigation is thus reminiscent of the defences used by regimes accused of human rights abuses in Africa, further underscoring the necessity of ICC involvement. African leaders like Botswana’s former president Ian Khama have emphasised the importance of consistent application of international law, warning that selective justice undermines the very foundation of global accountability.
The editorial’s framing of Palestinian casualties in Gaza reflects a deeply entrenched hierarchy of victimhood. By lamenting the deaths of “innocent” Palestinians while subtly implying that others may have deserved their fate, the piece mirrors the language used to justify disproportionate violence against marginalised communities worldwide. African intellectuals such as Frantz Fanon have critiqued this dehumanisation, arguing that it serves to rationalise colonial violence by portraying the oppressed as threats to be neutralised rather than as human beings with rights.
This hierarchy is starkly evident in the disparity between the responses to Israeli and Palestinian deaths. While the international community swiftly condemns attacks on Israeli civilians, Palestinian victims are frequently subjected to scrutiny regarding their perceived complicity. This dynamic reflects broader patterns of racialised violence, where the suffering of non-white populations is minimised or dismissed. African commentators have drawn parallels between the treatment of Palestinians and the histories of apartheid in South Africa or the racialised policing of Black communities globally, emphasising the need for intersectional solidarity in addressing these injustices.
The ICC’s decision to investigate alleged war crimes by Israeli leaders represents a critical opportunity to challenge these entrenched biases. By asserting its jurisdiction over powerful nations and their allies, the court reinforces its mandate as a guardian of universal justice. African perspectives underscore the importance of this impartiality, as selective justice undermines both the credibility of international law and the moral authority of institutions like the ICC.
From an African vantage point, the ICC’s actions against Israel also serve as a reminder of the shared struggles against impunity and oppression. Just as the court has been instrumental in addressing crimes in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and elsewhere, its involvement in Gaza highlights the universality of human rights. By holding Israeli leaders accountable, the ICC can help dismantle the systems of privilege and exceptionalism that perpetuate global inequality.
The Washington Post’s defence of Israeli leaders against ICC scrutiny exemplifies the hypocrisy and racial bias that undermine the pursuit of global justice. By dismissing the court’s legitimacy in prosecuting alleged war crimes in Gaza, the editorial reinforces a narrative of Western exceptionalism that has long marginalised victims in the Global South. African perspectives offer a vital critique of these double standards, emphasising the necessity of impartial accountability for all nations. The ICC’s actions against Israel represent an essential step towards addressing these imbalances and affirming the universality of human rights.
