MADRID- In its November 25 editorial, The Washington Post questions the arrest warrants issued against Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, describing them as measures that "undermine the credibility of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and strengthen accusations of hypocrisy and selective persecution."

The article argues that the ICC is designed to intervene in countries that lack the means or mechanisms to investigate themselves, which, according to the newspaper, "is not the case with Israel." It maintains that, as a democracy, Israel has the necessary tools to internally process potential abuses.

In this regard, the editorial states:

“Israel must be held accountable for its military conduct in Gaza. After the long-awaited end of the conflict, there will surely be judicial, parliamentary, and military investigative commissions in Israel. Its dynamic and independent press will carry out its own investigations. Some Israeli reserve soldiers have already been arrested on charges of abuse against detained Palestinians, and further investigations are expected.”

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was created as a pillar of the international criminal justice system, with the aim of ensuring impartiality in the selection of cases and ensuring that the most egregious violations of human rights do not go unpunished.

However, by explicitly calling for Israel to be excluded from the jurisdiction of the ICC, The Washington Post essentially argues that the court should limit its focus to non-Western countries, regarded as chaotic, undemocratic, and lacking the strong institutions needed to “investigate themselves.”

The Post’s stance, suggesting that the ICC should focus almost exclusively on poor and weak nations while sidelining others such as the United States or Israel, not only undermines the credibility of the institution but also reveals an agenda rooted in a liberal worldview. From this perspective, Western nations would be the only ones capable of fully accessing the benefits of democracy and, should any correction be necessary, they would have the democratic tools to self-correct without the need for external interventions. Meanwhile, the rest of the world would remain subject to international scrutiny under the presumption of institutional incapacity.

In this context, the constant pressures from the United States, under President Joe Biden, to prevent the ICC from prosecuting Israeli political leaders for war crimes committed in Gaza, confirm that the supposed Western universalism of human rights and the application of international law has always been nothing more than an ideological tool.

This stance reinforces the illusion that, in the division between the West and the rest of the world, it is the former that possesses inherent values that allow it to be democratic by nature. This approach not only perpetuates a hierarchical view among nations but also undermines the legitimacy of the universal principles that international justice claims to uphold.

To date, most of the charges issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) have been directed at individuals who are Black and/or Arab-African. This pattern reflects a clearly racialized, inappropriate, and deeply political process. As a "selective political tool," the ICC faces serious doubts about its ability to withstand the test of time. If the recommendation of The Washington Post’s editorial is followed, crimes committed in other parts of the world, particularly in the West, would remain hidden and beyond the Court’s jurisdiction.

As Professor Mahmood Mamdani argues, this would mean allowing the ICC to continue enforcing an international criminal legal order that perpetuates power and wealth asymmetries. Meanwhile, international law expert Costas Douzinas contends that, in the hands of Western governments, human rights have lost their true purpose, becoming the latest version of the "civilizing mission."

This is precisely what The Washington Post editorial calls for without any reservation: to apply international law in places inhabited by the "barbarians," while, in the domains of democracy, international law would have no jurisdiction. 

In other words, if all human beings and nations have equal rights, then the kind of unequal system that the West has always desired cannot be maintained.