In the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, both sides have regularly used inflammatory language to misconstrue the nature of the conflict and promote their respective narratives and objectives. This manipulative language has become especially noticeable following rulings brought by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the judicial wing of the United Nations, and the International Criminal Court (ICC), the independent body responsible for charging individuals suspected of crimes against humanity. In the wake of these rulings, efforts to change the narrative —including outright rejection through the employment of misleading or politically motivated claims— have worked to undermine the legitimacy of the two courts and alter public perception surrounding the conflict, prompting the need for stronger international accountability.

In a May court ruling, the ICJ ordered Israel to “immediately halt its military offensive” in Rafah, which was previously a designated safe zone for civilians. The decision was part of an ongoing case brought against Israel by South Africa, which argues that Israel has committed genocidal acts against Palestinian civilians. In response to the May ruling, Israel called South Africa’s charge of genocide “false, outrageous and morally repugnant,” and has continued their military operations in Rafah, arguing that the invasion of Rafah is imperative to effectively fight Hamas and secure the return of the hostages.

Also in May, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan applied for arrest warrants for Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh as well as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant concerning war crimes and crimes against humanity following the October 7^th attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza. Sinwar and Haniyeh are since deceased. In a statement on May 20th, Khan accused Netanyahu and Gallant of, among other crimes, using “starvation of civilians as a method of warfare,” “arbitrarily restricting the transfer of essential supplies” into Gaza, and “extermination as a crime against humanity,” a charge he also levied against the accused Hamas leaders. Leaders from both sides condemned the decision, with Netanyahu asserting that it was “a moral outrage of historic proportions,” and Hamas stating that the applications against its leaders should be withdrawn, according to the BBC. Netanyahu has called the arrest warrants a “pack of lies,” as stated by CNN, and has refuted Khan’s allegations by claiming that a substantial number of supplies has been entering Gaza and that malnutrition is insignificant, an assertion strongly contested by many humanitarian organizations who have announced that famine is imminent and current levels of aid are not enough to sustain the dire need for food, fuel, and medical supplies.

The ICC ruled in favor of Khan on Thursday, issuing arrest warrants against Netanyahu, Gallant, and Deif. The approval of the arrest warrants has been particularly significant for the United States, as it marked the first time the ICC has targeted the top leaders of one of their allies. President Biden called the warrants “outrageous” in a White House statement, emphasizing that there is “no equivalence” between Israel and Hamas. Given the U.S.’s continued support of Israel, Biden has not only rejected the prosecutor’s application for arrests but has also explicitly denied the allegations set forth by the ICJ that accuse Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.

The U.S. and Israel’s rejection and denial of the unfolding atrocities taking place in Gaza is extremely dangerous because it not only de-legitimizes the extent of the humanitarian crisis but also weakens the rules-based international order. As Israel refuses to accept the charges against it and the U.S. allows them to avoid accountability for their actions, a cycle of partisan rhetoric about the true impact of the war on civilians in Gaza is being disseminated by Israel and the U.S. and accepted by Israel’s supporters. Such discourse has furthered the impression that international law is not universally applied, thus harming the ability of institutions including the ICJ and ICC to effectively bring about justice.

However, anger towards the ICC’s decision has not been limited to Israel. It has also been expressed by leaders of Hamas, who have been charged with extermination, murder, hostage-taking, rape, and torture, among other crimes against humanity. Hamas’ leaders denounced Khan’s decision and his attempt to “equate the victim with the executioner,” and argued that Hamas has a right to use armed resistance in their fight against occupation, as reported by The Hill. Additionally, Hamas argued that the arrest warrants came far too late in the war and that the court was wrong to charge only two Israeli officials considering the many crimes committed by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) against Palestinian civilians, doctors, and journalists.

Hamas’ efforts to criticize the ICC’s actions have also spread a distorted narrative of the conflict, one that presents Hamas as a victim. This narrative has threatening implications. For example, these statements come at a time when an increasing number of people are expressing their belief that the October 7^th attack on Israel was a “false flag operation,” a staged event by Israelis, with the help of the U.S., as a way to justify committing genocide in Gaza. According to the Network Contagion Research Institute, an organization that tracks disinformation, hashtags associating Israel with “false flag” have tripled across social media platforms including TikTok, Reddit, and Telegram. These beliefs have the potential to contribute to a rise in hate crimes against Jewish individuals, furthering tensions beyond the Middle East.

Statements from leaders of Hamas, Israel, and the U.S. have been strategically employed to shape their targeted audience’s perception of the conflict and avoid responsibility for the various war crimes that have been committed since October 7^th. The spread of such language has affected domestic and global opinion and may have detrimental implications for the future of international law. As the war enters its one-year mark, the continuation of politically motivated claims and lack of consequences for crimes will deepen divisions and add to the complexity of reaching a resolution to the war.

To maintain international law, it becomes increasingly evident that stronger enforcement mechanisms must be put in place to ensure countries comply with the rulings of the ICJ and ICC. The fundamental ineffectiveness of international courts is rooted in the lack of incentives for countries to comply with global legal standards. To begin to strengthen such institutions, it will be necessary that the ICJ jurisdiction is broadened and global membership within the ICC is expanded, particularly through the engagement of major powers such as the United States, China, and Russia. Moreover, ICJ judgments should no longer be subject to the veto power of the permanent members of the UN who can block enforcement when it goes against their interest. This requires initiatives from the Accountability, Coherence, and Transparency (ACT) group to implement codes of conduct that would limit the use of vetoes. In addition, the ICC should begin to establish relationships with the U.N. to better support investigations and prosecutions. With this collaboration, the ICC could apply sanctions to better enforce decisions. These changes would not only increase legitimacy but also promote impartial justice.