Introduction
The Nuremberg Trials and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) were hailed as moral landmarks —emblems of a world order committed to justice, accountability, and the prevention of atrocities. Yet, as the international community bears witness to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and the violent actions of settlers in the West Bank, these precedents appear hollow. The West's unwavering support for Israel’s actions — not merely through rhetorical backing but through military aid, diplomatic shielding, and veto power at the United Nations— exposes a glaring moral and legal double standard. This critique argues that Western powers must confront their own complicity. If the principles enshrined in the Rome Statute, the Geneva Conventions, and post-WWII legal frameworks are to be applied consistently, then those who support or facilitate state violence against civilians should be held to account, just as Nazis and Balkan war criminals and the and Rwandan genocidaires were.
The argument presented here asserts that the United States and NATO member states are complicit in grave breaches of international law through their military, political, and diplomatic support for Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank. By enabling or shielding war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts that arguably constitute genocide, Western powers violate their obligations under the Rome Statute, the Geneva Conventions, and the Genocide Convention. It draws historical parallels to the Nazi regime and the Balkan wars to demonstrate the legal and moral hypocrisy of prosecuting atrocity in one context while enabling it in another. It concludes by calling for international criminal accountability for those in the West who materially or diplomatically facilitate Israeli impunity.
1. A Legal Order Undermined by Hypocrisy
The post-WWII legal order — anchored in the principles of Nuremberg and the development of the International Criminal Court — was premised on universal accountability for mass atrocity. Yet the very states that spearheaded these legal innovations now actively protect one of their closest allies, Israel, from scrutiny, even as its military actions in Gaza and its policies in the West Bank raise credible allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
This paper critiques the legal and political behaviour of the United States and NATO members in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, arguing that their actions constitute complicity in international crimes under established legal frameworks. If international law is to retain legitimacy, it must be applied consistently, even when that implicates the powerful.
2. Legal Foundations: Defining Crimes Under International Law - What Constitutes a Crime Against Humanity or War Crime
Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:
Article 7 (Crimes Against Humanity) includes murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture, persecution, and other inhumane acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack on civilians.
Article 8 (War Crimes) includes wilful killing, attacks against civilians, targeting of protected infrastructure, and use of starvation as a method of warfare.
The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits:
- Collective punishment
- Attacks on civilians
- Transfer of the occupying power’s population into occupied territory (Article 49)
The Genocide Convention (1948) defines genocide as acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,” including:
- Killing members of the group
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm
- Inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about destruction
These legal standards form the basis for evaluating Israeli state actions and the role of its international supporters.
If these standards were applied consistently, Western leaders who materially or diplomatically aid Israel in such actions would face not only political condemnation but legal scrutiny. Their complicity, whether active or passive, mirrors the chain of command and moral responsibility assigned to those who enabled or ignored atrocities in the past.
3. Israeli Conduct in Gaza and the West Bank
- Genocide in Gaza? Applying the Legal Definition
- The Settler Militias: West Bank as Bosnia Revisited
The term "genocide" is politically charged, but its legal definition — codified in the Genocide Convention (1948) — includes acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. These acts include:
- Killing members of the group
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm
- Inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction
Israel’s blockade of Gaza, the destruction of civilian infrastructure (including hospitals and schools), and the extremely high civilian death toll from bombardments suggest a pattern of violence that meets the threshold of intent or, at minimum, reckless disregard. When Israeli officials and lawmakers use dehumanizing language — referring to Palestinians as “animals” or “human shields” — and when this rhetoric is matched by overwhelming military force, the case for genocidal intent strengthens.
Comparisons with the Nazi regime’s early stages — where dehumanization and ghettoization preceded industrial-scale killing — are not made lightly. They are made because history warns that genocides are processes, not isolated acts. Similarly, the Balkan wars, where state forces and nationalist paramilitaries committed ethnic cleansing, offer disturbing parallels to the settler violence in the West Bank and the systemic displacement of Palestinians.
Since October 2023, Israeli military operations in Gaza have resulted in:
- Tens of thousands of civilian deaths,
- Destruction of hospitals, schools, and water systems,
- Forced displacement of over 1.5 million people,
- Blockade of humanitarian aid, including food, fuel, and medicine.
In the West Bank, armed Israeli settlers—often with IDF protection—have engaged in systematic violence against Palestinians: arson, property destruction, and even murder. These acts are not isolated but are part of a broader project of land expropriation and demographic engineering.
This mirrors the Serb and Croat militias in Bosnia and Croatia, who worked alongside state forces to ethnically cleanse villages. The ICTY held political and military leaders responsible not only for direct crimes, but also for failing to prevent or punish subordinates. The same logic should apply to Israel's leadership and, crucially, to the Western powers that empower it.
These acts are part of a broader, systemic campaign of demographic engineering and land seizure. This violence is not spontaneous. It is part of a coherent policy of collective punishment and forced population transfer, potentially meeting the threshold for both crimes against humanity and genocidal acts under international law.
4. Western Complicity: Beyond Silence - The Role of the U.S. and NATO
The United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and other Western nations have not only failed to condemn but have actively supported Israeli military actions. This support comes in several forms:
- Military aid: Billions of dollars in weapons and defence technology have enabled Israel’s military campaigns.
- Diplomatic shielding: U.S. vetoes at the UN Security Council have blocked ceasefires and ICC investigations.
- Legal undermining: Efforts to delegitimize the ICC’s investigations into Israel and threats against its officials subvert international law.
If Serbian leaders were indicted for enabling paramilitary violence, and German industrialists imprisoned for aiding the Nazi war machine, why should Western leaders be exempt from accountability when they materially support actions that result in massive civilian casualties and displacement?
4.1. The United States
The U.S. is Israel’s largest military backer, providing:
- $3.8 billion annually in military assistance,
- Emergency arms shipments during periods of conflict,
- Diplomatic immunity via UN vetoes, blocking ceasefire resolutions and ICC investigations.
The U.S. government has also:
- Threatened ICC officials with sanctions
- Passed legislation to prevent U.S. cooperation with ICC prosecutions of Israeli or American officials
These acts violate the Arms Trade Treaty, which prohibits arms exports where there is a clear risk of their use in international crimes. They also meet the criteria for aiding and abetting war crimes under Article 25 of the Rome Statute and the principle of state responsibility under the ILC’s Draft Articles.
4.2. NATO States
While NATO as an institution has not directly intervened, many of its member states have:
- Conducted joint military exercises with Israel
- Maintained bilateral weapons trade despite allegations of war crimes
- Endorsed Israel’s actions rhetorically and diplomatically
The following NATO states are complicit based on arms sales, political protection, or legal obstruction:
- United States – Largest military funder and chief diplomatic shield.
- Germany – Second-largest arms exporter to Israel; provides advanced military equipment.
- United Kingdom – Supplies key weapons components; shields Israel from accountability.
- France – Exports military tech; supports Israeli self-defence narratives.
- Canada – Boosted arms exports; opposes ICC probes of Israeli conduct.
- Italy – Continues arms transfers; maintains military-industrial cooperation.
- Netherlands – Facilitated U.S. arms flights; supports Israel diplomatically.
- Poland – Signed defence deals; offers EU-level political support.
- Czech Republic – Votes with Israel at UN; exports arms.
- Hungary – Blocks EU criticism; maintains intelligence cooperation.
- Greece – Joint exercises; military coordination.
- Turkey – Maintains military and trade ties despite regional rhetoric.
These states supported military intervention in Kosovo (1999) under the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), arguing that preventing ethnic cleansing was a moral and legal obligation. Their silence or endorsement of Israeli actions now constitutes a profound contradiction.
5. Historical Parallels: Nuremberg and the Balkans
5.1. Nazi Germany
The early stages of Nazi repression involved policies that mirror elements of Israeli conduct today:
- Ghettoization
- Forced displacement
- Starvation and blockade
- Collective punishment of civilian populations
While the scale and industrialization of Nazi genocide were unique, the legal reasoning applied at Nuremberg — that policy-makers and supporters were accountable for creating the conditions of atrocity — remains highly relevant.
5.2. The Yugoslav Wars
In the 1990s, Serb and Croat leaders were prosecuted for:
- Facilitating paramilitary violence
- Failing to prevent or punish ethnic cleansing
- Creating environments conducive to mass atrocity
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) established that indirect enablers — including propagandists, funders, and politicians — could be held criminally responsible. The same legal logic implicates Western officials who materially and politically enable Israeli operations today.
5.3 Moral Hypocrisy and the Failure of the West
By jailing Balkan warlords and executing Nazis while shielding Israeli officials and their enablers, the West undermines the very legal and moral foundation it once claimed to uphold. It sends a chilling message: that international law applies selectively, and that victims must have geopolitical utility to merit justice.
A truly just international order cannot tolerate such hypocrisy. If the architects of war and genocide in Europe were prosecuted, so too must those who enable crimes in the Middle East. Apologies are due not only to the historical victims of Western power but also to those whose suffering is perpetuated by its ongoing duplicity.
6. Legal Implications for the West
Under international law, third-party complicity includes:
- Knowingly providing military aid that is likely to be used in illegal operations
- Blocking international investigations or accountability mechanisms
- Using international institutions to protect perpetrators from prosecution
By these standards, U.S. presidents, defence officials, and lawmakers — as well as European leaders who export arms or justify Israeli conduct — should be subject to ICC warrants if the law is to be applied consistently.
That they are not is not a reflection of legality, but of impunity.
7. Conclusion: The Collapse of Legal Credibility
It is not enough to condemn atrocity only when politically convenient. The West’s unwavering support for Israel, despite mounting evidence of crimes against humanity and potential genocide, calls into question the legitimacy of its moral leadership. If justice is to be more than a tool of power, then accountability must be universal. Warrants from the ICC should be issued not only for those who pull the trigger but also for those who supply the bullets—and give cover to those who do.
To prosecute Nazis and Balkan war criminals and Rwandan genocidaires while ignoring one’s own complicity in contemporary atrocities is not justice. It is selective memory — one that the victims of Gaza and the West Bank can ill afford.
Shielding Israeli officials and their Western supporters reveals a legal double standard that has eroded international law’s legitimacy.
The West must not only apologize for this hypocrisy — it must be held accountable. A just legal order requires that no state, and no alliance, is above the law.
The alternative is the full collapse of international criminal justice into a tool of great-power politics. If that happens, the victims of Gaza, like those of Srebrenica and Warsaw before them, will be remembered not only for their suffering — but for how the world abandoned them in the name of selective justice.
References
- Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)
- Geneva Conventions (1949), esp. Fourth Convention
- Genocide Convention (1948)
- UN Charter (1945)
- Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts (ILC, 2001)
- Arms Trade Treaty (2013)
- ICTY Case Law (Prosecutor v. Tadić, Karadžić, Mladić)
- Nuremberg Trial Proceedings (1945–46)
- Congressional Research Service: U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel
- NATO Strategic Documents and Partnership Declarations
⏩ Cam Ogie is a Gaelic games enthusiast.
No comments