Disequilibrium

"America and Israel have reacted with outrage," says The Economist, "at the implied equivalence between Israel and Hamas."

I'm not sure what this "implied equivalence" is, given that it's understood that not all crimes are created equally. The fact that Hamas' actions back in October, and continuing to the present were and are heinous doesn't write the government of Israel a "get out of international law free" card. The International Criminal Court believes that both sides have broken laws. That implies no more equivalence than the fact that petty burglars and murderers alike are subject to arrest by the local police in most places.

It's true that laws can often become a hindrance when attempting to deal with someone who has no compunctions about ignoring them. Hamas, after all, is not a state actor, and whether one sees them as terrorists, freedom fighters or simply criminals, they are unlikely to decide that laws apply to them. After all, people who (honestly or cynically) see themselves as unjustly oppressed tend to view the law as an illegitimate tool of the oppressor. And so this puts the state of Israel in a tough spot. The ICC, however, doesn't have to care about that. And they shouldn't, really. If Israel has what they consider a valid defense, let them raise it at a trial. Nations already claim extenuating circumstances every time they decide they need to attain this or that goal. Taking each of these claims at face value would make international law even more meaningless than it already is.

It's understandable that the Netanyahu Administration has adopted a "whatever it takes" attitude. And even with that, it's not hard to make the case that they haven't gone anywhere nearly as far as Hamas. But that's not the standard that the ICC is using. To behave as though it were is disingenuous.