Luis Moreno Ocampo, first prosecutor of the ICC: ‘Israel is using the United States. Its impotence over Gaza is absolute’

The founder of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno Ocampo,72, who also served as deputy prosecutor in the first trial (1985) against the Argentine dictatorship (1976-1983), has published War and Justice in the 21st Century: a book that analyzes current conflicts by comparing them to those of the past. In an interview in Madrid, the Argentine lawyer states that history tends to repeat itself and that diplomacy often stumbles on the same obstacles. However, he remains optimistic. The situation is “so critical” that it could present an “opportunity for change,” shifting from the current model of war to one of justice.

Question. To describe the International Criminal Court’s role in the diplomatic arena, you refer to it as “a thorn in the side” — something that doesn’t stop you from moving forward. Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have outstanding arrest warrants. What needs to happen for the Court to be more than just a nuisance and for justice to serve as a genuine deterrent?

Answer. The International Criminal Court is a deterrent. Putin was furious after the arrest warrant because he knows he cannot travel to certain places, but political support is needed. U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham supports the investigation into Putin as a war criminal, but opposes it in the Netanyahu case because politicians think in terms of friends and enemies and prosecutors think in terms of crime or no-crime. These are two different logics: war or justice.

Q. Last May, U.S. President Joe Biden said he had warned Netanyahu not to make the same mistake his country made in Afghanistan when it responded to the 9/11 attacks with a war, but you say the U.S. continues to support this war strategy against terrorism over justice and international law. Is it possible to return to the approach taken before 2001, when terrorism was primarily a matter for police, judges, and prosecutors?

A. Biden understands that the strategy in Afghanistan was wrong, but he does not present an alternative. His generals basically agree with what Israel is doing. Sometimes they ask for smaller bombs, but they do not question the strategy. Bush established the model of war on terror and Obama — who criticized it and won the Nobel Peace Prize — consolidated it. The U.S. likes war, especially when they provide the weapons and others provide the lives. The U.S. uses war to manage conflicts, subsidizes its weapons production with billions of dollars and does not grieve for the deaths of Ukrainians or civilians in Gaza. We must help the U.S. to change, but Europe — whose weakness astonishes me — fell into the same trap in Ukraine and continues to support the war model. We must seek agreements, knowing that they will not be perfect.

Q. What would a fair peace deal look like in Ukraine? What do you envision in such an agreement?

A. Obama negotiated with [Sudanese dictator] al-Bashir, ignoring a genocide. Europe does not want to negotiate with Putin, but it does negotiate with the man who is massacring Armenians. Putin must be negotiated with, and China can play an important role in that negotiation. The biggest problem is the occupation of Ukrainian territory, and we must make sure that it cannot continue. What makes no sense is that Finland is going to spend its education budget on weapons or that there are green parties supporting war. We must negotiate a new security concept that outlines no one can invade another country.

Q. If Putin gets part of the territory in that agreement, what guarantee is there that he won’t want more?

A. Ukraine depends on foreign aid and must make a deal because in a year it will be worse. The idea of defeating Russia with war is absurd, although Russia has also been worn out and for that very reason, knows that if it has not been able to take Ukraine, it cannot expand further. I am surprised that the Europeans do not see this more clearly.

Q. You say that an American ambassador came to see you in The Hague to ask you to stop a review requested by the Palestinian National Authority. You say that the United States invokes international laws, but avoids applying them. It even has a law that empowers the president to rescue personnel handed over to the International Criminal Court, which constitutes a veiled threat to The Hague.

A. The United States is an obstacle because it shares the principles, but not their application. It calls for them in Ukraine, but does not apply them in Gaza. Israel is using the United States, which has demonstrated its absolute impotence in this case, instead of allowing the International Criminal Court to help set limits. Netanyahu and Putin do similar things and what is needed is for non-American communities to help Americans think differently.

Q. You maintain contact with both Palestinian and Israeli friends. Do they express different perspectives to you now compared to a year ago?

A. Everyone protects their own group. I have Israeli friends who demonstrated against Netanyahu and who have fully supported him since the October 7 attacks. And Palestinian friends who complain that I say that Hamas committed genocide.

Q. In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon to expel the Palestine Liberation Organization. More than 17,000 people died. While Israel achieved its objective, you note that this intervention led to the emergence of an even more powerful terrorist group, Hezbollah, which is supported by Iran. In your book, you write: “I am struck by our inability to learn from the past.” Is this merely a failure to learn, or is it because there are too many incentives to continue making the same mistakes? The war increased the popularity of leaders like Bush, Putin, and Netanyahu...

A. War encourages terrorism. In Gaza, it will not eliminate it, it will increase it. The problem is very serious and solving it requires the involvement of not only politicians but also experts. The issue is many of these experts are advocating for war. In the United States, there is a shortage of independent scholars who promote cooperation as a solution. I spent six years at Harvard trying to open a debate with other professors and I failed because it is an American university that believes that what is important are the interests of the United States.

Q. You claim that Hamas anticipated Israel’s reaction and sought precisely that outcome in order to delegitimize the state. In this cycle of violence, you highlight strikingly similar statements from both Hamas terrorists and Israeli authorities, both of whom deny the distinction between civilians and military targets.

A. Because, with more or less subtle arguments, both Hamas and Israel see the people as the enemy. Israel falls into the trap of terrorism by overreacting with a war strategy rather than pursuing justice, and drops a bomb on a refugee camp. But it is not a mistake. It is a political decision: to eliminate the Palestinians. And Biden has not managed to stop this by even one millimeter.

Q. Why is Donald Trump Netanyahu’s preferred presidential candidate?

A. Trump and [Elon] Musk are businessmen, they do transactions, business, not politics. The Jewish lobby in the U.S. is very powerful and Trump uses it to accuse Biden of not supporting Israel. I don’t know what Trump is going to do, but his differences with the Democrats in this case are more about internal dynamics than external factors in the U.S.

Q. You say: “As the case of Saddam Hussein has shown, during wars allies are not questioned, and in the 21st century those allies can be individuals like Elon Musk.” What interests Trump about Musk and vice versa? Are social media weapons of mass communication?

A. Musk has multimillion-dollar contracts with the defense industry. He is part of the U.S. defense strategy and also the communication strategy, because he bought Twitter, now called X, and uses the platform for Trump. In April 2024, the U.S. passed a security law that included weapons for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and the ownership of TikTok. Social media is run by algorithms — in other words, what you see — and on social media, there is no context. The idea that extremists are controlling the discussion is ridiculous. Communication between opposing groups must be improved.

Q. You point out that Tinder — upon recognizing that male users were demorzlized by the fact that women rejected 98% of the proposals — invented an algorithm that filters out negative responses and is planning to develop a peace application following that model. Isn’t that diplomacy: trying to combine interests without hurting sensibilities?

A. Yes, but the problem is that the model is applied by independent states, national actors. The model of the International Criminal Court mobilizes the state in a different way. Silicon Valley is investing in war, not in peace. The United States could have led this cooperation. Europe can help. Software companies should also work on this, to create a Tinder of peace.

Q. Despite the bleak international outlook, you argue that there is an opportunity to accelerate change and strengthen the focus on justice. You compare the situation to the abolition of slavery in England, when British slave owners who initially opposed the measure became unexpected promoters of change to prevent their French competitors from utilizing slaves on their cotton plantations and gaining a price advantage. Can Putin, Netanyahu, and Hamas play a similar role in the process of change, much like those British slave owners?

A. People say it’s impossible, but after 50 years, Spain put an end to [Basque terror group] ETA; the world abolished slavery; colonialism was part of humanity’s history and it also ended. Changes are possible. The problem is that the leaders of the Western world are not putting forward ideals. And of course there are economic incentives, as energy dependency has shown, but we are investing much more in war than in peace. The last great investment in peace was the International Criminal Court.

Q. The war in Gaza has diverted forces, support and attention. Do you think that will increase?

A. Every conflict hides the previous one. Syria hid Darfur. Ukraine hid Syria. Now the conflict in Lebanon is hiding Gaza. And if there is war with Iran, it will hide all the others. The focus is always narrow. There are no terrorist groups in Armenia and Venezuela, but the repression in both countries is a fight for civilization.

Q. In your book, you explain that the strategy of combating terrorism with war has resulted in the displacement of millions of people. When some of these individuals arrived in Europe, they were perceived as a threat, contributing to the rise of the far-right and xenophobic rhetoric. Although the Muslim population is the primary victim of terrorism, this is not widely recognized. Why do you think this is the case?

A. Europe has a kind of strong ideological dependence on the U.S. and political leaders often work in the short term, focusing on survival without foreseeing the consequences. These mass displacements resulting from a misguided strategy made Europe less hospitable and many stopped distinguishing between victims and victimizers, so that victims of Islamic terrorism became suspected of being Islamic terrorists. A world that sees friends and enemies is a world at war with people, a world of tribes.

Q. What scenario do you envision for Gaza, Israel and Ukraine one year from now?

A. There is a possibility that Israel will bomb Iran and that there will be an escalation of the war. Azerbaijan receives weapons from Israel and uses them against Armenia. If Israel bombs Iran, Azerbaijan will invade Armenia. There is a domino effect that we do not perceive because there are no authorities who think globally. I believe that there must be an agreement in Ukraine. We need the leadership of medium and small countries to move towards a model of justice, leaving behind the model of war. The transformation must happen on a case-by-case basis.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition