US Ambassador to Israel, Jack Lew, issued a harsh rebuke of the International Criminal Court in an interview with Israel Hayom following the prosecutor's decision to seek arrest warrants against Israeli leaders.
In the exclusive interview with Israel Hayom the ambassador said: "I think the president, the secretary of state have made it clear that the arrest warrants requested by the prosecutor are outrageous the attempts to draw any equivalency between the way Israel has conducted itself with the actions of Hamas is shameful. And I think when you look at the fact that Hamas attacked Israel on October 7 – brutally killing, raping, kidnapping – and as the president said, from the very beginning, Israel had a right and a responsibility to defend itself. Hiding behind women and children, and putting Israel or any army that would fight them in a position that is very difficult... The notion that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war, that's also absurd. "
Lew, who took office at the start of the war, added that he is working with Israeli representatives from the prime ministerial level and below in order to bring humanitarian aid into Gaza. "I can give you a list of very difficult things that have been done to provide assistance. And that is precisely the opposite of pursuing starvation as a strategy. So, there's some absurdity, just in the basic facts here."
Q: President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken have sharply criticized the ICC's decision. However, the question is, how does the administration intend to assist Israel practically? What's the bottom line?
"Obviously, there are people more expert in the ICC than I am. The United States is not a participant in the ICC. I think the reaction of the president, the secretary of state, myself, and others to make clear that there's something about the process where you have to question the credibility of the whole process. Procedurally, I'm not the right one to comment on what the next step is, but I think our response reflects how strongly we feel that the basic approach is fundamentally wrong."
Q: Wasn't it a mistake on the part of the administration, from President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and others, to echo the talk of starvation in Gaza? Perhaps that's what gave legitimacy to those claims that were false from the outset.
"So there is a serious humanitarian crisis in Gaza. That's why Israel is doing all the extraordinary things it's doing, to make sure that it doesn't become a situation that's even worse and where people have nutrition and other needs provided for.
"Israel has been fighting a war, clearing people, and trying to narrow its activities. But the consequences have still been very severe in terms of the conditions for people in Gaza. So what the president, the secretary of state, and I and others have been doing is working with our counterparts here in the Government of Israel to offer our views on how to both concentrate on achieving the goal of defeating Hamas as a military and political force, and doing it in a way that's mindful of humanitarian consequences. So I don't think there's any comparison with engaging to avoid having humanitarian conditions get to the point that that leads to massive consequences in terms of nutrition and health problems. That's very different than accusing Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war, which is absurd. Simply the opposite. That is, Israel has managed in a way that…I'm not aware of other examples of a country trying to avoid that from becoming the reality. The answer is that friends help each other to solve problems in the right way."
Q: But all this is happening while our captives are still there in dire conditions, without seeing the Red Cross and without being released, and while a significant portion of the supply, including fuel, is reaching Hamas. It's disappointing.
"First of all, I don't think any country in the world is focused as much as the United States on working with Israel to try and come up with an approach to free the hostages. It is every day of driving concern from the president throughout our team; we remain deeply, deeply committed to doing everything we can to secure the release of the hostages. I think the humanitarian matters are important as a strategic matter, because that's what's going to be the circumstances under which the war starts to turn a corner in a serious way. I think our argument is correct, that whether or not it is something that is politically popular or even something that people are comfortable with, it strategically was essential for Israel to address humanitarian needs. I think it's quite clear that in the United States and around the world, the focus on humanitarian issues is such that in order to maintain the base of support that Israel needs in the world, it was crucial to address that.
"The [Israeli] people have to get over the trauma. And I think that it's been it's been it's been a process where now more of the country accepts the need and the rightness of it. The reason we're having this conversation, if we get back to the ICC, is that it's important for people to understand that – that maintaining this humanitarian assistance is something that is crucial. So I actually think that, that the situation in this country since October 7, is been ongoing trauma. And I understand that I'm here. I see it, and I feel it. At the same time. It's crucial that Israel fight the war effectively to defeat a lot in a way that protects innocent civilians to the greatest extent possible."
The US has been helping Israel greatly with the transfer of munitions since the beginning of the war. On the other hand, we saw two weeks ago the embargo that the president announced regarding a certain shipment. Where does that stand?
First of all, I think it's important to route a conversation in the facts, which is it since October 7, and until today, has been providing unprecedented support for Israel to win this war. And there is no embargo. There was a halt, hold on one shipment of large, wide, heavy, large-diameter bombs. That's all this has happened is one shipment of large bombs, and we've had a conversation for a while now on where it's appropriate to use those kinds of munitions and what, if any, bearing that has on the future course of the war. So we've continued to provide all of the other things, precision-guided munitions and ammunition. There were about 850 million dollars of things that have been proceeding through the normal process, the multibillion-dollar appropriation bill that just passed. We've said every penny will be spent. I think the conversation about Rafah that has been going on is a constructive conversation, we continue to engage in, we just continued having those conversations over the last few days here. And nothing has fundamentally changed in terms of the US-Israel relationship. So it's important not to have something turned into a bigger action than it was. It was one shipment of very heavy, large-diameter bombs, which we made clear we have concerns. The conversation is ongoing in terms of that one shipment. And we're committed to, as the president has said, keeping our ironclad commitment to Israel's security. At the same time, we'll engage in conversation in the way friends engage in conversation to share views, and ultimately, Israel has to make its decisions about how it pursues its military strategy. And we have to make clear our views on some of these issues."
Q: Finally, after the talks of the National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, in Saudi Arabia and Israel – where does the issue of a tripartite agreement between Riyadh, Washington, and Jerusalem stand?
"I think the conversation on Saudi Arabia continues to show that there is real serious interest in having this process lead to an agreement. The United States has some bilateral issues that it has and continues to work through. But then there are issues that will be issues that Israel has to address. I think the question will be one for the Israeli people in the Israeli government as to the significance of normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia, and I hope that the hugely important strategic step is something that makes it worthwhile for people thinking hard about the difficult choices that they have to be made along the way to having that kind of an agreement, we've made clear that any revolution, you know, kind of the status, Palestinian governance is going to have to protect Israel security. From our view, there is no place for a militarized Palestinian Authority, but there does have to be a conversation about the road ahead in terms of dealing with the underlying issues. It will be up to the people of Israel and the Government of Israel to compare the strategic importance of normalization with those challenging questions. I will just make two points. One, if you look at the war that has been going on since, it is a defeat for Hamas if Israel and Saudi Arabia have normalized relations. The last thing Hamas wants is to have there be an alliance of moderate Arab countries in the West and Israel when they're in the orbit of Iran. I think that is something that should be a significant consideration as Israel chooses where to go. Secondly, we saw April 14-15th, the benefit the values strategic importance of being part of broad alliances, the US with Israel, fighting, in a sense, as a single air defense, had remarkable ability to deter an enormously complicated attack from Iran. But it wasn't just Israel in the United States; Europe, with France and the UK, countries in the region, from Jordan and the UAE to others, that were part of an air defense system that comes with that alliance. That was a little window into the benefits of strategic alliances. I think that's something that people have gone through a lot of thought to as hard choices present themselves."
