By Basil Awartani, M.A. Media & Strategic Communication, 2021
Two years ago, International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda announced that the court had uncovered evidence of war crimes committed in the West Bank and Gaza by Israel. Based on these initial findings, Bensouda called for a thorough investigation into the incidents. Initially this process was delayed when the Israeli government challenged the ICC’s jurisdiction over the matter, arguing that the court does not have the authority to make such a ruling in the Palestinian Territories, which do not qualify as a sovereign state. In early February, 2021, this objection was overruled, clearing the way for the Hague chief prosecutor to open the war crimes probe. This announcement triggered backlash from Israeli officials who argued that the ruling was an attack on Israeli sovereignty but was welcomed by Palestinians hoping to hold Israel accountable in criminal court.
The competing strategic narratives put forward by Israeli and Palestinian leaderships play a critical role in shaping both policy and media response to the ICC probe. Strategic narratives are a means for political actors to construct a shared meaning of the past, present, and future to shape the behavior of domestic and international actors. Another important element in interpreting events through the lens of a particular narrative is framing. According to Robert M. Entman “To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem, definitional, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment.”
I use Entman’s model to illustrate Israel and Palestine’s divergent strategic narratives regarding the ICC probe which is critical to understanding their respective positions on the issue. Further, Entman’s framing model is also essential for understanding the ideological and strategic underpinning of Israel’s stance, which it maintains even in the face of substantial evidence. Entman’s model has four moves: problem, cause, evaluation, and solution. Depending on one’s narrative, different elements are assigned to each move as illustrated in the example below.
Palestinian Narrative
In a statement, the Palestinian Authority’s foreign ministry welcomed the ICC investigation and considered it a “long-awaited step that serves Palestine’s tireless pursuit of justice and accountability.” Hamas, a Gaza-based militant group, also welcomed the decision, though they, too, are under investigation. Overall, the ICC investigation is consistent with the Palestinian narrative and is considered part of the solution.
| Problem | Cause | Evaluation | Solution |
| Israeli human rights abuses | Military occupation and a culture of impunity | An independent ICC investigation is a step-forward towards justice | Accountability through the ICC |
Israel/Netanyahu’s Narrative
Legal ramifications aside, the ICC probe cuts deep through one of Israel’s primary identity narratives which holds that they are a humane actor in this conflict, defending themselves against unprovoked aggression. To accept the ICC probe in any shape or form would cause dissonance within many of Israel’s narratives.
| Problem | Cause | Evaluation | Solution |
| ICC probe | Antisemitism/unfairly singling out Israel Palestinians politicizing the court | Palestinian Authority is not a state Israel is not a member of the court. The probe is an affront to Israeli sovereignty. | Not cooperate with the ICC, fight the decision. |
This chart demonstrates how Israel’s framing of the ICC probe reinforces its own narrative. The Israeli government has different channels/messengers to disseminate and re-enforce such state narratives. One of its chief messengers is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“The court established to prevent atrocities like the Nazi Holocaust against the Jewish people is now targeting the one state of the Jewish people.”
-Bibi Netanyahu
By tying the ICC to the horrors of the Holocaust, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu invokes one of the key events shaping Israel’s master narratives. He condemns the ICC probe, calling it “undiluted antisemitism” and vows to fight the decision. By invoking such an emotional frame Netanyahu not only targets foreign publics but also domestic Israeli audiences, framing himself as the protector of Israel against a hostile world.
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on the other hand, tackles the issue using a legal framework, citing the fact that Israel is not a member of the court and that the Palestinian Authority is not a state to de-legitimize the probe. This defense differs from the former (Netanyahu’s) because it acknowledges that the emotional frame is not itself enough to defend against a robust legal argument. The two approaches have different purposes but intersect over the issue of Israel’s right to a state and state sovereignty.
Dissonance between the US and Israeli master-narratives.
In May 2020 the Trump administration warned the ICC against asserting jurisdiction over Israel, saying the US will “exact consequences” for any “illegitimate” investigations. This threat materialized in September 2020 when the Trump administration sanctioned ICC senior officials including chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, accusing the court of “illegitimate attempts” to subject Americans to its jurisdiction. The US has traditionally treated Israel as a strategic partner, aligning itself with the narrative that frames Israel as a victim rather than an aggressor.
The Biden administration inherited this issue and maintains Trump’s opposition to the ICC probe into Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza. Unlike the Trump administration, however, current U.S. President Joe Biden has vowed to make human rights and multilateralism central to his approach to international affairs. This stance made it difficult for the Biden administration to oppose the ICC as aggressively as Trump because sanctioning a court responsible for investigating human rights abuses is inconsistent with the US identity narrative that promotes human rights as a pillar of U.S. foreign policy.
Biden’s Dilemma
The existence of two contradictory narratives presents a challenge for the Biden administration. While the US has framed itself as an ally of Israel committed to upholding the country’s sovereignty, it does not want to appear as if it is coercing an international court to not investigate human rights abuses. For the time being, Biden tries to take a middle road, publishing a press release opposing the ICC investigation but ending the Trump era sanctions against the ICC.
In the end, the case of the ICC probe leaves the Biden administration trying to reconcile policy that is not inconsistent with its current identity narrative. As the State Department stated in its announcement ending sanctions against ICC personnel, “We believe…that our concerns about these cases would be addressed through engagement with all stakeholders in the ICC process rather than through the imposition of sanctions.”
For a detailed analysis by the author on the subject, Click Here.
The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.
Interesting! It will be interesting to see how the Biden administration navigates this issue moving forward…
Precise! No one would ever explain the situation from both authorities as you did.
We hope for Biden’s Administration to be unbiased.
Very insighful piece! Thanks for writing this Basil.
Great points! I’d be curious to know more about the difference between Hamas and Palestinian Authority’s framing of their overarching narratives.
Very insightful! Let’s see how the Biden administration will handle this issue of two conflicting narratives.
I’m a big fan of Entman’s definition and model, and really appreciated your application of them to the thorny issue of the ICC investigation. As you note, the Biden Administration faces a dilemma here because it is more inclined to defer to international institutions than its predecessor – but not anxious to do so in this particular case. I would imagine the competing narratives are resonant with very audiences (Europe and the U.S. would receive them each quite differently, for instance).
Great job utilizing Entman’s model to break down complex, entrenched narratives into clear and concise charts. Your analysis of the Biden Administration’s current contradictions when it comes to the ICC probe is very insightful. I find the State Department announcement you referenced at the end to be especially interesting, as it shows that the Biden Administration is choosing to tap more into the system narrative of multilateralism over human rights. In contrast, Israel, as you mentioned, is pushing both the legal and international governance narrative as well as more of an emotional/humanitarian frame.
Do you think the U.S. should be straddling the legal/humanitarian frame as Israel does (even though the populations receiving the humanitarian attention would likely be different), or will the legal one be sufficient? I also wonder how European allies might play into this, specifically if they refrain from pushing back on the humanitarian aspect to maintain a relationship with a U.S. that is indicating greater willingness to engage with them through multilateralism.
I appreciated the use of Entman’s model; it makes the conflicting narratives quite easy to understand. I agree with Richard and Nikki in terms of the Biden Administration’s dilemma. Along the lines of what Nikki said with the legal/humanitarian frame, do you think the United States could successfully play up the legal frame? The U.S. has not ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC, so it is similar to Israel in this matter.
I like how this blog presented so clearly the battle of the two narratives, but also how different administrations from USA interact with the narratives. Given that is such a difficult situation with strong narratives, it would be interesting to understand how these narratives interact with other key countries in the “world order”, specially with countries that don’t necessarily share similarities with USA’s master narratives.
Basil, I think the ICC component of this long lasting narrative battle is really interesting. Do you think that the Biden Admin’s vocalization of disagreement with the ICC report while also lifting sanctions signals a narrative of lack of care for the ICC as an institution? I think that this message may come across as the US having no confidence in the institution and therefore setting a new precedent for the ICC and future issues with other countries.
Basil, you did a fantastic job on showing how both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides are using narratives to support/oppose the probe. Do you think Israel is going to try to get Biden to oppose the probe as strongly as Trump did? Is there any opportunity for Palestine to dilute American opposition to the probe? It might not be possible to answer this at the moment, but how do you envision Israel, Palestine and the U.S. framing the results of the probe? If it is incriminating for Israel, what options does Israel have to repair its narrative of being seen as a humane party or victim of the crisis?
As a Jewish woman, I think Israel’s master narrative/identity is fascinating, because it leans so heavily on the Holocaust when it’s not always related. Like you said, because the Holocaust is such a sensitive and untouchable issue, Israel can use it whenever and however they want. But I also think Israel is like America, in that it needs to remember ALL aspects of their country’s growth, including the problematic ones. To constantly play the victim card and ignore their own abuses is dangerous. And America’s consistent support is not addressing the issue at the root.
Basil, interesting piece. I am excited to see Biden’s take on both narratives and for him to be as unbiased as possible considering the USA/Israeli relations.
The battle of narratives was an excellent choice in analyzing the ICC probe. It really puts Israel’s narrative of the ICC investigation in perspective as a pathetic one. Anyone who denies grave human rights abuses by Israel is not living in reality. Invoking anti semitism and the Holocaust in such a ridiculous narrative not only makes it obvious how desperate Israel is but also how they’re willing to weaponize anti-semitism in a way that actually takes away from the seriousness it deserves.
I think you could go further in that Biden’s opposition of the ICC investigation is in direct conflict with his promise to center human rights and multilateralism. Trump’s sanctioning of the ICC is off the charts insane and completely off the spectrum. The US had a key role in forming these multilateral institutions but now the US and its allies are suddenly except from their reach? It makes no sense. The ICC should be able to investigate any nation or group that’s in violation including the US and Israel.
I think the desperation felt in this Israeli narrative–and convergence with its other exceptionalist and supremacist narratives–have grave implications that reach beyond the ICC probe. Israel is desperate because of obvious narrative contestation and when it’s desperate it lashes out with violence.
Interesting analysis. I believe that the US, as a superpower, has always managed to single out Israel whilst addressing other global humanitarian issues. So this would not require innovation from the Biden administration but rather sticking to the Democrats’ playbook on Palestine-Israel.
However, growing demand for action in Congress and amongst American public opinion could cause a gradual policy shift. Biden’s limited intervention was evident in the resumption of humanitarian aid, without introducing an actual peace process to break the status quo. Safe to say we are not amongst the administration’s priorities.
I also find it quite interesting how the Palestinians often confine themselves to the legal argument, without employing emotions unlike Israel, which resort to the emotional argument because they know they would often lose a legal one.