Criminalizing Knowledge

When does sharing information become an act of disloyalty to the state? Three bills advancing through Israel’s Knesset aim to answer this question decisively: any cooperation with international justice mechanisms, particularly the International Criminal Court (ICC), would constitute a betrayal of the state punishable by up to life imprisonment. This legislative package marks a dramatic shift from merely opposing international criminal jurisdiction to criminalizing the very act of documentation and information-sharing about potential human rights violations. For Israeli scholars researching international humanitarian law, the message is clear: our academic work could become a criminal offense if it finds its way to international courts. Academics studying potential violations of international humanitarian law face an impossible choice: either conduct our research under the constant threat of criminal prosecution or abandon crucial areas of legal inquiry altogether. The new legislation, in other words, is a potential death blow to the independence of international legal research in Israeli universities.

Somewhat more surprisingly, a transformation is also notable in the treatment of Israel’s own civil servants. The “Bill for the Protection of Israeli Public Officials from Activities of the International Criminal Court in The Hague Against the State of Israel, 2024” (“the ICC Bill”) would establish an unprecedented system of oversight within government agencies themselves, requiring all bureaucrats to report ICC-related information to a politically appointed “competent authority.” Legal experts within ministries—traditionally entrusted with professional judgment in matters of international law—would find themselves subject to political surveillance even in routine matters of legal cooperation.

A Three-Part Framework

One of the bills, an amendment to the Law of Entry to Israel, was approved unanimously on February 19 by 12 of the 120 members of the Israeli Knesset. This amendment (Hebrew) bars entry to several categories of individuals, including supporters of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. But the statute goes further and bars the entry of anyone who has supported prosecuting Israeli citizens in foreign or international courts for actions taken during their military or security service. This provision could effectively prevent international legal scholars and human rights advocates from entering Israel if they have ever supported international accountability mechanisms. Depending on how it is interpreted, commentators who have supported ICC jurisdiction over Palestine within a broader view of accountability under the Rome Statute could also be prevented from entry.

The ICC Bill (Hebrew), for its own part, would criminalize cooperation with the ICC. The draft legislation imposes a five-year prison sentence on anyone who provides information to the ICC without authorization from a political appointee. If the information is classified, the penalty escalates to life imprisonment. The incentive structure laid out is therefore clear: security forces may choose to classify information on potential war crimes, just to increase the deterrence of accountability efforts.

The third proposed bill, an amendment to our Law of Associations (Hebrew), is still at an early stage. This bill delivers a direct blow to civil society organizations through two key provisions. It would impose an 80% tax on donations from foreign political entities to non-profit organizations, cutting off vital funding sources for human rights NGOs. It would also bar these organizations from accessing the courts if they receive primary funding from foreign political entities.

The War on Government Lawyers

An interesting and perhaps less obvious aspect of the proposed ICC Bill is its treatment of government agencies. The bill reveals a deep suspicion of professional expertise within governmental agencies, characteristic of the global move toward ethno-nationalist populism. The ICC bill thus creates a system of prohibitions on bureaucratic engagement with international justice mechanisms, mandating that “no agency may provide information to the ICC, assist it, or cooperate with it in any matter without approval from the competent authority.”

Most tellingly, the draft bill established internal oversight dedicated to preventing collaboration with the ICC among governmental agencies: “any agency must update the competent authority about any information it receives regarding ICC activities.” This would create a system of internal surveillance within the bureaucracy, reflecting a fundamental distrust of career civil servants, particularly legal professionals who might exercise independent judgment in matters of international justice.

The centralization of all ICC-related decisions with “the competent authority” thus represents a vision of political control over professional expertise. By removing traditional bureaucratic discretion in matters of international legal cooperation, the proposed legislation seeks to subordinate professional judgment to political considerations. This may be considered reasonable when it comes to international adjudication. After all, such adjudication is closely and undeniably intertwined with diplomatic and foreign policy considerations. However, to fully understand this aspect of the Bill, one must consider it in the context of a larger move against justice department lawyers, which the current government has long been promoting.

For better or worse, Israeli government lawyers have been the staunchest objectors of ICC jurisdiction in the Situation of Palestine. Their strong representation of Israeli interests was also on display early in 2024 when they made several appearances in the context of South Africa’s genocide claims against Israel. Against this backdrop, the tightened inter-agency control serves to promote the fantasy of “disloyal” civil servants, who must be fearful of the justice minister.

Academic Freedom Under Attack

As indicated above, if enacted, these bills would effectively make independent research on specific areas of public international law impossible within Israel. Scholars studying potential violations of international humanitarian law or documenting war crimes would face an impossible choice: either conduct their research under the constant threat of criminal prosecution or abandon crucial areas of legal inquiry.

For one thing, the proposed entry ban could prevent international legal scholars from participating in academic conferences or conducting research in Israel if they have ever supported international accountability mechanisms. This is a direct threat to research centres in all Israeli research universities that are home to law schools. All of these institutions currently have vibrant exchanges with various scholars, some of whom are staunch supporters of international justice. Perhaps even more worryingly, the criminal provisions of the ICC Bill would create an impossible position for Israeli scholars studying international humanitarian law and international criminal law, as their work could potentially lead to prosecution if cited by the ICC.

The impact would extend beyond individual scholars to institutional academic cooperation. Readers will be familiar with the idea that Israeli academic institutions should be boycotted in solidarity with Palestinians, under the call for BDS. Now, research centres abroad might need to reconsider their relationships with Israeli institutions for a different reason: lest their normal academic activities expose their Israeli colleagues to criminal liability. The legislation will thus surely further isolate Israeli international law scholars, bringing our position closer to the difficult position of our colleagues in countries like Russia, Turkey, or Egypt.

Conclusion

The three legislative initiatives reveal how international criminal procedures can be strategically weaponized for domestic political consolidation. By framing cooperation with international justice mechanisms as disloyalty, the Israeli government effectively consolidates its established categories of internal enemies: professional civil servants who might exercise independent judgment, and academics or civil society actors who could provide alternative sources of information and analysis.

One may ask why such legislation is important precisely now, when—under U.S. sanctions—the ICC is arguably in a weaker position than ever. But such a question assumes means-end rationality, according to which the objective of the legislation package is indeed as stated: to protect Israeli individuals from international prosecution. That may be part of the purpose, but surely, it is not the entire story. Not less important is the scapegoating and punishment of a certain class of lawyers, which the government seeks to attack. A particularly weak international criminal court makes this an opportune moment for such a domestic move.

The legislation package thus serves a dual purpose. While ostensibly aimed at preventing ICC jurisdiction, it simultaneously provides legal tools to neutralize domestic political threats and silence potential critics. The criminal provisions and institutional restrictions do not  just shield against international accountability; they actively reshape domestic power relations by undermining independent expertise (which is often also associated with a certain class identity, namely, representing an “old elite”). The government is using fears about international justice to shut down information sources that may question its policies at home. By treating international law as a threat, it finds an excuse to silence critics and weaken democratic institutions—such as they are—within Israel.

Israel has long been anything but democratic towards Palestinians under its jurisdiction. But the new Bills deliver us to a new authoritarian stage, in which scholars, journalists, and activists may face arrest for disseminating information.