Photo by Robin Worrall on Unsplash.

Alle Artikel anzeigen

Indignity Trending

Why International Criminal Law Must Respond to Atrocity Crimes Shared on Social Media during the Israel-Hamas War


Hamas’ assault on Israel on October 7, 2023, and Israel’s scorched-earth response in Gaza, has captivated global audiences for over three months. The staggering loss of life and the brazen mistreatment of civilians on both sides of the border — including hostage-taking, sexual violence, attacks on civilian infrastructure, blockades on necessary humanitarian aid, and mass arrests without due process — would be almost unbelievable if it was not being so widely broadcast on social media platforms like X, TikTok, and YouTube.

The utter depravity inflicted against both Israeli and Palestinian victims demand a legal response. The crimes committed since October 7 must be investigated and prosecuted. It is the collective responsibility of the international community to support a forum which will facilitate the adjudication of these crimes under international criminal law (ICL), whether this takes place at the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, or within an ad hoc tribunal. As ICL is fundamentally concerned with “the vindication of human dignity, not (or not only) the reduction of aggregate suffering” (Luban, emphasis added), ICL presents an opportunity to, in the words of Carla del Ponte and Graham Blewitt, “put justice for victims ahead of realpolitik”. Doing so, in the context of this conflict, may play a particularly important role in fostering a sense of compassion and humanity in the midst of increasingly tribalistic public discourse that has treated the war as an obscene spectator sport.

Yet, even putting aside concerns regarding resources and political feasibility, ensuring that ICL adequately responds to the full ambit of violence committed against civilians during this conflict will be a challenge. This is because the war between Israel and Hamas is being fought on a parallel digital battleground, with many of the atrocities perpetrated by both sides being broadcast on social media as part of their respective propaganda campaigns. The result is that victims, both dead and alive, continue to suffer disturbing, insidious, and ongoing indignities, in which voyeuristic social media users across the World Wide Web have been complicit. Although such weaponization of social media may not be a wholly unique phenomenon, this modality of violence, and its impact on victims, has yet to be fully understood and appreciated by ICL practitioners.

The Israel-Hamas conflict has proved that social media is a new frontier of wartime violence. Those involved in the adjudication of these crimes must recognise and respond to this reality in order to fulfil ICL’s humanising mission of condemning egregious offences against human dignity — a term which, in this article, refers to the inherent worth of each human being that must be protected against acts of degradation, exploitation, humiliation, and objectification.

While there are dozens of examples that could be used to illustrate this point — including, for example, a widely-shared video that shows Israeli soldiers mocking blindfolded Palestinian detainees while smoking hookah, eating chips, and making jokes about having sex on the beach in Gaza — brevity dictates focusing on just one. Shani Louk was a 22-year-old German-Israeli citizen who was attending a music festival near Re’im at the time of Hamas’s initial attack on southern Israel. Thanks to her signature dreadlocks and distinctive tattoos, Ms. Louk was quickly identified in at least two videos that were released by Hamas militants on social media. At the risk of contributing further to the voyeuristic abuse suffered by Ms. Louk, I will describe these videos generally as depicting the victim being repeatedly punched, spat on, and hit with a plank of wood, as she lies face-down and nearly naked in the bed of a white pick-up truck that is being driven through a crowd of men.

These videos, which went viral and remain easily accessible on X and TikTok, are prima facie evidence of war crimes. Ms. Louk was a protected person under Article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Hamas, as an armed party to a conflict, must adhere. As a fragment of Ms. Louk’s skull was retrieved by forensic examiners at the festival site, it is likely that Ms. Louk died before she was driven into Gaza; the abuses against her body could therefore be prosecuted as corpse desecration, which is a grave violation of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime under Articles 8(2)(b)(xxi) and (c)(ii) of the Rome Statute. The sexualised nature of the abuse of Ms. Louk’s body could potentially be characterised as sexual violence, just as similar insults against female corpses were at the ad hoc tribunal for Rwanda (see, for example, Bagosora, where the appellate court affirmed that the insertion of a bottle into the vagina of a female corpse constituted sexual violence). The dissemination of these videos of Ms. Louk could also be described as a method of terrorism, which is not an offence under the Rome Statute per se but a descriptor to contextualise atrocities: security analyst Michael Horowitz has proposed that Hamas’s release of these videos was a deliberate strategy “to trigger a sense of helplessness, paralysis, and humiliation” amongst Israeli civilians. Finally, the memory of Ms. Louk’s abuse may have been used as a means of incitement, which is a mode of participation in genocide under the Rome Statute: Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s false claim that Ms. Louk had been “beheaded,” for example, arguably sensationalizes an already tragic event to justify retaliatory violence against civilians in Gaza.

Yet, the offence here is more than the sum of these individual parts. The videos depicting this treatment of Ms. Louk are not only digital evidence of potential war crimes, but the dissemination of these videos itself is an affront to human dignity.

Much has been written on the victim impact of digitising non-atrocity crimes, usually in the context of sexual assaults that are recorded and distributed online. The Council of Europe, for example, recommends that state parties to the Istanbul Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence offer support services to those who have experienced “filmed rape”, which presents an “added layer of trauma and victimisation”. This is because the immortalisation of the event through photography and the like “reiterates the event, extends the event and is an act of sexual violence in and of itself as it humiliates, violates, and invites more and more viewers to join in on the violation” (Dodge). The victim can never escape from an assault that is memorialised on the Internet; the indignity suffered during the initial event is repeated every time it is viewed and shared. Thus, the circulation of photographs or video of violence online not only extends the experience of the initial act of violence but can be characterised as a free-standing act of violence that exposes the victim, their families, and their community to unique trauma and harm.

By contrast, when ICL scholars discuss the practice of uploading atrocity crimes to social media, the discussion is overwhelmingly focused on the complicity and responsibility of social media corporations. Federica D’Alessandra and Kirsty Sutherland, for example, have written on the role social media companies play in controlling digital evidence of atrocity crimes, while Shannon Raj Singh has argued that social media ought to be conceptualised as a weapon when evaluating accountability under ICL. This work, while invaluable in tackling the law’s chronic pacing problem, has little to say about the particular impact that violence broadcast on social media has on victims’ dignity.

Courts themselves have also failed to appreciate and respond to the victim impact of atrocity crimes posted online. Take, for example, the 2017 judgment of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, or BGH) (accessible in German and English). The accused, Aria Ladjevardi, was born in 1995. After radicalising himself in Germany, Ladjevardi travelled to Syria in 2014 to participate as a jihadist in the “Holy War” against the al-Assad regime. Sometime between March and April of that year, Ladjevardi’s group attacked a Syrian military checkpoint and captured two soldiers. These soldiers were beheaded, and their heads were mounted onto metal poles. The accused and his group took several photographs of themselves with the impaled heads — at close proximity, “in a way that easily enable[d] the identification of the victim[s]” — and uploaded those images to Facebook.

One of the key issues Ladjevardi’s defence put before the BGH, in appealing the judgment from the higher regional court (Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main), was whether the war crime of treating a protected person “in a gravely humiliating or degrading manner”, as codified in section 8(1)(9) of the Code of Crimes against International Law (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch), the legislation that brings German criminal law into accordance with the Rome Statute, extended to deceased victims. This question was answered in the affirmative. By assuming a position of “superiority and mercilessness” while posing for pictures with the heads of the deceased — a particularly important body part, as “the head is the outstanding identifying feature of a person and determines the external perception of a person the most” — Ladjevardi was found to have “used the situation created by the previous treatment of the victims, this extremely degrading situation, to further deepen their degradation.” Further, “viewed objectively, the fact that the defendant did not at the same time have a physical effect on the victims” was irrelevant — in other words, photographing the offence was as objectionable as the physical act of desecrating the corpses.

The BGH’s judgment reiterated the primacy of human dignity in ICL and widened the scope of protection to be conferred to the bodies of deceased victims under section 8(1)(9) of the Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, but it could have gone further simply by extrapolating on this final point. Surely, the indignity committed against these victims was more serious because these images were uploaded to a public forum like Facebook, rather than, say, printed off and kept by Ladjevardi for his personal viewing. The decision to broadcast the offence on social media elevated a private event to a public spectacle, which arguably constituted the real indignity to these deceased soldiers. Perhaps this point would have been made more clearly if the images had been widely distributed, or if the names and personalities of the victims had been known, as is the case with Ms. Louk.

When the time comes for accountability, ICL must recognise the full extent of victims’ suffering during the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Lawyers and judges must evolve their conceptualisations of wartime violence and respond to the unique and ongoing affronts to human dignity presented by social media posts that memorialise atrocities. This is the least we can do for victims like Ms. Louk, whose extreme post-mortem abuse has become casual viewing for those scrolling the algorithm.

Kate McInnes

Kate McInnes is a lawyer based in Vancouver, Canada, and a M.Sc. in International Human Rights Law candidate at the University of Oxford.

Profil anzeigen
Artikel drucken
1 Kommentar
  1. Thank you for the article and the description of Shani Louk’s fate. This is painful, but important and necessary.
    Although Hamas came for slaughtering Jews just because they are Jews, they have also murdered and kidnapped Bedouin Israelis.
    Three Bedouins are still in Hamas’ hands, together with 133 other innocent Israelis, the youngest an one year old baby. The Bedouin victims are often forgotten in Western media, so it is important for me to raise awareness for them.

    A few comments on your article:

    I agree with the author that the role of social media on the 7th of October was very problematic.
    In fact, normal Gaza residents also made their way to the Israeli kibbutzim to murder, rape and loot – but only after Hamas had broadcasted its murder beforehand via social networks.
    After seeing the footage at social media, a large number of Gazans – not Hamas terrorists, but “regular people” – joined the mass murder of Jews, the looting of the Israeli villages and the rape of women. [1]
    In doing so, the social networks were at least aiding and abetting the mass murder of Jews.

    Regarding the video of the soldiers which is mentioned by the author:
    All soldiers in the mentioned video were suspended [2].
    No surprise, Israel is a state with a rule of law. The information about the suspension of the soldiers should definitely be added.
    Furthermore, it should be noted that the video you mentioned of the Israeli soldiers with the arrested terrorists – as false as it is – is far less serious than the crimes committed against Shani Louk and 1,200 other Israeli civilians, so the incidents cannot be compared.
    It’s also nowhere near as bad as a video taken by Hamas fighters: After slaughtering an entire family, they open the refrigerator and relax and drink a glass of water.
    With 300,000 drafted Israeli reservists, it is – unfortunately – to be expected that there will also be a tiny number of people who misbehave.
    The question is always how the respective organization deals with it.
    Hamas terrorists who proudly tell their parents that they have killed ten Jews [3] are celebrated as heroes by Hamas, instead of being sent to prison for a lifetime.
    So, everyone can see the difference between a democracy and reckless terrorists.

    The terrorist organization Hamas is not on the same level as the democratic state of Isael.
    Rape, murder and torture were part of the DNA of Hamas’ tactical warfare, as security analyst Michael Horowitz, whom the author quoted, confirms. Hamas has also achieved its goal with this barbaric warfare and triggered a collective trauma in Israel. Their actions have triggered memories of the Holocaust, as the terrorists did a selection and separated children from their parents [4].
    In contrast, Israel is doing everything it can to protect civilians. For example, leaflets are distributed before bombings [5], residents are warned by phone call and text messages [6]. And, in the event of disproportionality, attacks are called off [7].
    It goes without saying that there is not one single incident of IDF soldiers raping women. Israeli soldiers are not storming a music festival – that doesn’t exist under Islamist Hamas rule anyway – and murdering hundreds of peoples. Israeli soldiers are not kidnapping civilians, under them a 9-month-old baby as well as a Holocaust survivor.

    There is not equivalence at all between Hamas and Israel.

    I strongly disagree with the author’s assessment on the statements of Israeli President Herzog regarding Shani Louk.
    Hamas has beheaded Israelis and cut off entire skulls [8].
    Shani Louk’s fate was determined on the basis of a piece of her skull bone that was found [9]. This piece of the skull bone was cut off (or shot off) by Hamas terrorists.
    It is true that her entire skull was apparently not cut off, like it was done to other Israelis.
    To describe the statements of President Herzog – an advocate of the two-state solution – about Shani Louk’s fate as incitement to genocide seems extremely far-fetched to me.
    To criticize Herzog for saying that the Hamas terrorists cut off her head – and not “only” part of her head – is possible, but seems to me not convincing.
    True, it would be better if he had said: “These sadists have cut off a part of her head.”
    But this mistake is certainly not a call for genocide, which Israel is not committing anyway due to Israel’s strong efforts to protect the civilian population.
    The above-mentioned measures to protect the civilian population and the fact that Israel transfers food and medicine into Gaza – but UNRWA, an organization full of Hamas supporters, cannot keep up with the distribution [10] – make South Africa’s accusation seem particularly bizarre.
    The fact that Hamas seizes entire truckloads of aid supplies is sad, but not Israel’s fault [11].
    An actual call for genocide looks like this: “We Will Repeat the October 7 Attack Time and Again Until Israel Is Annihilated” – Ghazi Hamdan, member of Hamas Political Office, on 24th of October 2023 in Lebanese television [12].


    [6] ;

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Wir freuen uns, wenn Du mit den Beiträgen auf dem Völkerrechtsblog über die Kommentarfunktion interagierst. Dies tust Du jedoch als Gast auf unserer Plattform. Bitte habe Verständnis dafür, dass Kommentare nicht sofort veröffentlicht werden, sondern von unserem Redaktionsteam überprüft werden. Dies dient dazu, dass der Völkerrechtsblog ein sicherer Ort der konstruktiven Diskussion für alle bleibt. Wir erwarten, dass Kommentare sich sachlich mit dem entsprechenden Post auseinandersetzen. Wir behalten uns jederzeit vor, hetzerische, diskriminierende oder diffamierende Kommentare sowie Spam und Kommentare ohne Bezug zu dem konkreten Artikel nicht zu veröffentlichen.

Deinen Beitrag einreichen
Wir begrüßen Beiträge zu allen Themen des Völkerrechts und des Völkerrechtsdenkens. Bitte beachte unsere Hinweise für Autor*innen und/oder Leitlinien für Rezensionen. Du kannst uns Deinen Text zusenden oder Dich mit einer Voranfrage an uns wenden:
Abonniere den Blog
Abonniere den Blog um regelmäßig über neue Beiträge informiert zu werden, indem Du Deine E-Mail-Adresse in das unten stehende Feld einträgst.