Real life is offline. So is real work, real activism, and real connection — even if some of these three can happen, in important but inconsistent flashes, through the web alone. Real change is slow and demands endurance (or persistence, often both). The ever-online world had a reminder of these facts this week when leading international human rights lawyer Amal Clooney, whose seeming silence on the plight of people in Gaza was often and sanctimoniously noted by many, was found to have been, well, doing her job all this while.
Clooney had been advising the International Criminal Court at The Hague (ICC) — on a panel alongside Lord Justice Fulford, Judge Theodor Meron CMG, Danny Friedman KC, Baroness Helena Kennedy LT KC and Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC — for the last several months, at the request of ICC prosecutor Karim Khan. The panel has concluded that the ICC has grounds to prosecute members of both the Israeli government as well as the leadership of Hamas, the insurgent group that has been administering Gaza since 2006. They’ve published a legal report detailing their reasons. According to their statement, the panel unanimously believes that Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant, as well Hamas senior members Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh, have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC will pursue arrest warrants against the five named in the report.
Clooney wasn’t making her stance public because it was necessary that she work confidentially. In fact, to protect her work, she couldn’t make statements that could later be used against the panel or the prosecuting team.
This news has made many people eat humble pie, but it’s also made many others crow rather loudly about how quick to judge people are. Lest I fall into the latter category, let me also say that at the times that I saw ongoing critique of Clooney for not speaking up against the genocide of the Palestinians, I also presumed that she was choosing not to. So many celebrities have chosen not to; Clooney has married into Hollywood and is certainly widely known precisely because she is entertainment-adjacent. Lest I fall into the former category, I had nothing to remark on what seemed like garden variety celebrity disengagement. I’m not saying I’m better than anyone else; what I am saying is that the Internet is a ridiculous place, and it is only a very small part of what’s real, and what matters.
In truth, Clooney’s silence was with a purpose, and it was not to toe the line. Many influential people choose complicity by not doing anything at all. But she was doing a lot — doing the right thing, and actually using that oft-raised term, “due process”, while at it.
Still, talking about Clooney is a bit like talking about the protest encampments at American universities in support of Palestine, rather than about Palestine itself. Whatever we have to say about it, or don’t — a genocide is still happening there. Here’s hoping the ICC can do its job, too — and that as the suffering populace waits patiently, we the privileged can apply pressure where it’s due.
Sharanya Manivannan
@she_of_the_sea
The columnist is a writer and illustrator