Hamas militants, dressed in black and camouflage uniforms, encircled the area.

Volker Turk, the United Nations human rights chief, condemned the display of bodies in Gaza, calling it both appalling and inhumane, and emphasized that it violated international law.

“According to international law, the handling of the remains of the deceased must adhere to the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, ensuring the dignity of both the deceased and their families is respected,” he stated in his remarks.

After the Red Cross handed over the hostages, the military reported that the coffins were inspected for explosives before being sent to Israel. Along the route near the Gaza border, Israelis stood in the rain to pay tribute as the convoy with the coffins passed by.

One woman, who identified herself only as Efrat, said, “We are here together with broken hearts. Even the sky is crying with us, and we hope for brighter days ahead.”

In Tel Aviv, people gathered in sorrow at what has come to be known as Hostages Square, outside Israel’s defence headquarters, many in tears.

President Isaac Herzog spoke for the nation, saying, “The pain and agony are beyond words. The hearts of an entire nation are in pieces.”

One militant stood beside a poster of a man standing over coffins wrapped in Israeli flags. Instead of legs he had tree roots in the ground, suggesting the land belongs to Palestinians. The poster read “The Return of the War=The Return of your Prisoners in Coffins”.

The two boys, their mother Shiri Bibas and a fourth hostage, Oded Lifschitz, were handed over under the Gaza ceasefire agreement reached last month with the backing of the United States and the mediation of Qatar and Egypt.

The Red Cross on Wednesday urged the handover be kept dignified. The Hamas-directed public hostage release ceremonies have come under growing criticism, including from the United Nations, which denounced the “parading of hostages”.

Kfir Bibas was only nine months old when his family, including his father Yarden, was kidnapped from Kibbutz Nir Oz, a community near Gaza that was attacked by Hamas militants. In November 2023, Hamas claimed that the boy and his mother were killed in an Israeli airstrike, but Israeli authorities never confirmed their deaths.

“Shiri and the kids became a symbol,” said Yiftach Cohen, a resident of Nir Oz, where around 25% of the population was either killed or taken hostage during the attack.

Yarden Bibas was released in a prisoner swap earlier this month. Among the Israelis who died on October 7 were also well-known peace activists.

Lifshitz, aged 83, was abducted from Nir Oz, the kibbutz he had helped to establish. His 85-year-old wife, Yocheved, was also captured but was released two weeks later, along with another woman.

A former journalist, Lifshitz wrote an opinion piece for the liberal-leaning Haaretz newspaper in January 2019, where he criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies. Among his points was Netanyahu’s rejection of the two-state solution with the Palestinians, as well as his support for a 2011 prisoner swap that freed more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, including the extremist Yahya Sinwar, in exchange for an Israeli soldier.

Sinwar later became the leader of Hamas in Gaza and masterminded the October 7 attack. He was killed by Israeli forces during the Gaza conflict. Both Netanyahu and Israel’s defence leadership have been criticized for failing to prevent the security breach on October 7, which became the deadliest day in Israel’s history.

LIVING HOSTAGES

The handover of the bodies marks the first time under the current agreement that deceased individuals have been returned, but Israel is not expected to identify them until DNA tests are finalized. According to Israeli sources, Hamas’ attack on Israel resulted in around 1,200 deaths and 251 people being kidnapped. In response, Israel’s military actions have led to roughly 48,000 deaths, as reported by Palestinian health authorities, and caused widespread destruction in Gaza.

The body handover on Thursday will be followed by the release of six living hostages on Saturday, in exchange for hundreds of Palestinians, mostly women and children, who have been detained by Israeli forces during the conflict.

Talks for a second phase, which are anticipated to involve the return of around 60 remaining hostages—less than half of whom are thought to be alive—and a full withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza to bring an end to the war, are expected to start soon.

Background: The ICC’s Investigations into Israel

The ICC, a global institution based in The Hague, Netherlands, is tasked with investigating and prosecuting individuals for crimes such as war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Though the court has been instrumental in holding individuals accountable for atrocities around the world, it has faced significant opposition from some countries, including the United States and Israel.

Neither the U.S. nor Israel are members of the ICC, which means they are not bound by its jurisdiction or rulings. The Trump administration’s opposition to the ICC dates back to earlier decisions, including the court’s authorization to investigate U.S. military personnel for alleged war crimes during the war in Afghanistan. This latest round of sanctions, however, targets the ICC’s investigation into Israel’s conduct during its military operations in Gaza, which has been a contentious issue since the escalation of hostilities with Hamas in the fall of 2023.

The ICC’s investigation focuses on allegations of war crimes committed by Israel during its response to the Hamas attack on Israeli soil in October 2023. In particular, the court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant. These charges stem from the military’s conduct during the Gaza conflict, with specific attention to accusations of disproportionate use of force, civilian casualties, and potential violations of international law.

Trump’s Executive Order: Economic and Travel Sanctions

President Donald Trump signed the executive order that allows for economic sanctions and travel restrictions against individuals involved in the investigation. The sanctions are designed to target those at the ICC who have taken part in the inquiry, with a particular focus on any actions that the Trump administration considers to be politically motivated or an overreach of the court’s mandate.

In his statement, Trump criticized the ICC for what he referred to as its “illegitimate and baseless” actions. The executive order specifically accuses the ICC of engaging in politically motivated actions that undermine the sovereignty of nations like the U.S. and Israel, which have long maintained that they do not recognize the court’s authority. Furthermore, Trump asserts that the ICC is abusing its power by issuing arrest warrants against Israeli officials, labeling such actions as “baseless” and harmful to international relations.

The sanctions authorized by the order are sweeping, targeting individuals involved in any ICC activities related to the investigation of Israeli officials. This includes travel bans, which would prevent these individuals from entering the U.S., and asset freezes, which could limit their access to financial resources within U.S. jurisdiction. In addition, the order extends to entities and organizations that provide support or assistance to the ICC in carrying out its investigations.

The U.S. and Israel’s Opposition to the ICC

The Trump administration’s decision to impose sanctions is deeply rooted in longstanding opposition from both the U.S. and Israel toward the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction and actions. The United States has consistently argued that the ICC’s operations are flawed and that its power to prosecute nationals from non-member states like the U.S. and Israel is illegitimate. This is particularly evident in the case of Israel, where the U.S. has historically been a staunch ally.

Israel itself has long rejected the ICC’s authority, viewing it as an institution that is biased against the Jewish state. The U.S., under Trump, has been a key ally in this regard, with both countries accusing the ICC of focusing disproportionately on Israel while ignoring alleged atrocities committed by other actors in the region. This view was evident when Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton, declared in 2018 that the U.S. would impose sanctions on ICC officials who attempt to investigate American soldiers or Israeli officials. Trump’s most recent executive order expands upon this policy, directly targeting the court’s investigation into Israeli actions in Gaza.

The imposition of sanctions on the ICC is likely to have wide-ranging diplomatic implications. On the one hand, the move is consistent with the Trump administration’s “America First” policy, which has been critical of international organizations that it perceives as undermining U.S. sovereignty. In this case, the U.S. government has made it clear that it will not allow international institutions like the ICC to dictate its foreign policy or challenge the actions of its allies.

However, the sanctions also risk further isolating the U.S. from key international legal frameworks that aim to prevent human rights abuses and promote accountability. Critics of Trump’s decision argue that this could embolden other authoritarian regimes that are already hostile to international justice and accountability, potentially eroding global efforts to hold leaders accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The imposition of sanctions may also undermine the credibility of the ICC, particularly among human rights advocates and international law experts who rely on the court to address atrocities that may otherwise go unpunished. By targeting the institution, critics argue that the U.S. is sending a dangerous message that international law can be circumvented by powerful nations and that justice is only for those who conform to the interests of dominant global powers.

While the Trump administration’s sanctions against the ICC have garnered support from some quarters, they have also faced sharp criticism. Supporters of the sanctions argue that the U.S. should not tolerate what they perceive as biased and politically motivated investigations against its allies. They contend that the ICC’s focus on Israel is unjust, especially when other global conflicts involving similar accusations of war crimes, such as those in Syria or Yemen, have not received the same level of scrutiny.

On the other hand, human rights organizations, international legal experts, and many European nations have expressed concern over the move. The European Union, for example, has called the sanctions a “misguided step” and reaffirmed its commitment to supporting the work of the ICC. Human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have also warned that the sanctions could undermine efforts to hold individuals accountable for atrocities committed in conflict zones and erode trust in international institutions designed to promote justice.

The full impact of President Trump’s sanctions on the ICC remains to be seen. As tensions between the U.S. and the court continue to rise, it will be important to monitor the reactions of key international players, including the European Union, United Nations, and other global human rights groups. It is clear that the move will have significant ramifications for the future of international justice and the role of global institutions in holding nations accountable for violations of human rights and international law.