The arrest warrants issued by the international criminal court (ICC) represent an earthquake on the world’s legal landscape: the first time a western ally from a modern democracy has been charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity by a global judicial body.
Inside Israel, the warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant will not have an immediate impact. In the short term they are likely to rally support around the prime minister from a defiant Israeli public.
In the longer term, however, the enormity of the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant could grow heavier over time, shrinking the patch on the globe still open to them. The stigma of being an accused war criminal is a hard one to shrug off.
Yahya Sinwar and the other two Hamas suspects named by the ICC prosecutor have all been killed by Israel since May when the warrants were first requested, but the pre-trial chamber at The Hague issued a warrant for one of them, the Hamas military commander Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri, also known as Mohammed Deif, on the grounds that his widely reported death, in an airstrike in July, has yet to be officially confirmed. That looks like a formality and it is all but certain that none of the three Hamas leaders will stand trial for the 7 October massacres last year that ignited the Gaza war.
In the world as viewed from The Hague, the approval of warrants by the ICC judges will for ever transform the court’s standing. The US – not an ICC member anyway – rejected the warrants, and said it would coordinate with its partners, Israel included, about the “next steps”.
Other Israeli allies, such as Germany, will distance themselves, but it will be a difficult moment for the UK government of Keir Starmer, whose background is in human rights and international law. The US is likely to lean on the UK to reject the validity of the warrants, but that would seriously damage UK credibility elsewhere in the world.
Amnesty International reminded Starmer: “The UK’s standing as a genuine supporter of the rule of law requires consistency and even-handedness.”
Many other countries who have hitherto seen the ICC as a tool of the western world are likely to embrace the decision and the tribunal itself. While the UN security council has done very little to mitigate the war in Gaza, the ICC will be widely seen, especially in the global south, as a more effective defender of the UN charter.
The question for Europe, in particular, is whether to have any dealings with Netanyahu on his turf in Israel. The European Council of Foreign Relations pointed out that when the former Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta was the subject of an ICC warrant, European officials adopted a policy of avoiding non-essential contact.
Iva Vukušić, an assistant professor in international history at Utrecht University, said: “This set of arrest warrants are groundbreaking because, for the first time in the case of Israel, they involve a close ally of the ‘western’ permanent members of the security council, which have so far been almost exempt from international judicial scrutiny.
“Israel is considered by many as a functioning democracy with a capable judicial system, and a close ally to the west, and we have not so far seen an arrest warrant in such a situation.”
One thing the warrants are very unlikely to do is topple Netanyahu – or even weaken him. That is critical, as many observers believe the war in Gaza is likely to continue for as long as he holds on to power.
“It will strengthen Netanyahu,” said Dahlia Scheindlin, an Israeli expert on international public opinion. “Israelis are absolutely rock-solid convinced that the international system in general basically exists in order to target and single out Israel unfairly. That kind of sentiment cuts across the board in the Jewish community.”
That means very few Israelis see the warrants as evidence that Netanyahu is weakening their country on the global scale, driving it towards pariah status. If anything, the prime minister’s many critics will pause their litany of complaints against him for long enough to reject the jurisdiction of a foreign court over their affairs.
In terms of the next Israeli elections, due by October 2026 and a critical moment for Israel and the region, ICC warrants are unlikely to change many votes. But the sting they leave will be more likely to make itself felt over the years and decades to come.
There will be a long list of countries that are members of the ICC that Netanyahu and Gallant will be unable to visit, as they would be obliged to act on the arrest warrant. The US, Russia and China are not members, but for the current White House at least, a visit by either man would be highly embarrassing – though the incoming Trump administration will be another matter.
“The ICC plays a long game,” Vukušić said. “Once issued, warrants follow you pretty much until you’re dead. If, upon the issuing of the warrants, Netanyahu again goes to the US to speak to Congress, for example, it at least massively embarrasses the US and makes their hypocrisy so plain to see.”
Related News :