The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) recent issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Mohammed Deif marked a historic moment.
It is the first time the court has targeted leaders from a Western-aligned nation, setting a groundbreaking precedent for international justice, particularly given the perception that the ICC has historically targeted leaders from Africa or non-Western nations.
The announcement on 21 November has already caused shockwaves. Netanyahu, along with other Israeli figures, has condemned the warrants and labelled them as “antisemitic,” with the charges including war crimes such as starvation as a method of warfare and intentionally directing attacks against civilians.
While welcomed as a stepping stone towards justice for Palestinians, the impact on alleviating the devastation in Gaza or improving Palestinians’ livelihoods appears minimal in the short-term, with Western weapons sales to Israel continuing.
Yet, the move could prove transformative in the long run, with legal analysts viewing the ICC’s announcement as potentially paving the way for expanded arrest warrants and other legal proceedings.
While the move has been received positively by legal and human rights activists, some wonder whether the arrest warrants could have been issued sooner.
“It’s better late than never, but the delay is frustrating. By May alone, over 35,000 people had been killed. Had these warrants been issued six months ago, they could have saved more lives and perhaps led to prosecutions sooner,” said Diana Buttu, a Palestinian lawyer and analyst, in an interview with The New Arab.
Growing pressure on Western countries
Several European countries have indicated their willingness to arrest Netanyahu, including the Netherlands, Italy, Canada, and France. Germany has previously declared that it will respect any decisions issued by the courts, even if it politically disagrees.
Even the UK, traditionally one of Israel’s staunchest supporters in Europe, has indicated under Keir Starmer’s leadership that it will respect the ICC’s jurisdiction and arrest Netanyahu and Gallant.
Unsurprisingly, Washington has outright rejected the ICC’s announcement. Like Israel, it is not a member state of the ICC, even though Palestine is, which prompted the arrest warrants.
Republican Senator Tom Cotton warned that Washington could take extreme measures, including invading The Hague in the Netherlands if the ICC detained any US or allied personnel – citing The Hague Invasion Act, introduced in 2002 amid fears that American soldiers could be prosecuted.
|
|
Furthermore, US Senator and Trump ally Lindsey Graham cautioned the UK, stating that Washington could devastate its economy if it arrested Israeli officials, underscoring the prospect of US pressure on its Western allies.
As a pillar of the much-vaunted “international rules-based order,” this development has placed Western countries in a bind. Many are now grappling with whether their commitments to international law outweigh their alliances with Israel.
The ICC’s decision also challenges longstanding accusations of double standards in global justice systems.
“The Court has not flinched from issuing warrants against Vladimir Putin, the head of state of a military superpower, and Benjamin Netanyahu, the head of government of a military power backed by the United States,” Adil Haque, Professor of Law at Rutgers Law School, told The New Arab.
“The Court is not applying double standards. It is following the law and the facts in the cases that fall within its limited jurisdiction.”
Implications for arms transfers and the ICJ case
Western nations that support Israel through arms sales are likely to face mounting scrutiny, particularly as they face legal pressure over these ties.
Since Israeli leaders are charged with crimes against humanity, this raises questions about the legality of supplying weapons used in these alleged crimes. Under the Arms Trade Treaty, which prohibits the transfer of arms likely to be used in violations of international law, the Treaty’s signatories including the US, UK, France, and Germany may face further pressure to reassess their military dealings with Israel.
Last week, the UK High Court heard an appeal raised by Al-Haq, a Palestinian legal group, over continued arms sales to Israel. The case mainly targeted the supply of F-35 parts, to which the UK contributes 15 percent. Despite suspending approximately 30 out of 350 arms licences to Israel in September, court documents reveal that the UK avoided suspending these parts out of fear of angering the US.
Similar questions surround other Western nations. In July, the Netherlands faced a backlash for continuing to supply F-35 parts to the United States after a Dutch court case ruled earlier this year that such sales could violate international law.
In such domestic cases, where governments may face more accountability than in international legal proceedings, the ICC arrest warrants could be used to highlight complicity in war crimes.
Crucially, this legal momentum may add further evidence to the ongoing case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) launched by South Africa, which charges Israel with committing genocide in Gaza.
Dr Luigi Daniele, a Senior Lecturer at Nottingham Law School, told The New Arab that combined, these legal proceedings could eventually shift policymaking, especially if it impacts the ICJ.
Additionally, Adil Haque added that he expects “that these warrants will add momentum to national legal proceedings, including those involving arms transfers to Israel”.
Broader advocacy and the path forward
Beyond legal initiatives, the ICC arrest warrants will strengthen Palestinian and human rights advocacy, particularly as they add pressure on Western leaders to act.
“After the ICJ issued its first ruling over Palestine in 2004, the launch of the BDS movement the following year came as people felt the world wasn’t doing enough. Cases like these strengthen Palestinian advocacy and the push for justice,” added Diana Buttu.
Legal analysts also predict that the ICC may expand its charges.
“I expect that the Prosecutor will bring additional charges against additional individuals, probably focusing on forced displacement or attacks on hospitals,” said Adil Haque.
An expansion of arrest warrants is likely to occur. Even though Gallant has resigned as Defence Minister, those within the chain of command in the Defence Ministry could still face liability for war crimes in Gaza.
However, the ICC’s limitations are well-documented. Vladimir Putin, also subject to ICC arrest warrants, recently visited Mongolia without consequence.
|
|
This raises doubts about whether Netanyahu or Gallant would face arrest even if they travelled abroad.
Even Karim Khan himself acknowledged threats from US officials that the ICC exists “only for Russians and Africans”. By targeting Israeli leaders, the court signals a shift in its approach, challenging these criticisms and attempting to balance its record.
Moreover, it may be the tipping point in shifting Western policy towards Israel.
“Many humanitarian organisations have been pursuing this kind of action for decades, so this is an important day in proving that their efforts weren’t meaningless,” said Dr Luigi Daniele. “On its own, it won’t be enough to address the tragedy that we are still witnessing. But it represents the apex of this change.”
He added that civil society, the media, and lawyers should unite to pressure governments to restore international legality as a cornerstone of foreign policy.
Even though the ICC’s ability to bring immediate justice for Palestinian victims is limited, its actions set an important precedent.
As Diana Buttu put it: “The ICC decision addresses an important question: Are there different laws for Israelis and Palestinians, or are they both subject to the same global legal system? This ruling begins to chip away at that double standard”.
While far from the final word on justice for Palestinians, the arrest warrants lay the groundwork for further legal and diplomatic efforts. It is also unlikely this will be the last we hear of the international courts’ pursuit of accountability against Israeli leaders.
Jonathan Fenton-Harvey is a journalist and researcher who focuses on conflict, geopolitics, and humanitarian issues in the Middle East and North Africa.
Follow him on Twitter: @jfentonharvey
