-Analysis-
PARIS – So, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has decided to act.
Since the ICC prosecutor recommended arrest warrants for Israeli and Palestinian leaders last April, the judges have been under pressure from all sides, but have ultimately decided to proceed with issuing the warrant against Netanyahu.
Much has changed since then: two of the Hamas leaders originally targeted are dead, and the third, Mohammed Deif, may also have been killed in an Israeli strike in July. On Israel’s side, the Defense Minister, Yoav Galant, who was also targeted Thursday by an ICC arrest warrant, was dismissed from his position at the beginning of the month.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
Thus it is Benjamin Netanyahu who remains the central figure in this matter. Israel’s dominant political personality for three decades is right now the “master of the clocks” in this war that has now lasted for more than a year. It is the arrest warrant issued against him that marks a historic first for a leader supported by the West — and one that is already making so much noise.
Like the Dreyfus affair?
Listen to how the Israeli prime minister defends himself: he compared it to the Dreyfus affair in France at the end of the 19th century: a false anti-Semitic accusation, then against a Jewish French officer, and now, according to him, against the democratically elected leader of Israel.
This first reaction certainly speaks to the Israelis: it tells them that, once again, Jews are alone in the face of a hostile world. Not entirely alone, as the United States has already come to their aid: Joe Biden called the arrest warrants “scandalous,” and for the future Donald Trump administration, Mike Waltz, the incoming National Security Advisor, promised a “strong reaction” against the ICC starting after January 20 when Trump is back in the White House.
The Court’s decision is based on solid legal reasoning. It believes there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that the targeted individual has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, which is its role to determine.
The International Criminal Court’s decision to issue an arrest warrant against Netanyahu is based on substantial legal reasoning. The court writes that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that Netanyahu committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Some actions by Israel, particularly in its response to the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, fit within these categories, including the use of famine as a weapon of war. Indeed, the U.S. has also criticized the obstruction of humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Like Putin?
The arrest warrant against Netanyahu puts him in a position similar to Vladimir Putin, who faced a similar situation last year and now only travels to “safe” countries. He was notably absent from the G20 summit in Brazil for this reason.
France and several EU countries have stated that they will respect the Court’s decision to pursue the arrest warrant if Netanyahu is on their territory.
International justice holds only the weight of its moral authority.
The second consequence is international: it fuels the argument of those who criticize Western “double standards” — quick to condemn Russia in Ukraine but turning a blind eye to Gaza. When the U.S. applauds the ICC only after it targets Putin but threatens it when it’s Netanyahu, they undermine their discourse on international law.
The arrest warrant places Israel in a position to confront the global impact of its harsh response to Gaza. However, it’s unlikely Israel will conclude that the war has lasted too long, as Netanyahu remains “protected” by the U.S., which recently vetoed a ceasefire request at the UN.
International justice holds only the weight of its moral authority. In an ideal world, this would be enough to stop a war. However, in reality, it often isn’t sufficient to end conflicts.
