What does the ICC’s arrest decision mean for Netanyahu? – Forward

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations General Assembly on September 22, 2023. Photo: Jeenah Moon/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Columnist
Dan Perry
November 21, 2024

The International Criminal Court made history by issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant; This is the first such action against the heads of a true democracy.

Although the permits have been long awaited, requested by the prosecutor Months ago, war crimes and crimes against humanity sent shock waves through Israel. These would restrict Netanyahu’s ability to travel, particularly in Europe, and also put the ICC on a collision course with the new administration of President-elect Donald Trump in what could be a watershed test of the court’s power.

For Israelis, even for Netanyahu’s critics, this decision is sure to fuel suspicions that the world’s international institutions are irredeemably biased against them. Israel and its defenders already regularly challenge the United Nations’ human rights watchdog groups’ undeniably obsessive and disproportionate focus on Israel. Now, the arrest warrants and the fact that no Western leaders have ever been charged for the harm inflicted on civilians during the brutal war on terror that has left untold thousands of civilians dead will surely exacerbate this conspiratorial, defensive outlook.

And for the ICC, its decision to issue the warrants risks jeopardizing its international reputation. Trump in his first term sanctions imposed The investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan is in court, with officials banned from entering the United States and some of their financial assets frozen. And even though those measures were lifted by President Joe Biden, they still criticized The ICC accused Netanyahu of targeting him and argued that doing so equated a democratic state with a terrorist organization.

What this means: The ICC is betting that it can emerge from a showdown with the United States over its legitimacy with its authority intact.

In a reflection of what was to come, House Speaker Mike Johnson, responding to the arrest warrants, argued that the ICC had no jurisdiction in Israel or the United States because neither country officially recognized it. “In the absence of White House leadership, Congress is considering all options, including sanctions, to punish the ICC and ensure it faces consequences if its leadership continues,” Johnson said in a statement. “If the ICC is allowed to threaten Israeli leaders, ours could be next.”

The law, passed by the House earlier this year, gives the president the authority to impose sweeping sanctions on ICC member states that detain US allies; This is an authority that Trump will definitely use if Republicans in the Senate advance the legislation. Trump’s attitude towards the ICC has been consistently hostile; He generally dislikes global governance institutions and prefers the protection of countries’ sovereign rights.

But U.S. opposition to the ICC’s jurisdiction has long been a bipartisan issue; It will be difficult for the court’s defenders in the United States to argue that any action taken against it is the first step of a new isolationist president.

Increasing pressure from the United States could lead ICC member states, including Mongolia, to refuse to implement its decisions, as has happened in the past. final decision Despite ICC accusations, Vladimir Putin was not arrested and South Africa rejection Arrest of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on charges of genocide. These precedents underscore the court’s limited ability to exercise its own authority, especially when targeting powerful leaders or controversial cases.

The court’s simultaneous indictments of the almost certainly dead Hamas military leader Mohammed Deif are likely in part an attempt to counter allegations of bias and to help member states resist pressure to refuse to carry out arrest warrants against Israeli leaders. It will be a long war.

Political leaders in Israel also reacted angrily. The Prime Minister’s Office described the accusations, which focus on allegations that Netanyahu and Gallant caused mass starvation by deliberately blocking humanitarian aid to Gaza during the current war, as “absurd”, likening it to a “modern-day Dreyfus case”. The statement also claimed that the decision was due to ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan’s attempts to “save his skin from serious allegations leveled against him for sexual harassment”. Khan denies allegations that he harassed a junior staff member over a period of time, but is under investigation for the allegations. term lasting a year – and “biased judges motivated by antisemitic hatred against Israel.”

Housing Minister Yitzhak Goldknopf echoed these sentiments, declaring that the decision was “only antisemitism, always antisemitism.” President Isaac Herzog, who opposes Netanyahu, condemned the ICC’s move as “a dark day for justice.” Herzog accused the court of “siding with terrorism and evil before democracy and freedom” and of being a “human shield for Hamas’ crimes against humanity.”

But even if Israel preaches resistance, the arrest warrants will have an immediate and serious impact on Netanyahu, especially when it comes to diplomatic travel.

The 125 ICC member states, including all European Union countries, are obliged to arrest suspects if they enter their territory. This leaves Netanyahu with limited options for international engagement and could hinder his ability to conduct state affairs abroad. Even flying over ICC member airspace poses potential risks. Gallant, who Netanyahu recently fired from his war cabinet, faces similar restrictions.

How to deal with these very real consequences? Israel could theoretically contest the charges by conducting its own investigation, which could force the court to adjourn. Another option is for the United Nations Security Council to freeze the case; but this will require the concurrence of all five permanent members; This is an unlikely scenario given the geopolitical divisions.

Ultimately, this is a waiting game to see how member states will react and whether the court is making an unsuccessful gamble to assert its power in an unfriendly international environment. Viewed from above, this historic moment underscores the tension between international justice and national sovereignty, highlighting the delicate balance the ICC must maintain if it is to remain a credible arbiter of global accountability. But many Israelis will conclude that they are a solitary nation.