Dr. Omar Rahhal: The crimes committed by the Israeli occupation do not expire under any circumstances

Nour Odeh: The effects of Israel's trial for its crimes have begun to be reflected in international policies towards it

Dr. Saad Nimr: International institutions are capable of identifying crimes, but they lack the power to implement their decisions

Sari Arabi: International prosecution of Israel is still limited and unfair, and the possibility of its impunity is likely

Muhammad Hawash: International courts face several obstacles in holding Israel accountable due to US hegemony

The crimes committed by the Israeli occupation in the occupied Palestinian territories, especially in the Gaza Strip, raise increasing questions about the possibility of bringing Israel to trial before international bodies, in light of complex political and legal pressures.

In separate interviews with “I”, writers, political analysts and specialists believe that “although the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court have the jurisdiction to prosecute war criminals, there are major obstacles to prosecuting Israeli officials, as a result of international interventions and pressures exerted by some major powers, especially the United States of America, which also applies to the adoption of international resolutions condemning Israel.”

Writers, analysts and specialists point out that Israel enjoys extensive political and legal protection, especially from the United States and some Western countries that provide it with cover within international institutions, which strengthens its position and gives it the ability to escape punishment. This support makes it difficult for international courts to take decisive or binding decisions against Israel, despite the existence of previous decisions condemning its aggressive practices.

Despite these challenges, writers, political analysts and specialists confirm that signs of attempts to legally pursue Israel have begun to appear, but these moves are still limited and not fully effective.

Setting a date for Israel's trial depends on the international balance of power

The writer and political analyst Dr. Omar Rahhal, Director of the Shams Center for Human Rights, explains that it is possible to prosecute the occupying state for the crimes it commits against the Palestinian people, whether before the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court, especially since the crimes it commits in the occupied Palestinian territories fall within the framework of exercising the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, especially Articles (5, 6, 7, 8) of the Rome Statute, where Israel can be prosecuted for the crimes committed by its officers, soldiers and political officials, noting that Article (25) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court speaks of the personal jurisdiction of the court, which is limited to prosecuting natural persons, and thus the statute excludes the criminal responsibility of the state.

Rahhal points out that in practice, the matter may seem out of reach at present, due to the pressures exerted by some international parties on the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and on the judges of the court.

He stressed that the crimes committed by the Israeli occupation will not be subject to a statute of limitations under any circumstances, even if they remain without trial for long periods, pointing out that what the occupation is committing constitutes crimes described in international agreements.

Rahhal points out that setting a date for Israel's trial depends primarily on the international balance of power that grants it protection, especially from the United States, which provides legal and political cover for the occupation within international institutions, especially in the UN Security Council.

Rahhal confirms that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, especially Article (16), allows for the postponement of investigation or prosecution by the court, and this also constitutes interference in the work of the court.

Despite this protection, Rahhal asserts that Israel will not be able to escape punishment if it is actually brought before the International Court of Justice, which is concerned with trying states.

Rahhal explains that the International Criminal Court can issue arrest warrants against Israeli officials, and in this case the countries that signed the Rome Statute are obligated to arrest and hand over these officials to the court. The International Criminal Court also has special prisons to implement the rulings, while the International Court of Justice can go to the Security Council to implement any decisions issued by it based on the United Nations Charter, especially Article (94).

US support encouraged Israel's crimes

Rahhal asserts that the unconditional American support for Israel, along with some countries’ justification of the occupation’s crimes and the absence of a firm Arab position, contributed to encouraging Israel to continue committing its crimes.

Rahhal points out that some European countries and the United States have never supported national liberation movements, considering them colonial states, explaining that Israel is the natural extension of these colonial powers in the region. These countries have left colonialism in terms of geography, but they have not left it in terms of thought and practice.

Rahhal stresses that the United Nations and its specialized international organizations are merely an expression of the wills of states, and therefore will not be able to do anything in isolation from the will of states. Moreover, the movement of the United Nations is linked to the balance of power and the nature and form of the prevailing international system.

Rahhal points out that there are international balances that prevent the United Nations from playing an effective role in holding Israel accountable, based on Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

Trials are starting to bear fruit.

Writer, political analyst, and specialist in diplomatic affairs and international relations, Nour Odeh, believes that the trial of Israel for its crimes before international institutions has already begun, noting that this process may take years.

Awda stresses that the issue is not only in the trial of Israel, but in how these trials affect international policies towards it.

Awda explains that there are signs of this influence beginning to appear. Several countries have taken measures to ban arms exports to Israel after the International Court of Justice issued preliminary injunctions in the genocide case brought by South Africa, including Canada and Japan. Although some other countries have not reached the level of a complete ban, they have been forced to at least reduce their military exports to Israel, aware of their legal responsibility and unwillingness to openly challenge international law.

Awda points out that these countries do not necessarily take these measures out of sympathy for the Palestinian cause, but rather because they seek to maintain the stability of the international system that depends on respect for international law, especially with regard to the crime of genocide, which is considered the greatest crime in international law.

Regarding the possibility of the International Criminal Court issuing arrest warrants against Israeli figures such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Awda explains that some countries have announced that they will respect such warrants if they are issued, and will carry out arrests in accordance with international law.

However, Awda points out that there are real threats from the United States to impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court and its employees, especially since it coincides with the election season between Democrats and Republicans.

Israel feels real pressure

Despite these threats, Awda believes that Israel has begun to feel real pressure, as its trial has begun, which will affect its international standing.

Awda expects this to have repercussions on the ability of Israel and its officials to move freely between countries, noting the possibility of building on this dynamic to the point of imposing international sanctions and isolating Israel because of its criminal policies.

She addresses the role of the international community in this issue, explaining that there is a difference between the position of the colonial Western countries that seek to maintain the balance of power that serves them, and Israel is part of this system that protects it financially, politically and militarily, and the rest of the countries of the world that are tired of double standards and feel anxious about the future of the international system because of these policies.

Awda confirms that there is a conflict of wills between these two groups of countries, and that Palestine has become the real test of the integrity of this system and its ability to continue.

American influence in the face of international law

Although international institutions prosecute war criminals and stop wars if there is political will from member states, Awda stresses that the inability of these institutions to stop wars, including the war in Palestine, is due to American influence that prevents effective measures from being taken against Israel.

However, she stresses that these institutions remain the preservers of international memory and international law, and that decisions related to Palestinian rights cannot be bypassed because they are part of international legislation.

Awda points out that this dynamic can be built upon, if countries with common interests decide to ally and act collectively to pressure Israel and hold it accountable.

Israel's failure to be held accountable is a reflection of the interests of Western powers.

In turn, Dr. Saad Nimr, Professor of Political Science at Birzeit University, explains that what is happening on the international scene regarding the failure to hold Israel accountable is a reflection of the interests of Western powers, especially countries that were former colonial states, as they support Israel directly or indirectly as an ally representing them in the region.

Nimr points out that these countries, including the United States, have no interest in condemning Israel, because they realize that supporting it is in line with their geopolitical and economic interests, which allows Israel to act brazenly and commit its crimes without fear of international punishment, given that it enjoys the support of the colonial bloc from the international community.

Nimr asserts that these countries protect Israel from any real measures against it, which prompts it to continue its aggressive policies without regard to the consequences.

Despite this support, Nimr explains that some countries that constitute the largest part of the international community and do not have hegemony may take individual steps towards the Palestinian cause, such as recognizing the State of Palestine or reducing their relations with Israel.

Nimr believes that these steps carry symbolism and political importance, but they remain limited due to the enormous pressure exerted by the United States and its allies on countries not to take strong steps in this direction.

Ethical and legal factors

Nimr points out that what happened after October 7 may push some countries to take action against Israel, as there are two main factors pushing in this direction: the first is the moral factor, which is evident in the wave of global demonstrations and the growing student solidarity movement, and the second is the legal factor, which is represented by the potential decisions issued by the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.

At the level of international institutions, Nimr stresses that they are capable of identifying crimes and violations, but they lack the power to implement their decisions effectively, with the exception of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, which work to issue binding legal decisions.

However, Nimr points out that these courts face great pressure that prevents them from taking strong decisions against Israel.

Nimr stresses that any real decision by international institutions requires international will to support it, which is something that clashes with the strong American influence that prevents these institutions from taking effective steps against Israel.

Nimr considers the United States to be a partner in the war on Gaza, and therefore it always seeks to thwart any international resolutions condemning Israel, as the United States’ acceptance of condemning Israel may open the door to condemning countries that supported Israel, including American officials, which would push them to obstruct any such resolutions.

Limited and unfair prosecution

Writer and political analyst Sari Arabi believes that there is a limited shift in the course of pursuing Israel in international institutions on the legal and human rights levels, in light of the cases brought before the International Court of Justice and the memoranda issued by the International Criminal Court.

But Arabi stresses that these prosecutions are still limited and unfair, and even grossly unfair.

Arabi points out that the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Yoav Galant, while Arabi criticizes the decision issued by the court’s Attorney General Karim Khan, which he considered full of lies and adopting the Israeli narrative about the events of October 7.

Arabi points out that despite issuing arrest warrants for three Hamas leaders, Khan demanded the arrest of only two Israeli occupation leaders, and the decision did not include high-ranking Israeli military figures such as the Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army.

Arabi points out that the International Court of Justice has not yet issued urgent decisions to stop the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip, despite the horrific crimes committed by Israel there.

Although Israel has begun to be relatively prosecuted due to the scale of the crimes committed in Gaza, Arabi confirms that this prosecution is still limited, which means that the possibility of Israel escaping punishment remains possible.

Western powers' dominance of the international system

Arabi believes that the reason behind these limited prosecutions and the lack of response by international institutions in the required manner is due to the nature of the international system, which is subject to the dominance of Western powers, led by the United States.

Arabi believes that this hegemony is what makes the international community appear cold towards the crimes committed by Israel in Gaza, stressing that this position is not based on moral values or justice, but rather is subject to the balance of power that is primarily controlled by the United States.

Arabi stresses that the current international system, which is controlled by the West, does not give sufficient importance to the prosecution of Israeli war criminals.

Arabi believes that talking about actually pursuing these criminals may be premature under the current circumstances, as Western power and hegemony remain the decisive factor in directing international decisions, not the logic of justice and equality in applying laws to everyone.

Israel is committing crimes and its accountability is still pending

Writer and political analyst Muhammad Hawash explains that Israel is committing a clear crime against the Palestinians, which has been condemned by the international community and public opinion. However, holding Israel accountable for these crimes, whether in Gaza or the West Bank, including Jerusalem, is still being held back by major countries and powers, most notably the United States of America.

Hawash points out that the international courts established under the umbrella of the United Nations face several obstacles in holding Israel accountable, as a result of American hegemony that is not limited to obstructing legal procedures, but also extends to threatening the judges themselves.

The United States, according to Hawash, adopts a selective stance toward these international organizations, joining them when they align with its interests, but threatening or ignoring them when they conflict with its policies, especially when it comes to protecting Israel from accountability.

Hawash points out that the United States and its allies constantly stand in the way of international resolutions that aim to protect the rights of the Palestinian people, and work to provide diplomatic and legal cover for Israel, even though the latter has previously faced accusations from the International Court of Justice, but has not adhered to any of its resolutions.

According to Hawash, Israel continues to commit war crimes without deterrence and remains immune from accountability, as it refuses to recognize the role of the United Nations and its organizations, and even goes further by preventing officials of these organizations from entering the occupied territories, in a move that reflects its continued defiance of international law.

Hawash believes that these crimes are exacerbated under the continued American cover, which is clearly evident in American laws that criminalize hostility to Israel and promote absolute bias towards it, and this protection has become illogical.

As a result, Hawash believes that the next phase will witness a greater escalation in Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people, exceeding those that occurred during the year of the current war.