Dr. Raed Abu Badawiyya: The decision opens the door for the court to issue more arrest warrants against Israeli officials involved in war crimes

Akram Atallah: A historic and important decision despite the pressures exerted on the court, and it has wide repercussions, but it will face implementation challenges

Dr. Abdul Majeed Suwailem: A sudden political and security earthquake struck Israel, causing a major shock and its impact will extend to the entire international community.

Firas Yaghi: Netanyahu may escape the repercussions of the decision by regional escalation because any calm may strengthen his weak position domestically and internationally

Nihad Abu Ghosh: The decision inaugurates a new phase of international legal work to contain Israel’s policies and paves the way for holding it accountable

Dr. Hussein Al-Deek: The decision will push Netanyahu and Galant to be cautious in their foreign visits, especially to countries that have signed the agreement regulating the work of the court

After months of waiting, the International Criminal Court issued two arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant, which represents an unprecedented legal and political development, and is an earthquake that Israel is witnessing for the first time in its history, as the decision affects the highest levels of leadership in Israel.

In separate interviews with “I”, writers, political analysts, specialists and university professors believe that the sudden timing of the decision confused the Israeli leadership, which has repeatedly tried to obstruct the course of international investigations with American and European support, while the decision represents a test for the member states of the Rome Statute regulating the court.

They point out that the decision will deepen the Israeli political crisis and increase pressure on Netanyahu, especially from the opposition, which sees these accusations as a threat to the occupying state as a whole, and affects its image internationally.

A qualitative and exceptional step within the framework of international law

Dr. Raed Abu Badawiyeh, Professor of International Law and International Relations at the Arab American University, confirms that the decision of the International Criminal Court regarding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a qualitative and exceptional step within the framework of international law.

The decision, according to Abu Badawiya, affects the head of Israeli diplomacy and political and military leadership, and not just a lower-level military or political official, which enhances its influence on the occupation government, especially in the international arena, especially Europe, where the member states of the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court are obligated to implement the decision.

Abu Badawiya explains that the decision came as a surprise to Israel, which had sought over the past months, with American and European support, to obstruct the issuance of such a decision by the court. However, the timing of the decision confused the Israeli leadership.

Abu Badawiya points out that the European position towards implementing the decisions of the International Criminal Court has been clearly expressed in advance by the commitment to implementing the decisions of the court.

On the American side, Abu Badawiya expects Israel to resort to the Biden and Trump administrations to help it pressure the court and member states, pointing to what happened in the period prior to Trump’s presidency when he imposed sanctions on the court’s judges.

Regarding the international legal implications, Abu Badawiya asserts that the issuance of an arrest warrant against Netanyahu and Galant obliges member states of the Rome Statute to carry out the arrest if they set foot on their territory, which is an extremely dangerous development. The decision also opens the door for the court’s prosecutor to issue more arrest warrants against Israeli political and military officials involved in war crimes and crimes against humanity, whether in relation to the aggression on Gaza or other crimes against the Palestinians.

Abu Badawiya believes that this decision gives a strong impetus to European judicial and legal institutions, whether at the national or international level, to move in the same direction by filing lawsuits demanding accountability of Israeli officials.

Abu Badawiya points out that European countries that export weapons to Israel will face a legal and moral dilemma, because continuing to supply weapons in the face of accusations of war crimes puts them in an embarrassing legal position.

On the political level, Abu Badawiya explains that the decision will deprive Netanyahu, as the head of Israeli diplomacy, of working freely in the European arena, which is one of the most important arenas of international relations for Israel.

Abu Badawiya points out that the decision may affect trade and economic relations between Israel and the European Union countries, especially those related to economic cooperation linked to Israeli war behavior.

Regionally, Abu Badawiya points out that the decision provides an opportunity for Arab countries to cooperate with Europe in taking steps to besiege Israel.

Abu Badawiya explains that international conditions are now ripe for this, as Europe and the Arab countries share in rejecting Israeli expansions and attacks on Gaza and the West Bank, and the decision provides these countries with legal tools that enhance their efforts to pressure Israel internationally and regionally.

On the other hand, Abu Badawiya confirms that the decision will have repercussions on the Israeli home front in two aspects: legal and political.

On the legal level, Abu Badawiya points out that the legal advisor to the occupation government had previously requested the opening of internal investigations to avoid international trials, but her request was rejected. With the issuance of the international resolution, this request may be strengthened again and place the advisor in a stronger position within the Israeli legal system.

Politically, Abu Badawiya expects the decision to increase pressure on Netanyahu to remove him from political life, especially from the opposition, which sees his continued presence as a threat to the state due to the international accusations against him.

Abu Badawiya points to statements by opposition leader Yair Lapid, who condemned the decision but called for early elections, as evidence of the beginning of this growing political pressure.

Regarding the military establishment, Abu Badawiya explains that the decision represents a dangerous precedent, as for the first time direct accusations are being made against Israeli officials at the level of the Minister of War or the Prime Minister. This development could undermine confidence within the Israeli military establishment and raise fears of legal prosecution of its members, which could negatively affect the morale of the army and exacerbate the phenomenon of evasion of military service.

On another note, Abu Badawiya warns that Israel may resort to imposing sanctions on the Palestinian Authority as a retaliatory measure, which confirms the need for the Authority to prepare to confront the repercussions of this disastrous scenario.

Major legal shift on the international scene

Writer and political analyst Akram Atallah describes the recent decision of the International Criminal Court as a historic and important decision, despite the enormous pressures exerted on it publicly and secretly by the United States of America and other countries, noting that the decision will have repercussions but will face implementation challenges.

Atallah explains that the decision reflects a major legal shift on the international scene, and opens the way for holding Israel and its Prime Minister Netanyahu accountable as accused of committing war crimes.

Atallah points out that the repercussions of the decision go beyond the mere possibility of prosecuting Netanyahu, which may seem difficult to implement, to place Israel as a state in the category of historically criminal states.

Atallah believes that labeling the Israeli prime minister as a war criminal will cast a shadow over its international image, as Netanyahu is now in a similar position to leaders of countries associated with gross human rights violations.

Atallah stresses that the decision remains linked to implementation procedures that require Netanyahu to visit a country that is a signatory to the Rome Statute.

Atallah explains that countries such as the United States, Russia and China are not obligated to implement the decision because they have not joined the agreement, which gives them the freedom not to comply with the court’s decisions.

Atallah points out that some European countries, such as the Netherlands, have expressed a clear position that they will commit to handing Netanyahu over to the court if he visits their territory, which makes it difficult for Netanyahu to venture to visit those countries, as he will face the risk of arrest.

Regarding the American position, Atallah points out that the United States is the most prominent opponent of the International Criminal Court, which may escalate after the decision is issued, especially with Trump coming to the White House, given his pro-Israel and anti-international institutions positions.

Atallah explains that the decision has a legal character, but Washington and Israel will seek to politicize it and distort its legal nature by promoting it as part of a political targeting of Israel.

Atallah points out that the decision represents a major legal challenge for Israel, despite the difficulty of implementing it practically, but it constitutes a blow to its image and confirms the importance of the legal path in confronting international violations.

A severe blow to the Israeli leadership

Writer and political analyst Dr. Abdul Majeed Suwailem asserts that the ICC’s decision regarding Netanyahu and Galant represents a “real earthquake” whose repercussions are reverberating in political, security, and military circles within Israel, and whose impact extends to the entire international community, and constitutes a major shock within Israeli society.

The decision, which Suwailem described as “surprising and astonishing,” comes after years of Israeli feeling that American support and Western complicity provide immunity from any international legal accountability.

Suwailem points out that this decision is a severe blow to the Israeli leadership, which now finds itself in an unprecedented confrontation with international law institutions, and is now directly threatened by decisions that affect prominent figures with the status of the Prime Minister and Minister of War, which deepens the crisis and political divisions within Israel over how to deal with the crisis.

Suwailem expects that the decision will create a large gap between the United States and Europe, as European countries will not be able to fully identify with the American position in this context, and will find themselves facing a real test of their credibility regarding commitment to international law, and this commitment may cause a rift in American-European relations, which will negatively affect Washington’s ability to maneuver in international issues.

Suwailem points out that the United States' continued absolute support for Israel will be viewed as a form of "political and moral shame," not only globally, but within American society itself.

Suwailem believes that the American behavior in confronting the decisions of the International Criminal Court will enhance the negative image of American policies in the world, about American double standards that will become more apparent, leading to the erosion of its credibility as a country that claims to defend democracy and human rights.

According to Suwailem, this American position reflects "a blatant form of racism and bias towards a state that is practicing genocide against the Palestinian people."

Although the ICC focuses on holding individuals accountable, Suwailem points out that the consequences of the decision will affect Israel as a state, and it is expected that Israel will face great difficulties in marketing its usual narrative to the Western media, which it has become accustomed to throughout the 14 months of crimes committed in the war of extermination on Gaza.

Enforcement of court decisions will be relatively easy.

According to Suwailem, implementing the court’s decisions will be relatively easy, as most of the countries that signed the court’s protocol will commit to cooperating. If Israeli officials, such as Netanyahu or Galant, visit any of these countries, their arrest may become a fait accompli.

On the other hand, Suwailem believes that the decision may push Israel to search for quick solutions to get out of the crisis, such as accelerating the reaching of political agreements in Gaza or Lebanon, and these agreements may be an attempt by the Israeli leadership to rearrange its political and security cards in light of the increasing international pressure.

Despite the expected Israeli accusations that the court is biased against it, Suwailem explains that the court has also issued arrest warrants against Palestinian figures, such as Ismail Haniyeh, Mohammed Deif, and Yahya Sinwar, which reflects its legal neutrality, although it is unfair. However, this neutrality deprives Israel of the pretext of claiming that the court is politicized, which will weaken its position on the international stage.

In light of these developments, Suwailem believes that Israel's attempts to circumvent the decision will face great difficulties, as European countries have already begun to announce their commitment to the decision, and the scope of the impact will be broad and comprehensive, making it difficult for Israel to escape the consequences of the decision.

Suwailem stresses that the decision represents a major turning point in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, with repercussions that could change the balance of power at the regional and international levels.

Suwailem stresses that while Israel is trying to absorb the shock of the “earthquake,” the entire world is watching how these developments will reshape the political and diplomatic landscape in the region.

An unprecedented step with historic dimensions

Writer and political analyst Firas Yaghi believes that the ICC decision is an unprecedented step with historic dimensions, carrying major repercussions for Israel and its prime minister, and raising questions about the future of Israel as a state that claims democracy, while facing accusations of crimes against humanity and war crimes. The decision is a “real earthquake” for Israel as a state, and for Netanyahu, who sees himself above the law domestically and internationally.

According to Yaghi, this court decision places Israel in the ranks of dictatorial states, even though it claims to be a democratic state that adopts Western liberal values. For the first time in the history of the International Criminal Court, a decision has been taken against the head of government of a state classified as a democracy, which adds great shock at the international level.

Yaghi explains that this step exposes Israel to the world, and makes it appear as a third world country ruled by oppressive and authoritarian policies, instead of being a beacon of democracy as it claims.

Yaghi confirms that the immediate repercussions of the decision affect Netanyahu personally, and he will be banned from visiting 124 countries that signed the Rome Statute, for fear of being arrested.

According to Yagi, these countries may face pressure to prevent any military aid to Israel, because that could mean supporting the continuation of the crimes being investigated by the court.

On the other hand, Yaghi explains that Israeli officials working under Netanyahu will in turn face charges of committing war crimes in the future, because they are working on orders issued by a prime minister who is internationally accused of being a criminal, which puts the future of the Israeli military establishment at stake.

A heavy burden on Israel and its international reputation

Although the court’s decision was attacked by the opposition, the ruling coalition and the United States, Yaghi asserts that the decision represents a great burden on Israel and its international reputation, just as Netanyahu has become a burden on the Hebrew state. The decision may open the door to radical change within Israel, as the “deep state” may begin to seriously consider its future away from Netanyahu, who seems to be leading Israel towards international isolation and internal collapse.

Yaghi expects Netanyahu to resort to further regional escalation in an attempt to escape the repercussions of the decision, and may launch military strikes in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, or even Iran or Yemen, because any calm may strengthen his weak position domestically and internationally.

Yaghi asserts that the court’s decision could have a significant impact on the Israeli economy, and that damage to Israel’s reputation could negatively impact its trade and investment relations, especially with Western countries, which would increase pressure on Netanyahu’s government.

On the other hand, Yaghi points out that the United States will not abandon its support for Israel. The American administration, especially under the leadership of Donald Trump, sees Israel as an indispensable strategic ally, and despite international criticism, American support for Israel’s policies will continue, especially with regard to the West Bank.

Opening the door to hold the occupation leaders and generals accountable

The writer, political analyst and specialist in American affairs, Dr. Hussein Al-Deek, confirms that the recent decision of the International Criminal Court represents a historic step towards achieving international justice, by opening the door to holding the leaders and generals of the Israeli occupation accountable before international law.

Al-Deek believes that the timing of the decision carries great significance, as it reflects the high professionalism and transparency with which the court dealt with the case, based on the statute of the Rome Statute, of which Palestine is a member.

Al-Deek points out that the decision is evidence of the failure of American pressures exerted on the court, whether from Congress, the Senate, or the American administration, with the aim of dissuading its judges from performing their duties. Despite these attempts, the court adhered to the principles of international law and its statute. The decision also highlights the embarrassment that will befall Israel’s allied countries, especially the European countries that signed the Rome Statute, if Netanyahu or Galant visited their territories.

Al-Deek points out that the decision will put these countries in a real confrontation with their legal obligations, which may push them to take decisive positions, or evade under political pretexts to preserve their relations with Israel and the United States.

It is expected that the decision will be met with a wave of Israeli escalation against the Palestinians, in response to the Authority’s complaint submitted to the International Criminal Court.

The decision will encourage the extreme Israeli right to escalate its aggression.

Al-Deek believes that the decision will encourage the extreme Israeli right to escalate its oppressive policies, accelerate its settlement plans, and implement what is known as the “decisive plan,” which seeks to annex the entire West Bank, coinciding with Trump’s assumption of office in the White House, which will strengthen US support for these policies, especially with the control of the Republicans, allies of the Israeli right, over Congress.

Al-Deek points out that these developments regarding the court’s decision may lead to the imposition of further economic and financial restrictions on the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority, within the framework of Israel’s policy of collective punishment.

Despite the importance of the decision, Al-Deek stresses that its implementation faces many obstacles, most notably the absence of an executive mechanism for the International Criminal Court, which relies on the governments of member states of the Rome Statute to implement arrest warrants.

Al-Deek explains that implementing the arrest requires the cooperation of these countries, which remains non-binding on them, as the agreement does not include texts imposing sanctions on countries that refuse to implement.

Al-Deek points out that European countries, which have strong strategic relations with Israel and the United States, may not arrest Netanyahu or Galant, which would weaken the practical value of the decision. In contrast, other countries, which do not have strong relations with Israel, may take a stricter stance if Israeli officials enter their territories.

Al-Deek believes that the decision will push Netanyahu and Galant to be cautious in their foreign visits, especially to countries that are signatories to the agreement regulating the work of the court, which may hand them over to the International Criminal Court.

Al-Deek asserts that the decision may open the door to an American and Israeli escalation against the International Criminal Court, especially with the return of Trump to power, who is known for his hostile positions towards international institutions and those supporting Israel.

Al-Deek asserts that the decision represents a major legal shift, but it also highlights the political struggle surrounding international justice.

Despite these obstacles, Al-Deek points out that the decision remains a step towards establishing international justice and opening the way for holding accountable those who committed crimes against the Palestinian people.

The resolution delegitimizes Israel's brutal actions.

Nihad Abu Ghosh, a writer and political analyst specializing in Israeli affairs, believes that the decision issued by the International Criminal Court represents a fundamental development in the path of international justice regarding crimes committed against the Palestinian people, noting that legal experts agree that this decision cannot be appealed, as the court’s judicial system does not allow this. However, the accused can defend themselves after appearing before the court and presenting their arguments and evidence during the judicial process.

Abu Ghosh explains that issuing an arrest warrant against Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant, indicates the availability of compelling evidence and indications that prompted the court to take this step, as the warrant was based on public statements and official documents that are no longer hidden from anyone, and were carefully documented by the court.

In addition, Abu Ghosh points out that any Israeli official who participated in making decisions or issued directives at the level of the Israeli War Cabinet or General Staff is considered an accomplice in crimes that require trial.

Abu Ghosh points out that the 124 countries that signed the Rome Statute are obligated to arrest the accused and hand them over to the International Criminal Court immediately upon their entry into their territories.

However, Abu Ghosh explains that the court itself does not have executive tools such as the International Police to force the accused to appear before it, which makes the implementation of this decision linked to the will of the countries concerned and their commitment to international law.

Abu Ghosh points out that Israel, which has been accustomed to escaping accountability for eight decades, finds itself today facing a new challenge that could threaten its international legitimacy.

Abu Ghosh believes that the recent American veto, which was used to prevent a UN resolution condemning Israel, encouraged the latter to commit more massacres in Beit Lahia and the Sheikh Radwan suburb in Gaza, which claimed the lives of about 100 martyrs.

But Abu Ghosh stresses that the impact of the judicial decision will be felt later, when Israeli leaders begin to worry about the possibility of future legal prosecution.

Abu Ghosh points out that Israel resorted to various means to obstruct the issuance of this resolution, through diplomatic pressure and direct and indirect threats. The Israeli Mossad also played a role in attempts to obstruct the resolution, while the United States intervened with all its weight to prevent its issuance. In addition, some European allies, such as Germany, tried to provide support to Israel. However, strong and documented evidence prevented ignoring Israeli crimes, which led the court to make its historic decision.

Abu Ghosh asserts that the resolution delegitimizes Israel's brutal actions, especially in the context of the ongoing war on Gaza, and refutes Israeli claims that these crimes are committed in self-defense.

Abu Ghosh believes that the decision represents a major turning point in strengthening international efforts to boycott, impose sanctions on, and divest from Israel, noting that this development gives Palestine supporters around the world a strong incentive to intensify their efforts to besiege Israel.

According to Abu Ghosh, this decision will push Israel to reconsider its practices and policies, especially in light of the increasing international condemnation of its actions.

Although Israeli leaders are not expected to actually appear before the court, Abu Ghosh believes that accusing Israeli leaders of committing war crimes will affect its international standing and weaken its legitimacy.

Abu Ghosh points out that the decision will not only have an impact on the present, but will have long-term repercussions. It may lead to imposing more restrictions on Israel’s armament operations, and encourage many countries to reconsider their relations with Tel Aviv. The decision also strengthens legal efforts to besiege Israel, especially if it is added to other decisions that have been issued or may be issued, such as the decision of the International Court of Justice regarding the legality of the occupation, settlement activities, or genocide.

Abu Ghosh stresses the importance of this decision for the Palestinian people, as it represents a victory for the victims and contributes to alleviating the suffering of the Palestinians by pressuring Israel to allow the entry of humanitarian aid and partially lift the siege.

But Abu Ghosh stresses that this legal battle is long and complex, and requires unified efforts by the Palestinian Authority, the factions, and the international community.

Abu Ghosh believes that the decision inaugurates a new phase of international legal work to contain Israeli policies, which contributes to strengthening Palestinian national rights and paves the way for holding Israel accountable for its ongoing crimes.