Dr. Amjad Abu Al-Ezz: The International Criminal Court’s issuance of an arrest warrant against Netanyahu poses political and legal challenges to countries regarding the end of his era

Khalil Shaheen: The court’s decision imposes itself on international media discourse, which will reshape attitudes towards Israel and its crimes

Dr. Dalal Erekat: The decision is an important development.. and the American and Israeli pressures to confront the "criminal" are based on the federal "Hague invasion" law

Dr. Aql Salah: The decision is a legal and political earthquake on the international scene and places Israel before the mirror of truth in the eyes of the international community

Dr. Jamal Harfoush: Washington fears that the court will turn into an arena for holding American or Israeli officials accountable for international crimes

Dr. Saad Nimr: The next stage will be full of challenges for Netanyahu and Galant, and they will face great difficulty in traveling to any country

The International Criminal Court’s issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Galant continues to reverberate, marking a major shift on both the political and legal levels, and reflecting a shift in the international position towards Israel, which has long benefited from strong support, especially from the United States.

In separate interviews with “I”, writers, political analysts, specialists and university professors confirm that the decision raises major challenges for European countries, which find themselves between adhering to the principles of international justice or maintaining their strategic relations with Israel. They point out that the international media’s coverage of the issuance of the two warrants against Netanyahu and Galant was based on the positions of their countries, but the decision was mostly discussed, which confirms the existence of an earthquake that is striking the Israeli narrative about the events of October 7.

Writers, experts and university professors believe that the decision will lead to major changes in international politics, especially in the relationship with Israel, and will directly affect the future moves of the leaders of the Israeli occupation on the international scene.

"A political and legal slap" to Netanyahu and his government

Dr. Amjad Abu Al-Ezz, a writer, political analyst, and professor of international relations at the Arab American University, asserts that the ICC decision is a very important development, and represents a “political and legal slap” to Netanyahu and his government. The decision reflects a shift in the international community’s dealings with Israel, which had relied almost entirely on American support to avoid legal accountability, as Netanyahu ignored international institutions and international law throughout the war on Gaza.

Abu Al-Ezz asserts that this behaviour has led to a clash between political relations, which represent the interests of states and strategic alliances, and legal relations, which embody the values of justice and international rights.

Abu Al-Ezz points out that Europe, which was a pioneer in establishing international legal and human rights institutions after World War II to address war crimes, is now facing a moral and political crisis, and finds itself between two choices: either to adhere to its principles and values, or to maintain its strategic relations with Israel.

Abu Al-Ezz points out that one European official described the issue of the International Criminal Court as a “chronic headache” for his country’s foreign policy, explaining that this headache arises from the contradiction between supporting decisions issued by credible international human rights and judicial institutions, and the commitment of Western countries to their alliance with Israel.

Abu Al-Ezz stresses that adhering to international judicial decisions means strengthening the credibility of these countries, while ignoring them reflects political hypocrisy that weakens their moral standing.

The ICC decision is believed to be a severe blow to Netanyahu at both the domestic and international levels. The decision shows that Netanyahu has become a burden on the Israeli political system itself, as the Israeli Prime Minister is now being pursued as a war criminal. The decision also weakens the position of the United States, which used to support Israel unconditionally, and embarrasses it in front of its European allies, who have begun to take tougher positions towards Netanyahu’s policies.

Abu Al-Ezz believes that this decision may lead to the legal and economic isolation of Israel, and poses major legal and political challenges for European countries to deal with the end of Netanyahu’s era, and to reconsider Netanyahu’s consideration as a reliable strategic partner for Europe.

Abu Al-Ezz expects the decision to deepen the division between the United States and Europe over Israel, as the United States continues to support Israel, but Europe is moving towards preserving its democratic values and principles. Abu Al-Ezz believes that this clash is not in the interest of the Palestinians at the present time, as the United States is still the dominant power on the international scene, and the one with the final say in major political issues, including the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Abu Al-Ezz addresses the Iranian experience, which provides a clear example of this reality; the Iranians tried to exploit the difference between the European and American positions on the nuclear file, but the final result was in favor of Washington, which actually leads foreign policy.

Regarding the repercussions of the decision at the international level, Abu Al-Ezz does not rule out that it is part of a larger political deal aimed at prosecuting Netanyahu for the war crimes he committed, in exchange for exonerating the Israeli political system as a whole.

Abu Al-Ezz stresses that lifting the political cover and international legitimacy from Netanyahu represents an important turning point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that Israel must now confront the repercussions of this decision, which restores respect for international law and affirms the role of human rights institutions in holding perpetrators of war crimes accountable.

Major media organizations face shock as a result of the decision

Writer and political analyst Khalil Shaheen believes that the decision of the International Criminal Court represents a political earthquake within Israel, and carries political and legal repercussions in world capitals that support Israel. The decision created a state of shock and hysteria in Israel, as the Israeli political and media consensus was focused on attacking the court and accusing it of anti-Semitism, in an attempt to portray Israel as a victim since World War II.

Shaheen points out that the accusations, although they only targeted two people, they hold the highest positions in the political and military decision-making circle, and therefore they represent a direct condemnation of the policies pursued by Israel during its war on the Gaza Strip and what it is committing in the West Bank.

Shaheen stresses that the court's decision is not subject to a statute of limitations and cannot be appealed, which means that Netanyahu and Galant will remain subject to legal prosecution even after they leave power.

Regarding the international media, Shaheen believes that part of it reflects the positions of the countries to which the media outlets belong, as some major powers in Europe appear to be in a state of embarrassment or hesitation between abiding by the court’s decision or continuing to support Israel.

He explains that major media institutions are facing a shock as a result of this decision, as they are now forced to deal with the fact that Israel is being accused, for the first time, of committing war crimes at an official international level, even if the powers of the International Criminal Court relate to prosecuting individuals and not states.

Shaheen points out that despite the passage of more than a year since the war in Gaza, some international media outlets still hesitate to use the term “genocide” to describe what happened, which reflects the political pressures facing these institutions, or the bias of their media discourse towards the narrative of the occupying state.

He added: However, the court's decision imposes itself on the international media discourse, which will lead to a reshaping of attitudes towards Israel and its crimes.

On the other hand, Shaheen points out that the United States, Israel's largest partner, is responsible for the continuation of Israeli crimes, as it provides full political and military support to it.

Shaheen believes that Israel is doing in Palestine what the United States did to the indigenous people (the Red Indians), where it exterminated 100 million people, and left the indigenous people at a rate that does not exceed 1% of the total population today.

Shaheen points out that this colonial settlement culture explains part of the American positions supporting Israel and justifying its crimes against the Palestinians, especially during the recent war on Gaza.

Shaheen believes that issuing arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Galant is the first step in a long process of holding the leaders of the Israeli occupation accountable.

Shaheen points out that the legal team that follows up on the files of Israeli crimes and violations, consisting of international human rights institutions, organizations and figures, and with the follow-up of the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in addition to the efforts of Palestinian human rights institutions, has been working for years to collect evidence and document the crimes committed by Israeli political and military leaders, including settler leaders.

Shaheen confirms that these efforts may result in the issuance of more arrest warrants in the coming period, as expectations indicate that the charges may include dozens of Israeli politicians, officers and soldiers.

Shaheen explains that the decision of the International Criminal Court places restrictions on the movements of Israeli officials, as they are now threatened with arrest in countries that have signed the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court, pointing out that this situation affects diplomatic and political relations between Israel and these countries.

Shaheen points out that in an attempt to circumvent the decision, Israeli officials may resort to meeting their counterparts on airplanes, which they consider to be Israeli sovereign territory, noting that the implementation of arrest warrants includes the entry of any of the accused into the sovereign airspace of countries. Despite these attempts, the court’s decision poses new challenges for Israel on the international scene.

With US President Donald Trump set to return to power, Shaheen points to mounting pressure on the court, including new sanctions.

Shaheen points out that Israel may respond to the court’s decision by intensifying its measures against the Palestinians, including escalating its open annexation of the West Bank and legalizing settlements, and may resort to more retaliatory steps in Gaza, which requires Palestinian human rights organizations to redouble their efforts to document crimes and provide more evidence to the International Criminal Court.

The decision is an important legal and diplomatic development.

Dr. Dalal Erekat, Professor of Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at the Arab American University, confirms that the decision of the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Galant represents an important legal and diplomatic development in the field of international justice.

Erekat points out that this decision sparked mixed reactions in the international media, as some media outlets welcomed it as a step towards holding accountable perpetrators of crimes against humanity and war crimes, while others considered it a politicized decision that unfairly targets Israel.

Erekat points out that these different positions of the international media reflect the international political and diplomatic divisions over the Palestinian issue, as well as the media’s bias towards some global powers.

Erekat believes that this decision puts the member states of the International Criminal Court before a real test of their commitment to international law, as they must cooperate in implementing arrest warrants, including arresting and surrendering the accused.

However, Erekat stresses that this process could face serious diplomatic and political obstacles, especially if the United States intervenes to protect Israel by pressuring or threatening member states.

Erekat points out that the United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court, and has previously rejected the court's jurisdiction in the Palestinian territories.

Erekat explains that Washington considers these steps politicized and affect its strategic interests and those of its allies, including Israel.

She points out that the United States has used a federal law issued in 2002 known as the “American Servicemembers Protection Act,” or the so-called “Hague Invasion Act,” which gives the US president broad powers, including the use of military force, to protect US citizens and their allies from any trial before the International Criminal Court, which indicates that US and Israeli pressure is based on the federal “Hague Invasion Act.”

Erekat explains that international law is above domestic laws, and that arrest warrants issued by the court oblige member states of the Rome Statute to implement them.

Erekat points out that many countries have declared their readiness to cooperate with the court in arresting the accused if they enter their territories.

However, Erekat stresses that achieving justice remains dependent on the extent to which the member states of the court are not affected and are independent from American and Israeli pressures.

Erekat urges the need to follow up on the files related to the occupation's crimes, including the issues of prisoners and settlements, stressing that this path is long but essential to achieving justice for the Palestinian people.

Erekat stressed that the recent legal achievement should be the beginning of building international momentum to support Palestinian rights and put an end to impunity.

Erekat calls on human rights and humanitarian institutions in the countries that signed the Rome Statute to mobilize support for the implementation of the decisions of the International Criminal Court, by pressuring their governments to fulfill their international obligations.

Erekat explained that these institutions can play a pivotal role in enhancing the chances of arresting and extraditing suspects, despite the political and diplomatic challenges they may face in countries with close relations with Israel and the United States.

She stressed the importance of this decision in the context of the Palestinian legal and diplomatic struggle, noting that achieving justice requires perseverance and commitment to transferring the files of the occupation’s crimes to international institutions, stressing that this achievement should be an incentive to enhance legal efforts to hold accountable all those involved in crimes against the Palestinian people.

Israel has become exposed to the world

In turn, writer and political researcher Dr. Aql Salah confirms that the decision of the International Criminal Court represents a legal and political earthquake for Israel on the international scene, and places Israel before the mirror of truth in the eyes of the international community, especially the Western countries that have always supported it.

Salah points out that Israel, which has always claimed to be a civilized democratic state similar to Western democracies, has been exposed to the world after this official decision issued by the highest international judicial body.

Salah asserts that this development reflects a qualitative shift in the Western media narrative towards Israel, as it has become difficult for the Western media, especially the media of countries allied with Israel, to question the credibility of the International Criminal Court or directly attack the decision, with the exception of some voices that have tried to defend Israel.

Salah explains that the court’s decision legally stigmatized Israel internationally for committing war crimes, genocide, and widespread destruction in the Gaza Strip, even if the decision concerns individuals and not countries, but it prosecutes the top of the political and military pyramid in Israel.

Salah points out that this decision was a severe blow to the Israeli narrative, especially that related to the events of October 7, 2023, which attempted to exploit those events to justify its criminal military actions in Gaza, and which became exposed and rejected by world public opinion.

Legally binding on all member states

Salah stresses that the ICC's decision is legally binding on all 124 member states, meaning that Netanyahu and Galant will not be able to enter these countries without facing the risk of arrest.

Salah stresses that this decision puts Israel's allied countries in an embarrassing position, as they are required to implement the decision in accordance with their international obligations.

Salah asserts that Washington, despite not being a member of the International Criminal Court, is working to provide full support to Israel in its war on Gaza, noting that the United States, which was founded on principles similar to Israel’s history of genocide against indigenous peoples, is no stranger to hostility towards the International Criminal Court.

Salah points out that the American double standards were clearly evident, as it supported the court when it issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, but is now trying to find solutions and exits to protect Israel from the decision.

An important opportunity to mobilize international efforts to hold Netanyahu accountable

Salah points out that the United States has used its veto four times since October 7, 2023, in an attempt to block any international resolutions condemning Israel. The last use of the veto was hours before the ICC decision was issued, when it used its veto against a draft resolution submitted by the UN Security Council calling for an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.

Salah stresses that this decision represents an important opportunity to mobilize international efforts to hold Netanyahu and Galant accountable before the international judiciary, and it also strengthens the Palestinian narrative, which has become clearer and more legitimate before the international community.

Salah stresses that the decision opens the door to stronger action to stop the war of extermination in Gaza, especially in light of the escalating international pressure on Israel to isolate it in various fields, including academic, cultural and sports.

Salah stressed that the decision of the International Criminal Court is an unprecedented development in the context of supporting Palestinian rights, noting that this decision may lead to long-term repercussions on Israel's international standing, which will enhance efforts to end the aggression on Gaza and prosecute the perpetrators of crimes against the Palestinian people.

For his part, Professor Dr. Jamal Harfoush, Professor of Scientific Research Methods and Political Studies at the University of the Academic Research Center in Brazil, explains that the issuance of an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court against figures of the stature of Netanyahu and Galant constitutes a legal and political earthquake that is directly reflected in the global media.

Harfoush says: “On the one hand, Western media outlets stand out among attempts to justify Israel’s positions and defend its policies, and on the other hand, independent media outlets that speak on behalf of oppressed peoples are witnessing widespread interest in this decision, and are focusing on the moral and legal dimension of holding accountable those behind crimes against humanity.

Harfoush asserts that this echo reflects a clear division between currents seeking to protect Israeli influence and others calling for the necessity of achieving international justice and applying the law regardless of political considerations.

On the other hand, Harfoush stresses that the next step after the issuance of the arrest warrants requires strategic action on several levels, the most important of which are: diplomatic, media, and legal.

He added: Diplomatically, pressure must be put on the states parties to the Rome Statute to ensure their commitment to implementing the memorandum if Netanyahu and Galant enter their territories, with a focus on activating the legal mechanisms that allow for the extradition of wanted persons.

He continues: As for the media and legal aspects, it is necessary to mobilize international public opinion and document the violations committed, in a way that strengthens the position of the court and prevents any attempts to undermine its powers. This includes cooperating with international human rights organizations and highlighting the crimes that led to the issuance of the memorandum to ensure maintaining international momentum.

On the other hand, Harfoush explains that Washington opposes the International Criminal Court because it sees it as a direct threat to its sovereignty and the interests of its allies, most notably Israel.

Harfoush points out that Washington fears that the court will turn into an arena for holding American or Israeli officials accountable for international crimes, which opens the door to broad demands for international justice that may include former or current American leaders.

The United States is trying to impose a selective international order.

According to Harfoush, this hostility reflects the United States’ insistence on imposing a selective international system that serves its interests, far from international laws that might restrict its hegemony or limit its alliances with regimes involved in violations.

Harfoush points out that any decline in America's support for Israel in the face of such decisions may be viewed as weakness in the face of its opponents in the Middle East, which is what Washington seeks to avoid.

Meanwhile, Harfouche stresses that there must be movement on several levels, as it is necessary to submit complete and documented files to the national judiciary in the countries that signed the Rome Statute, to ensure the issuance of local executive orders in line with the court’s memorandum.

Harfoush stresses the need to enhance cooperation with local and international human rights and humanitarian organizations to pressure governments to respect their legal obligations and avoid providing a safe haven for wanted persons.

Harfoush points to the need to launch focused media campaigns to clarify the importance of implementing the resolution from the perspective of international justice and combating impunity, with a focus on the moral and legal repercussions of any failure to implement the resolution.

Harfoush explains that this movement should not be limited to Arab or Islamic countries, but rather include every country that believes in the principles of justice and the rule of international law.

International consensus on the need to hold Israeli officials accountable

For his part, Dr. Saad Nimr, a professor of political science at Birzeit University, says that the decision of the International Criminal Court regarding the crimes committed by Israeli officials, headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of War Yoav Galant, received wide attention in the international media.

Nimer points out that this decision was welcomed by many international newspapers, as it seemed clear that there was international consensus on the necessity of holding these officials accountable for the crimes they committed against the Palestinian people, especially those that fall within the category of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Nimr confirms that this interest was not limited to European countries only, but also included non-European countries, which reflects the fact that the trial of Israeli officials is no longer just a local political issue, but has become a subject of an international nature.

Nimer points out that this decision came as a result of the commitment of many countries that signed the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court to implement these decisions, as these countries are committed to arresting Netanyahu and Galant if they set foot on their territory.

Nimr explains that approximately 124 countries have expressed their commitment to implementing this decision, knowing that some small countries have expressed their desire to receive Netanyahu despite the decision, but the court has the authority to impose sanctions on countries that evade implementing the decisions.

On the other hand, Nimr points out that the next stage will be full of challenges for Netanyahu and Defense Minister Galant, as they will face great difficulty in traveling to any international country and will face legal risks, which will put them in an awkward position if they decide to visit any country that may be a signatory to the Rome Statute.

"Even if Netanyahu or Galant tried to travel to the United States, in the event of any emergency, such as an emergency landing in a country that is a signatory to the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court, that country would be obligated to implement the court's decision," Nimer says.

America on the defensive over the ICC decision

In another context, Nimr asserts that the United States, which has always supported Israel politically and militarily, now finds itself in a defensive position regarding the decision of the International Criminal Court, as the prosecutions may extend to include some American officials who supported Israel in its crimes against the Palestinians, if the court continues to issue more arrest warrants for Israeli officials for crimes committed in the mass killings and genocide in the Gaza Strip.

Nimr stresses that countries and international parties must work to encourage countries to declare their commitment to the resolution, especially with regard to boycotting Israel on the political and economic levels.

Nimr believes that this decision is not only a legal step, but has serious political repercussions on Israel's image in the international community.

Nimr points out that Israel today has been convicted before the International Criminal Court on charges of committing war crimes, and that international human rights organizations must take advantage of this moment to pressure the international community to hold Israel accountable.

Nimr calls on human rights organizations to work to raise international awareness about the crimes committed by Israel against the Palestinians, encourage countries to abide by the court’s decision, and urge the International Criminal Court to prosecute more Israeli military leaders who participated in these crimes.

Nimr stresses the need to invest this decision politically, economically and socially, whether at the level of pressuring people in countries around the world to approve a boycott against Israel or at the level of spreading awareness about this issue, which confirms the need for a program to invest this decision.