Dr. Raed Abu Badawi: Trump is pushing for amendments to the Rome Statute to prevent the prosecution of individuals who do not hold the nationality of member states

Khalil Shaheen: 79 countries signing a statement opposing Trump’s actions reflects international concern about undermining international accountability mechanisms and weakening the court

Dr. Tamara Haddad: Trump's sanctions will not succeed because most countries in the world are concerned with enforcing international law and ensuring that perpetrators of crimes do not escape punishment

Noman Abed: Trump's "America First" slogan reflects his desire to impose American law as a global standard instead of international law

Dr. Saad Nimr: Trump’s decision aims to cast doubt on the credibility and impartiality of the court and fears that it will become a legal weapon against Israel and its allies

Sulaiman Basharat: The response to the US sanctions is not to accept them as a fait accompli, but rather to continue to strengthen the role of the court and support it

In a new escalation that reflects the US administration’s approach to confronting international institutions, US President Donald Trump imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court, in a clear attempt to undermine its role and limit its authority to prosecute those responsible for war crimes.

In separate interviews with “I,” writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors believe that this step by Trump comes within the framework of a broader strategy pursued by Washington to protect its soldiers and military officials from international prosecution, in addition to providing unlimited support to its allies, most notably Israel, which faces arrest warrants issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Galant.

Writers, analysts, specialists, and university professors confirm that American pressure on the International Criminal Court is not limited to imposing sanctions, but extends to attempts to amend the Rome Statute, ensuring that American and Israeli officials are excluded from the jurisdiction of the court.

They point out that these moves come as a response to ongoing investigations into war crimes committed by the Israeli army, in addition to fears of opening other files related to American military interventions in countries such as Afghanistan. These pressures also coincide with a broader American approach to targeting international institutions, such as the Human Rights Council and UNRWA, in an effort to undermine any international mechanism that might impose restrictions on the influence of the United States and its allies.

Despite mounting US pressure, writers, analysts, experts and academics say the ICC has broad support from the international community, with 79 countries signing a statement opposing the Trump administration’s sanctions, a move that reflects growing concern about attempts to undermine international justice.

Trump administration adopts comprehensive escalation approach

Dr. Raed Abu Badawiyya, Professor of International Law and International Relations at the Arab American University, confirms that the sanctions imposed by US President Donald Trump on the International Criminal Court come in the context of a comprehensive escalation approach adopted by his administration since taking office, noting that Trump has opened battles on all fronts, including traditional allies of the United States.

Abu Badawiya explains that this strategy was not limited to trade confrontations with Canada, the European Union and China, but extended to threatening policies in the Middle East, including the Gaza Strip, where he is trying to impose American control over the situation there.

Abu Badawiya confirms that Trump did not hesitate to attack international institutions, such as the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the World Health Organization, and even the International Criminal Court, which has become the core of American targeting.

According to Abu Badawiya, there are several basic motives behind Trump’s hostility to the International Criminal Court, the most prominent of which is: protecting American soldiers from international prosecution, as the United States fears the possibility of prosecuting its soldiers and military officials for crimes they committed during military operations outside American territory, such as Afghanistan.

Among the reasons, according to Abu Badawiya, is the protection of Israeli officials, especially after arrest warrants were issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Galant, which angered Washington and Tel Aviv.

Likewise, pressure is being exerted on the court to amend the Rome Statute, as Washington, led by Trump, seeks to change the court’s jurisdiction mechanism, so that it cannot try individuals who do not hold the citizenship of member states of the court, even if they committed war crimes or crimes against humanity on the territory of a member state.

Abu Badawi notes that Trump has resorted to more stringent executive measures, such as imposing direct sanctions on the court, its judges, and the countries that support it, which increases pressure on the court and weakens its ability to hold Israeli leaders and American soldiers accountable.

He believes that the sanctions imposed by Trump on the court aim to force the founding states of the court, especially the members of the Rome Statute, to make concessions, which may amount to amending the court’s statute to ensure that the United States and its allies are removed from the court’s jurisdiction.

Abu Badawiya asserts that American pressure will increase on the European Union, which is one of the most prominent supporters of the court, with the aim of changing the laws that allow the court to try non-members.

Despite increasing US pressure, Abu Badawi stresses that continued EU support for the ICC will be crucial to protecting its independence.

He explains that Europeans played a major role in establishing the court, and that its headquarters in The Hague enhances the European Union's ability to provide political and legal protection for it.

Abu Badawiya asserts that the European Union has the ability to thwart US sanctions within its territory, which allows the court to continue its work despite US threats.

However, Abu Badawiya did not rule out that American political pressures could lead in the long term to amendments to the court's system, such that it loses the ability to try Americans, Israelis, and other non-members.

Abu Badawiya calls on the international community, especially European countries, to take a decisive stance to support the International Criminal Court, through legal and political measures, most notably: issuing clear official statements confirming support for the court and rejecting American pressure, and activating national laws in member states to enhance the prosecution of war criminals.

Abu Badawiya asserts that the sanctions imposed by Trump on the court will not be able to completely disrupt its work, but will impose political challenges that may affect its independence, explaining that the European position will be decisive in protecting the court and preventing Washington from imposing fundamental amendments to its statute.

A colonial mentality controls Trump's political approach

Writer and political analyst Khalil Shaheen believes that US President Donald Trump's policies towards the International Criminal Court reflect a colonial mentality that controls his political approach, noting that this mentality has been clear since he assumed the presidency, and perhaps even during his election campaigns.

Shaheen explains that Trump seeks to reproduce the colonial model in international relations, as the world has witnessed his positions that reflect a desire to annex Canada and Mexico, in addition to seizing the Panama Canal and Greenland, pointing out that the latest thing he proposed was seizing the Gaza Strip and dealing with it as a real estate and investment deal, with the displacement of its residents, which brings to mind the era of colonialism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when colonial powers practiced wars and crimes without supervision or accountability.

He points out that Trump's attempts to undermine the ICC are part of broader efforts to reshape the international order, ensuring that Americans and Israelis enjoy greater impunity for crimes, while denying justice to victims.

Shaheen explains that Trump's policies support Israel in its aggression, noting that allowing arms and ammunition deals worth $7.4 billion is a new crime because it supports Israeli warlords.

Shaheen points out that Trump's reception of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington, despite the issuance of an arrest warrant against him by the International Criminal Court, is an additional crime, and reveals Trump's attempts to thwart any international prosecution of him or his allies.

Shaheen explains that these policies are not limited to the International Criminal Court, but could later extend to the International Court of Justice, which is currently considering the case filed by South Africa against Israel regarding genocide in the Gaza Strip.

He believes that undermining the international justice system means returning to the colonial period, when major powers exploited peoples and resources without accountability.

Shaheen stresses that the basic step to confront these policies lies in confronting them legally, and adhering to international law as a weapon to hold accountable those responsible for crimes.

He stresses the importance of supporting the International Criminal Court by providing protection for its staff, including judges, officials and data collectors who work in the field to collect evidence of crimes committed, warning that the pressures exerted by Trump could lead to the weakening of the court or even the closure of some of its offices and the reduction of its staff.

Shaheen points out that 79 countries signed a statement opposing Trump's actions against the International Criminal Court, stressing that this opposition reflects international concern about undermining accountability mechanisms for crimes and weakening the court itself.

Shaheen calls for strengthening Palestinian coordination with the countries of the world, especially with the countries that met in South Africa and formed what is known as the “Hague Group” to support the International Criminal Court.

Shaheen stresses the importance of expanding this support to include the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, to ensure that investigations into crimes committed against the Palestinians continue, and that legal prosecution is not limited to Netanyahu and former War Minister Yoav Galant, but rather expanded to include all those involved.

He stressed that a unified and firm regional and international stance could force Trump to back down from his policies, noting that previous experience in his first term showed that he might be forced to back down if he faced strong opposition.

Shaheen calls for confronting Trump's attempts to reshape the legal rules of the international system to suit his colonial and authoritarian agenda, stressing that strengthening the position of countries that reject his approach could create real obstacles to his attempts to return the world to an era of impunity and colonial hegemony.

A clear attempt to abort international accountability

Writer and political researcher Dr. Tamara Haddad believes that US President Donald Trump’s decision to impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court represents a clear attempt to abort international accountability and weaken global justice, stressing that this approach serves Israel primarily by protecting its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and its former Minister of War Yoav Galant from any accountability for their crimes.

Haddad stresses that this American decision constitutes a flagrant violation of international law, not only in its targeting of the Criminal Court, but also in its undermining of efforts to achieve international justice, which leads to weakening the authority of international law and encouraging war crimes.

She believes that imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court reflects several essential meanings, most notably: the United States’ awareness of the court’s power to prosecute and its independence, Trump’s efforts to reduce the court’s role and weaken its influence, Trump’s fear of future arrest warrants against him or against American officials, and to prevent the international isolation of the United States and Israel.

Haddad stresses that it has become clear that the court has real influence, after it was able to issue arrest warrants against prominent Israeli leaders, and this indicates the possibility of prosecuting American officials, including presidents, defense ministers, or officers in the American army, especially since Washington provides Israel with military, political, and logistical support in its operations, so Trump’s decision came in an attempt to prevent prosecution.

Haddad points out that the court may in the future issue legal decisions holding Trump responsible for his unlimited support for Israel, which continuously violates human rights in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and this concern prompted him to take preemptive measures to weaken the court and obstruct its work.

Haddad believes that there are several legal, political and media strategies to confront the US sanctions on the International Criminal Court, the most prominent of which are: legal engagement with the US decision, media escalation to strengthen the role of the court, political and diplomatic engagement, mobilizing the global street against the decision, and encouraging the court to continue its work and document international crimes.

Haddad believes that the 124 member states of the court should issue a unified official statement confirming their rejection of the sanctions, calling for the protection of the court, providing it with economic and logistical support, and ensuring the safety of its employees. The case can also be brought before the International Court of Justice or the UN Security Council, given that the Criminal Court is protected under international law.

She stresses that Trump wants to appear as if he is able to impose his dominance over the International Criminal Court, but in reality he faces widespread opposition from the international community.

Haddad expects the court to continue its work despite the sanctions, and may even receive greater support from many countries, which see these sanctions as an American attempt to prevent international justice.

Haddad stresses that these sanctions will not succeed in curbing the court, because most countries in the world are concerned with enforcing international law and ensuring that perpetrators of crimes do not escape punishment, which means that the court will continue its work despite American pressure.

Seeking to impose American hegemony over the world

Writer and political analyst specializing in international relations, Noman Abed, asserts that the policies of US President Donald Trump reflect the approach of American hegemony that seeks to impose control over the world, pointing out that this approach is not new, but rather represents an extension of the traditional American policy based on arrogance, bullying, and brutality.

Abed explains that these policies are embodied in the sanctions imposed by Trump on the International Criminal Court and its judges, in addition to the punitive measures against countries cooperating with the court.

Abed believes that this escalation against the International Criminal Court comes as an extension of the “Hague Raid” law that was approved by the US Congress, which previously imposed restrictions on the court and gave Washington the right to attack the court to hold American or Israeli officials accountable.

Abed points out that the real goal of these measures is to destroy the foundations of international institutions such as the International Criminal Court and the United Nations institutions, or to control them and direct them to serve American interests, so that they become tools that work in favor of American policy on the political, economic, and military levels.

Abed asserts that Trump’s “America First” slogan reflects his desire to impose American law as a global standard as an alternative to international law, so that American law becomes the prevailing and applicable law throughout the world, thus surpassing international law and the system based on international institutions.

Abed warns that such policies lead to global chaos and return the world to the law of the jungle, in which the logic of force prevails instead of international justice.

Abed explains that the American attack on the International Criminal Court intersects with the ongoing Israeli attack on international institutions, as the world witnessed during the war on Gaza an Israeli escalation against the United Nations and its various organizations.

Abed stresses that these brutal policies will not pass without a strong global reaction, expecting that they will lead to an international uprising against American policies that seek to undermine the international order.

Abed points out that the US-Israeli escalation against international institutions puts the world at a dangerous crossroads, where countries will have to choose between adhering to international law and protecting international institutions, or allowing the United States to impose its own law.

Abed stresses that the continuation of this approach will lead to weakening the sovereignty of states and turning global political decision-making into a tool in the hands of the US administration.

Abed calls for the mobilization of the wise and the deep state within the United States to confront these policies, warning that Trump’s continuation of this approach will lead to pushing the United States towards the abyss, instead of being a superpower that protects international law and enhances global stability.

Protecting Israel and America from international legal prosecution

Dr. Saad Nimr, a professor of political science at Birzeit University, believes that the sanctions imposed by US President Donald Trump were not only to protect Israel, but also to protect the United States from international legal prosecution.

Nimr explains that these sanctions included freezing the assets and accounts of the court’s judges, and preventing them from entering the United States, in an attempt to deter the court from investigating war crimes committed by Israel, and to send a clear message to other countries not to take steps similar to South Africa’s position in the International Court of Justice.

Nimr points out that the United States provided direct military support to Israel during the aggression on the Gaza Strip, including supplying it with heavy bombs, military equipment, and direct funding, in addition to diplomatic protection at the United Nations through the use of the veto to prevent any resolutions calling for a halt to the war.

He believes that Washington is a partner in the crimes committed against the Palestinians, which makes it vulnerable to international prosecution if the political will is there to do so.

Nimr believes that Trump's decision to impose sanctions on the court aims to cast doubt on its credibility and impartiality, and prevent it from prosecuting Israeli military leaders who participated in war crimes, for fear that this court will become a legal weapon against Israel and its allies.

He stresses that any future measures the court may take against Israeli army generals will reinforce their international isolation and make them wanted by justice in several countries around the world.

Nimr points out that Washington shows clear duplicity in its dealings with the International Criminal Court, as it welcomed the court’s decision to issue an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, but strongly opposed the arrest warrants issued for Netanyahu and Galant, and went so far as to impose sanctions on the court, as this behavior reflects “political hypocrisy” and undermines the principle of international justice.

He points out that 79 countries around the world have issued a statement condemning the US sanctions on the court, stressing that this step hinders the achievement of international justice, but the Arab position remains largely silent.

Nimr calls for intensifying diplomatic efforts to support the International Criminal Court, especially by Arab and Islamic countries that have not issued clear positions against the US sanctions, stressing that these countries must exploit the court’s decisions against Israeli leaders to support international justice, and not remain in a state of political stagnation.

Nimr suggests that a broad diplomatic campaign be launched, starting from Palestine and extending to the rest of the Arab and Islamic countries, to support the position of the International Criminal Court and increase international pressure on the United States, so that the number of countries rejecting the sanctions exceeds 79 countries.

Nimr points out that this could lead to the creation of a new legal and political environment that would besiege US policies that support Israel, and restore consideration to the role of the International Criminal Court as a tool for accountability and international justice.

Reshaping the international legal system according to the “law of the strong”

Writer and political analyst Suleiman Basharat asserts that the sanctions imposed by Trump on the International Criminal Court carry dangerous implications, the most important of which is the attempt to reshape the international legal system according to the principle of “the law of the strong,” far from the principles of justice and international law.

Basharat points out that these sanctions confirm the United States' bias towards Israel, as this bias is no longer limited to military and political support, but has extended to obstructing any political or legal path that could grant the Palestinians their rights.

According to Basharat, the United States seeks to transform the international legal system into a tool that serves the political interests of the major powers, without regard to international humanitarian law or human rights, which leads to emptying these institutions of their content and turning them into tools that serve the policies of America and its allies.

Basharat asserts that these American sanctions open the door to a new and dangerous model of international violations, as any country will find in the American position a justification for escaping punishment, which threatens the international legal system and renders it worthless, as well as “legitimizing” all the violations practiced by the Israeli occupation against the Palestinians.

He believes that the response to the US sanctions should be not to accept these sanctions as a fait accompli, but rather to continue to strengthen the role of the International Criminal Court, support it, and highlight its importance as an international legal system that cannot be allowed to be emptied of its content.

Basharat stresses the importance of exposing the American role in protecting the Israeli occupation and obstructing international justice, through media and diplomatic campaigns that reveal American double standards.

Basharat stresses that despite the impact of the sanctions on the International Criminal Court, the pursuit of Israeli war criminals must not stop, but rather the scope of legal claims before various international and national courts must be expanded, whether at the individual or official level, to ensure continued legal pressure on the occupation.

Basharat calls for the formation of a human rights and humanitarian lobby at the Arab, Islamic and international levels, which works to confront the United States’ attempts to undermine international justice, and ensures the continued operation of legal institutions despite political and financial pressures.

Basharat stresses that this moment represents a real test for the international community and for the parties that believe in justice and human rights.