Netanyahu and Galant are threatened with arrest in 124 countries.. The decision of the International Court causes hysteria in the Israeli occupation

Israeli officials went crazy on Thursday, amid a state of hysteria and low reactions attacking the International Criminal Court and accusing it of anti-Semitism, Israel’s ready scapegoat for every event, in response to the arrest warrants issued by it against the occupation government’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Security Minister Yoav Galant, on charges of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

A major slap in the face to Israel as a whole, with many consequences, and may later extend to other figures, especially in the occupation army, in light of the ongoing genocide crimes in the Gaza Strip. A decision that has never before extended to a state that portrays itself as "Western and democratic", which makes it a historic decision, in this sense and others.

From today, Netanyahu and Galant are subject to arrest in 124 countries that are members of the court, and they must think carefully before any trip abroad, as it is not only about their destination, but also about the airport of the country where any plane carrying them might land in case of emergency, or if they board an Israeli ship.

There are many scenarios in which an arrest could occur, and the moment of truth and implementation by the member states of the court remains the real test. The decision affects aspects including security, politics, trade, arms deals, and others.

Before the arrest warrants were issued, the occupying state tried to challenge the credibility and jurisdiction of the court and deny the crimes attributed to it and its leaders, despite the scenes of starvation, killing, destruction, and genocide in the Gaza Strip, but its attempts failed.

The occupying state has also recently worked to distort the court, claiming that the ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan is targeting Israeli officials in an attempt to cover up the sex scandals that are haunting him. Romanian Judge Julia Motoc abruptly left the court, which some observers believe was due to Israeli pressure.

The occupying state also challenged the impartiality of the newly appointed judge Betty Holler to the Pre-Trial Chamber examining the arrest warrants, on the grounds that she previously worked in the Office of the Prosecutor, and is seeking to remove her. Added to this are the threats made by the United States to the court, in the context of Washington’s steadfast support for Tel Aviv.

Historic decision

In an interview with Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, international law lecturer Hala Khoury Bisharat confirmed that the court’s decision is historic in several respects, not only with regard to Israel and the Palestinian victims, but also “historic in terms of international criminal justice, regarding international crimes and war crimes against humanity.”

She continued: "This is the first time this has happened to a Western country that is considered a democracy. The decision has several consequences and carries several meanings, including restoring respect for international criminal law and international courts, in light of the current situation and the paralysis of the UN Security Council in taking a decision to stop the war on Gaza, and we saw in the last session the use of the veto by the United States."

Khoury Bisharat pointed out that "the decision is important in light of the paralysis of the international system, and it restores the dignity of the victims in Gaza, and the existence of an accountability mechanism in the face of the policy of impunity as is happening with Israel. This means that no one is above international law."

She explained that "in the paths of international law for accountability, there is the International Criminal Court and there are local courts, meaning sovereign states, but they hold war criminals accountable, such as Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands and New Zealand. This is what is called the authority of universal jurisdiction, and it has previously prosecuted Israeli leaders based on lawsuits filed therein."

She pointed out that "the third path is through the establishment of a specific court by the Security Council. But the path of the criminal court is the main one today. On the level of the Palestinian issue, this decision restores the rights in light of the harm done to the Palestinian people, injustice and international crimes... Politics, power and interests are dominant today (in the world and in the relations of states), and therefore, the court's decision means that there is still a system of accountability, in light of the American veto in particular, and the paralysis in the international system, such that the Security Council, for example, cannot stop the war."

Implementing the arrest and serious consequences for Israel

On the other hand, Khoury Bisharat pointed out that international arrest warrants restrict the movement of the individuals and officials against whom they are issued, in this case Netanyahu and Galant, adding that “they may include others, as the warrants are secret so they cannot travel where they want, and member states must help the International Criminal Court implement the decision by carrying out arrests and handing over the detainees, and here is the practical test.”

"We are talking about secret arrest warrants," Khoury Bisharat added. "The court did not publish the warrants, but rather published information about why the warrants were issued. This could have repercussions for other figures, such as the chief of staff and other Israeli officials, especially in the army. This could be just the beginning."

She pointed out that "all Western European countries that classify themselves as liberal have local laws that prevent them from economic cooperation with countries that have a criminal stigma. Therefore, today's decision issued against the Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister stigmatizes the entire entity."

She also wondered: "Will this decision make the European Union reconsider economic relations with Israel, for example, and certainly arms sales to it, since European domestic laws clearly state that no country should deal with a country that violates human rights. When the International Criminal Court issues an arrest warrant against the head of a country's government, this has consequences."

Strengthening the case in the International Court of Justice

The international law professor said the arrest warrants could also affect the course of the case brought by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of war crimes and genocide in the Gaza Strip, saying, “This decision will strengthen the issue of intentional genocide and the evidence for the case at the International Court of Justice.”

This is helped by the fact that the ICC is a criminal court, meaning that in order for a person to be convicted before this court, the evidence must be more than 90% conclusive regarding certain events. Therefore, the parties involved in the other case may cite the ICC because the case is related.”

Netanyahu will not speak at the United Nations, and Israel has two options
One of the consequences of the decision is that it may prevent the Prime Minister of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, from giving any future speech at the United Nations, “because it will not invite to the platform a person wanted for international crimes. This is something that is unreasonable and cannot happen.”

“This affects him as a prime minister who wants to represent his country,” according to law professor Hala Khoury Bisharat. She explained that Israel has two ways out of the case, but she rules out either of them happening. “The first is for Israel to open a criminal investigation itself into Netanyahu and Galant on the issues of war crimes, starvation and killing of civilians, preventing humanitarian aid, and what was mentioned in the international criminal case.”

"As for the other solution, it is Israel's decision that it wants to establish a Palestinian state and peace, provided that there are serious and immediate steps. In this case, the UN Security Council can refer a request to the International Criminal Court to freeze the judicial process because there is a political path to the solution," according to Hala Khoury.

Dreyfus and Anti-Semitism

Israeli officials were quick to accuse the ICC of anti-Semitism. It’s the same ready-made claim they repeat in every case against Israeli actions, and was used a few days ago, for example, after Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer fans caused trouble in Amsterdam by removing Palestinian flags and supporting the war of genocide in Gaza, prompting groups to respond to the attack.

But Israel has actually lost since the beginning of the war on Gaza the battle for awareness about the world that has reached the scenes of massacres and the killing of innocents, despite investing huge sums of money to change the narrative. And you probably won’t find many who repeat this behind it, except for the United States and a few others.

Netanyahu's sarcasm and opportunism reached the point of comparing the court's decision to the case of Alfred Dreyfus, the Jewish officer in the French army who was tried in 1894 on charges of leaking and transferring military secrets from the French army to the German army in exchange for money, a case with a completely different context.

The reactions and their low level in terms of the vocabulary used and the explicit insults may express the troubled mentalities, but also the collapse of the Israeli narrative, and the slap in the face of the arrogance that dominates the Israeli leaders, in the state that until today thought that it was above international law despite the erosion of its status.

The most dangerous moment of legal decline in Israel's history

Eliav Lieblich, a professor of international law at Tel Aviv University, wrote in Haaretz after the ruling that the issuance of arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Galant is “the most dangerous moment of legal decline in Israel’s history.”

"Now, the leaders of the State of Israel, which until recently prided itself on its democratic system and its strong, independent judicial system, find themselves on the same list as figures such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, ousted Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, and the late Libyan Colonel Muammar Gaddafi," he added.

"It is easy to be carried away, as opposition leaders are already doing, by the instinct to close ranks and shout anti-Semitism (in response to the orders). But the truth must be told: this is a development that could have been prevented if the issue of humanitarian aid had not been dangerously politicized from the first moment of the war, to please the extremist elements in the (government) coalition," he noted.

Lawsuits in local courts against Israeli officials

This is not the first time that arrest warrants have been issued against Israeli officials, or that lawsuits have been filed against them in other cases over the past years, but it is the first time that a decision has been issued by the International Criminal Court, and not by local courts.

Among these cases, for example, is a lawsuit against former Shin Bet chief Ami Ayalon in the Netherlands, filed by the family of a Palestinian for torture and causing harm. An arrest warrant was issued for him, but he never made it to the Netherlands. A lawsuit was filed against former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni in Britain and against several officers in the occupation army in Spain.

There was a damages suit against Ehud Barak in the United States when he was Minister of Defense. In 2005, Major General (res.) Doron Almog, who had previously commanded the Southern Command in the occupation army, arrived in London, but did not get off the plane and returned after being informed that an arrest warrant had been issued against him on charges of war crimes during the Intifada.

In 2010, the then Chief of Staff of the Israeli Occupation Army, Gabi Ashkenazi, was forced to postpone his trip to a meeting of his counterparts in the NATO armies for a few hours, for fear that there were arrest warrants against him.

Last June, Israeli reports indicated that Netanyahu feared arrest when he headed to Washington if his plane had to land at the airport of a member state of the International Criminal Court.

Source: Al-Araby Al-Jadeed