Netanyahu and ICC: What Does the Warrant Mean?

Recently, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. On the surface, this move might seem like a step toward holding powerful leaders accountable for their actions. However, the chances of Netanyahu facing trial are slim. Political, legal, and practical barriers make it unlikely that the ICC will have any real impact, turning what could have been a moment for justice into little more than a symbolic gesture.

Israel is not a member of the ICC, nor does it recognise the court’s authority. It has consistently rejected the ICC’s investigations, dismissing them as politically motivated and illegitimate. This means the ICC has no real power to enforce its warrants in Israel. Without Israel’s consent, the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant are essentially meaningless. Israel’s stance mirrors that of the United States, which also rejects the ICC’s jurisdiction. The US has long opposed ICC investigations, including those into alleged war crimes committed by its forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even imposed sanctions on ICC officials in 2020 in retaliation for their efforts to investigate American actions.

The ICC also faces a significant practical problem. It doesn’t have its own police force to arrest suspects. Instead, it relies on member states to do the job. If Netanyahu avoids travelling to countries that are part of the ICC, he will never face arrest. Even in countries that are members, enforcement is not guaranteed. A notable example is Omar al-Bashir, the former president of Sudan, who was indicted for war crimes in Darfur. Despite arrest warrants, he was able to travel freely to ICC member countries like South Africa and Jordan, where he was not detained. In 2015, South Africa even hosted al-Bashir at an African Union summit and allowed him to leave the country, despite being bound by the court’s order to arrest him. Similarly, Jordan allowed him to attend an Arab League summit in 2017 without taking action. For Netanyahu, whose global influence is far greater than al-Bashir’s, the chances of any state detaining him are virtually non-existent.

The ICC’s decision has already drawn strong criticism from Israel and its allies. Netanyahu has called the warrants “anti-Semitic” and “absurd,” and Israel has rejected the court’s authority outright. The United States, a key ally of Israel and a non-member of the ICC, has long opposed ICC investigations into both Israeli and American actions. This political backing further shields Netanyahu from facing any real consequences. When the ICC sought to investigate alleged war crimes committed by the US military in Afghanistan, the Trump administration responded with sanctions against the ICC’s top officials. Such political alignment provides Netanyahu with significant protection and makes it even more unlikely that any meaningful action will be taken.

While the ICC does not formally recognise immunity for sitting heads of state, political realities make it highly unlikely that Netanyahu will be arrested while in office. His position as Israel’s prime minister gives him significant diplomatic protection. Even if he were no longer in power, his status as a former leader would probably discourage any country from taking the dramatic step of detaining him. Netanyahu’s global stature and Israel’s extensive diplomatic ties make it unlikely that any nation would risk its relationship with Israel over an arrest. When former Israeli President Moshe Katsav faced charges of sexual assault, several countries, including those within the European Union, were reluctant to take any actions that could strain their diplomatic relations with Israel. If a case as clear-cut as this caused hesitation, it is unlikely that leaders with the political weight of Netanyahu would face any real danger from an ICC arrest warrant.

The ICC’s decision to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant may carry symbolic weight, but the chances of them facing trial are incredibly low. The ICC simply doesn’t have the tools to enforce its own decisions, and political resistance makes it virtually impossible to hold powerful leaders accountable. For Netanyahu, the warrant is little more than a temporary inconvenience with no real impact on his leadership or Israel’s actions in Gaza. This highlights the fundamental limitations of international justice, especially when powerful states are willing to defy the court’s authority. A similar case can be seen with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, who has been indicted by the ICC for crimes related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Despite the charges, Putin continues to operate without the risk of facing arrest, as Russia, like Israel, is not a member of the court and has shown no willingness to comply with ICC rulings. The reality of the ICC warrant is that it’s a warrant that doesn’t warrant hope.

Breathing Life into a Dead System: The Illusion of Justice

The ICC warrant may offer a glimmer of hope to some, but it’s important to recognise the danger in breathing life into a process that, for many, has already failed. For over a year, international norms, institutions, and laws have largely ignored the suffering of the people of Gaza, turning a blind eye to the ongoing violence. No amount of paper or symbolic gestures can undo the death, destruction, and displacement caused by Israel and its Western allies. The real danger lies in reviving a system that has shown time and again it is unable to deliver meaningful justice, especially when its decisions hold little power to create real change. History is full of examples, such as the failed attempts to have figures like al-Bashir and Putin accountable, proving that powerful states will always find ways to sidestep justice when their political interests are at stake.