The Court’s Ruling: Implications More Significant than Implementation

November 22, 2024

Nasser Kandil

• Six months after the prosecutor’s request and the review of nearly fifty appeals from the occupying entity and several Western nations, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for the occupying entity’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his dismissed Minister of Defense, Yoav Gallant, on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The decision’s significance remains intact despite issuing a politically and executively hollow warrant against Commander Mohammed Deif, especially after the court dropped pursuits against the martyrs, Commanders Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar. As some U.S. senators have pointed out, this court was established to prosecute leaders from the Global South and East, so naturally, it targets figures like Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as Haniyeh, Sinwar, and Deif. Yet, the historic milestone lies in its pursuit of Benjamin Netanyahu.

• The ICC was established after World War II, primarily to prosecute Nazi war criminals, particularly for crimes against European Jews, including the Holocaust and mass executions in gas chambers. Today, it is pursuing the descendants of Holocaust victims for perpetrating what can be called the “Holocaust of the 21st century” against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. This historical irony underscores a critical shift: the protective shield once provided by Holocaust narratives to overlook the atrocities of the occupying entity has eroded. The entity, founded on the original crime of displacing Palestine’s indigenous population, can no longer hide behind Holocaust victimhood, as its own crimes far exceed in scale and horror those recounted in its own narratives of the Holocaust.

• The second point is that the decision faced fierce resistance from Western governments, with the U.S. administration, spanning Biden to Trump, leading the charge to deter the ICC. From legal arguments to threats of sanctions and personal attacks and a defamation campaign by Mossad against the Prosecutor and judges, every avenue was explored.

Despite these pressures, the ruling stands as a testament to the global awakening. Over 76 years of systemic oppression and the past year’s unparalleled brutality have galvanised public opinion worldwide, culminating in protests and campaigns that reached the judges’ own lives. Facing a moral dilemma, they opted to become a tribunal of conscience, reflecting the global rejection of the impunity the West grants the occupying entity. It’s clear that globally public opinion is fed-up with the impunity granted to the occupying entity’s leaders who have been and will remain above international law, escaping any punishment or prosecution.

• The third point is that global public outrage has pressured even governments previously complicit in shielding the occupying entity to announce their endorsement of the ICC’s decision. This decision marks the first time the occupying entity faces genuine international legal scrutiny, experiencing global condemnation and isolation. Accusations of antisemitism, once weaponized to silence critics of the entity and its leadership, have lost their potency.

Europe in particular – its intelligentsia, philosophers and activists – bore the brunt of this form of intellectual terrorism but the accusation now rings hollow.
Overuse has rendered this charge obsolete, much like the overextended narrative of the Holocaust. In its response, the occupying entity has resorted to branding the court and its judges as antisemitic – a desperate and ineffective tactic in the face of mounting evidence and global disapproval.

• The fourth point: Beyond the symbolic weight of the ICC’s decision, practical consequences loom. Legal proceedings in European courts against military officers and officials of the occupying entity are gaining momentum, with extensive lists of names implicated in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts of genocide against Palestinians. The stigma associated with the “Israeli” identity has turned from pride to shame. European settlers may increasingly seek the security of their original nationalities over their adopted one. Incidents of unrest, from Amsterdam’s streets to empty stadiums hosting Maccabi Tel Aviv in Paris, signal the growing rejection of Israeli identity as a symbol of justice and the evolving perception of those bearing this identity. No longer seen as an extension of Western-values in the East, they are now viewed as embodiments of criminality. For settlers, especially those of European origin, returning to their original citizenship increasingly feels like the safer, more dignified option – especially that the entity no longer provides the life-style and security it once promised.

• The fifth point is regarding Arab states pursuing normalisation with the occupying entity – they find themselves in an untenable position. They must now grapple with their complicity. As the ICC – an institution founded by the West, whom they mimic – condemns the occupying entity’s leaders, these states find themselves clinging to a diplomatic relationship that has become a global disgrace. If ties to Arab and Islamic solidarity no longer resonate with these regimes, then pragmatism alone should prompt them to reconsider. Their association with an entity branded as a pariah undermines their legitimacy and aligns them with historical shame rather than progress.

• This ruling is more than a legal milestone – it is a global reckoning, signalling a shift in how the occupying entity is perceived, isolating its leaders as criminals, and dismantling decades of impunity.