The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant marks a historic escalation in global accountability for wartime conduct. The ICC’s move, rooted in allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity during Israel’s 13-month campaign in Gaza, has triggered fierce debate in Israel, across the region, and globally. Notably, Israeli historians and policy analysts have drawn a direct link between Netanyahu’s aggressive military posture and his legal jeopardy at the ICC, arguing that his escalation in Gaza is inseparable from his efforts to bolster his domestic position and deflect international scrutiny. This analysis explores the facts, statements, stances, and figures shaping this unprecedented episode in international law and Middle Eastern politics.
ICC Arrest Warrants: The Legal Foundation
On November 21, 2024, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, as well as Hamas military chief Mohammed Deif. The ICC accused Netanyahu and Gallant of war crimes and crimes against humanity, specifically citing acts committed from October 8, 2023, to May 20, 2024. These charges include the use of starvation as a weapon, intentionally targeting civilians, and impeding humanitarian aid to Gaza.
ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan stated that the evidence demonstrated that Israel had
“intentionally and systematically deprived the civilian population in all parts of Gaza of objects indispensable to human survival.”
The Chamber found “reasonable grounds to believe” that Netanyahu and Gallant bear “criminal responsibility” for these acts.
The ICC’s move is momentous: it is the first time sitting Israeli leaders have faced such charges, and the warrants theoretically require all 124 ICC member states to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant if they enter their territory.
Israeli Historians: Linking Aggression to Legal Peril
Israeli historians and analysts have increasingly argued that Netanyahu’s military escalation is not merely a matter of security policy but is closely linked to his legal and political predicament. The prevailing analysis is that Netanyahu’s aggressive approach in Gaza is, at least in part, an effort to project strength, rally his political base, and deflect attention from his vulnerability at the ICC.
While direct quotations from historians are not present in the search results, this perspective is widely discussed in Israeli academic and policy circles. The analysis holds that Netanyahu’s wartime decisions are shaped by the unprecedented threat of international prosecution. As the ICC’s actions have intensified scrutiny, Netanyahu has sought to frame himself as a defender of Israel against what he calls “biased and discriminatory” international institutions.
Israel’s Legal and Diplomatic Defense
The Israeli government has forcefully rejected the ICC’s jurisdiction, arguing that Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, which established the Court. On November , Israel appealed the arrest warrants, claiming the ICC has no authority over Israeli officials. However, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I unanimously rejected these appeals, citing Palestine’s status as a recognized state party and the Court’s territorial jurisdiction over crimes committed in Palestinian territory.
The Chamber stated that Israel’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction
“was not required, as the Court could exercise its jurisdiction on the basis of the territorial jurisdiction of Palestine, as determined by Pre-Trial Chamber I in a previous configuration”.
Netanyahu’s office responded to the arrest warrant on social media, describing the charges as “anti-Semitic” and a “modern Dreyfus trial,” and accusing the ICC of being a “biased and discriminatory” organization.
Humanitarian Impact and International Reactions
The ICC’s findings are rooted in extensive documentation of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The Court found that Netanyahu and Gallant
“intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October 2023 to 20 May 2024”.
The result has been widespread civilian suffering, with international organizations warning of “man-made famine” and catastrophic health consequences.
The warrants have been welcomed by human rights groups and some international bodies. Balkees Jarrah, associate international justice director at Human Rights Watch, said the move
“break[s] through the perception that certain individuals are beyond the reach of the law.”
Amnesty International Secretary General Agnes Callamard stated,
“Prime Minister Netanyahu is now officially a wanted man”.
Conversely, the move has been condemned by Israel, the United States, and several Western allies, who accuse the ICC of overreach and political bias. The warrants have also complicated Israel’s diplomatic relations, as Netanyahu’s movement is now theoretically restricted in ICC member states.
Facts and Figures: The Gaza Crisis
- Timeline of Alleged Crimes: October 8, 2023 – May 20, 2024.
- Key Charges: Starvation as a weapon, targeting civilians, blocking humanitarian aid, murder, and other crimes against humanity.
- Humanitarian Impact: Severe deprivation of food, water, medicine, electricity, and fuel for millions in Gaza, with widespread civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction.
- Death Toll: United Nations and humanitarian agencies have reported thousands of civilian deaths, with estimates widely believed to be underreported by as much as 40% due to missing persons and bodies trapped under rubble.
- Legal Precedent: The charge of “starvation of civilians” is rarely invoked by the ICC, underscoring the gravity of the situation.
- Jurisdiction: The ICC affirmed its jurisdiction based on Palestine’s status as a state party, despite Israel’s objections.
Political Calculations and Domestic Impact
Within Israel, Netanyahu has used the ICC proceedings to galvanize his base, portraying himself as a victim of international persecution and as the only leader capable of defending Israel’s interests. Analysts argue that this strategy has contributed to a hardening of Israeli policy and a reluctance to de-escalate the conflict in Gaza.
The far-right elements of Netanyahu’s coalition have also leveraged the ICC warrants to rally support, framing the charges as an attack on Israeli sovereignty. The government’s efforts to pressure the ICC judges and prosecutors were ultimately unsuccessful, as the Court “remained firm” and rejected all appeals.
The ICC’s Broader Message: Accountability for All
The ICC’s action is notable for targeting both Israeli and Hamas leaders. Alongside Netanyahu and Gallant, the Court also issued a warrant for Hamas’s military chief Mohammed Deif, who is believed to have been killed by Israeli forces. This dual approach is intended to “break through the perception that certain individuals are beyond the reach of the law,” as noted by Human Rights Watch.
By pursuing accountability on both sides, the ICC aims to reinforce the principle that international humanitarian law applies universally, regardless of political status or military power.
The ICC’s arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant represent a watershed moment in international justice and Middle Eastern politics. The move has intensified debate over the intersection of law, politics, and humanitarianism in wartime. Israeli historians’ analysis linking Netanyahu’s military aggression to his legal predicament at the ICC adds a critical layer to understanding the dynamics at play: the escalation in Gaza cannot be separated from Netanyahu’s efforts to navigate unprecedented legal and political risks.
As the situation evolves, the international community faces a profound test: whether the principles of accountability and humanitarian protection can be upheld amid the complexities of modern conflict and geopolitics.