The recent issuance of arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Security Minister Yoav Gallant marks a pivotal moment in the global pursuit of justice for war crimes, The Guardian said, describing the warrants as a historic step toward ending impunity for violations of international humanitarian law.

The warrants against the Israeli occupation's leadership represent a departure from a longstanding shield of immunity for the Israeli regime. The Guardian underlined that reactions were polarized: Netanyahu dismissed the warrants as "antisemitic," while Hamas welcomed them as an "important historical precedent."

The legal foundation for the ICC’s actions lies in its jurisdiction over Gaza, the West Bank, and East al-Quds, but the true test will be the response of its 124 member states, which are legally obligated to act on these warrants by arresting and transferring the accused to The Hague.

Failure to enforce these warrants would erode trust in international law and embolden powerful states and their allies to disregard justice. The Guardian emphasized the moral and legal imperative to hold leaders accountable, irrespective of their stature, stating that consistency in applying international law is essential to maintain its credibility.

US refuses to recognize ICC

Related News

Pakistan diverts to 'India-plus' strategy as US-India relations grow

John Bolton warns of global crises risk in Trump's upcoming term

The article also criticized the United States and the Israeli occupation for their rejection of ICC jurisdiction. Washington’s refusal to recognize the court, coupled with threats of sanctions against cooperating nations, was described as a dangerous precedent that undermines the principles of international justice. According to The Guardian, such resistance conveys a troubling message: that the rules of law apply only to weaker nations, not global powers.

The charges underlying the warrants include starvation as a weapon of war and deliberate attacks on civilians—acts that constitute some of the gravest violations of international humanitarian law. The Guardian called this a defining moment, challenging the international community to uphold the principles of justice against political resistance. Failure to act, it argued, would render international law meaningless and perpetuate a global order where power dictates impunity.

The ICC’s actions signify more than just a legal proceeding; they challenge the current international order. By endorsing the court’s decision, member states can reinforce the principle that no leader is above the law. Upholding these principles, The Guardian concluded, is critical to a just international system where law protects all, not just the powerful.

'Humiliating for Israel'

The Washington Post said Friday that the US reactions to the recent ICC arrest warrants signify a humiliating moment for "Israel" as many nations like the Netherlands, France, and Canada vowed to abide by international law.

Ishaan Tharoor wrote in The Washington Post that Benjamin Netanyahu may have to think twice before making an emergency stop in nations that would arrest him, something Andrew Miller, a former US State Department official calls "partial reverse of normalization."

Rather than Israeli officials freely traveling to other nations, they are now unable to visit countries "that have recognized Israel for decades," Miller notes

The ICC's pursuit of Vladimir Putin has received backing from the Biden administration and several Republican senators, with Senator Lindsey Graham supporting the court's activities as a critical, evidence-based step toward international justice "that will stand the test of history."

In a brazen double standard, Graham only Yesterday described the court as "a dangerous joke," and "irresponsible" for issuing a warrant for Netanyahu, calling for the US to sanction the body, Tharoor writes.