No cause for alarm: ICC decisions won’t change Israel’s reality

There is no doubt that the decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue arrest warrants against Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant may seem dramatic. In practice, however, this move is more likely to harm the court itself than it is to harm Jerusalem. While the intent behind such measures might be to make a moral statement, the actual outcome is quite the opposite.

Firstly, this decision will further unify Israelis and reinforce the perception that “the whole world is against us.” This sense of siege is not new to Israel; since its establishment, it has faced relentless — and often unfair — international criticism, particularly in its efforts to enhance its security. Every such decision, especially from an international body, strengthens the Israeli narrative that its struggle is just and that external forces aim to undermine its right to self-defense.

Secondly, the limitations of the ICC must be considered. Not only are Israel, the United States, and nearly 80 other countries not members of the court, but US law explicitly prevents the enforcement of such warrants against its key allies, including Israel. Furthermore, federal law directs the US president to use any means necessary to secure the release of detained individuals. This means the decision is not only symbolic, but almost entirely toothless.

Even if countries declare their intention to honor the ICC’s decision, can one truly imagine a European country, during a visit by Israel’s prime minister, sending armed police to arrest the democratically elected leader of the Jewish state? Such a scenario is not only unrealistic, but also highlights the disconnect between the rhetoric and the political reality on the ground.

The arrest warrants also undermine the ICC’s own standing. Instead of being seen as a tool for promoting global justice, the court risks being perceived as an instrument serving political interests and the agendas of nondemocratic regimes that use it for propaganda purposes. This situation may deter additional countries from joining the ICC and could even lead existing member states to withdraw.

Notably, much of the Arab and Muslim world, many of whom are themselves threatened by Iran, have increasingly offered support to Israel. If Israel were indeed committing war crimes in Gaza, wouldn’t those nations that have recently signed peace deals with Israel, such as the UAE or Morocco, sever ties immediately? Instead, the opposite is true: the UAE continues to maintain direct flights to Israel, and Morocco recently commissioned an advanced surveillance satellite built using Israeli technology. Such developments highlight that Israel’s partnerships are growing, not shrinking, even in regions where its relationships were historically strained.

Israel’s legitimacy remains steadfast not only because of strategic relationships, but also due to an understanding that Israel is an irreplaceable asset in the fight against radical forces threatening regional and international stability. The decisions of the ICC may stir controversy, but they do not alter this reality.