In a first-of-its-kind precedent, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants on Thursday, November 21st, against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Ya'akov Golan, on charges of committing war crimes in Gaza. These include the use of starvation as a weapon of war by preventing aid such as food, water, and medicine, exposing the population to extreme suffering, and committing crimes against humanity such as murder and persecution, deliberate attacks against civilian populations, and direct responsibility for the actions of its army against civilians in Gaza. This comes after the rejection of the appeals made by the occupation state regarding this matter, affirming that there are logical reasons for issuing arrest orders against them as they are responsible for these crimes.

The court stated that the acceptance of the occupation state's jurisdiction is not necessary, and it considered that the disclosure of these arrest warrants is in the interest of Palestinian victims.

Importance and consequences:

Despite the unlimited support that the Zionist occupation state receives from the United States, which seeks to protect and defend it in United Nations organizations, such as its recent use of the veto power in the Security Council against the resolution to stop the war on Gaza, such a decision may have significant importance on both the international and Palestinian levels:

- It represents a significant step towards holding Zionist officials accountable for actions that the international community considers blatant violations of human rights and international law.

- It affects the reputation of the occupation state on the international level and increases political and economic pressure on it.

- It provides support for voices calling for Palestinian rights in international forums and demonstrates the International Criminal Court's commitment to fighting crimes and preventing impunity.

- It encourages some countries and international groups to take stronger positions against Zionist policies.

Reactions:

The decision received mixed international reactions, including:

- Palestinians: The Palestinian Authority and its supporters considered that investigating Zionist crimes would be a step towards achieving justice for the victims of Zionist violations in Palestinian territories. International human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, emphasized the importance of the decision in achieving international justice for the victims of the crimes.

- Zionists: The occupation state considered the decision illegal and refused the court's jurisdiction to address issues related to Palestinian territories, pointing out that Palestine is not a sovereign state and has no right to present cases to the court.

- Americans: Although not a member of the court, the United States expressed support for the occupation state and opposed the court, calling for not recognizing its decisions regarding Palestinian issues.

- European and international: Many European countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, Sweden, and Norway supported the International Criminal Court's position, emphasizing the need for parties to comply with international law. While other countries expressed reservations about some details of the investigations, such as France and Italy, while emphasizing the importance of finding a political solution to the Palestinian-Zionist conflict.

Impacts and interactions:

The decision had a significant impact on Netanyahu internally, externally, and on a diplomatic level:

- Internally: The decision was an opportunity to strengthen his political position domestically, using it to appear before the Zionist public as a defender of his country's security and sovereignty. He considered this decision as part of an international campaign against him and his state, which strengthens his support among extremist right-wing circles, and he pointed out that the court applies double standards and affirmed that his state will always be committed to defending itself against any threats, helping him to gain support from wide segments of the Zionist people.

Externally: The decision escalated tensions between the entity and some European countries that supported the investigations, as well as with other countries in the United Nations, although some major powers, like the United States, stood by their Zionist ally. However, the court's decision had negative implications on the international image of the occupation state, which threatens its isolation internationally.

Diplomatically: Confronting the decision on the international stage requires Netanyahu to implement intense diplomatic strategies and make additional efforts to maintain its alliances, especially with the United States, and continue to pressure the International Criminal Court.

Reasons and factors:

Several reasons contributed to the decision, including:

- The increasing number of Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza due to the Zionist war, which resulted in over 200,000 martyrs and injured, causing growing international concern. The difficult humanitarian situation in Gaza, including the ongoing Zionist blockade for many years, significantly contributed to the increasing calls for investigations into crimes against humanity, putting immense pressure on the International Criminal Court by human rights organizations and the international community to investigate such issues.

- The exaggerated use of military force by the occupation state against innocent Palestinian civilians, interpreting international humanitarian law (such as the Geneva Conventions) in modern conflicts, especially in areas like Gaza where there are no traditional frontlines, and the lack of parity in weapons and armies makes assessing the distinction between military and civilian targets complex.

- Palestinian human rights organizations and factions demanding charges of war crimes and genocide against Palestinian civilians in Gaza, including indiscriminate shelling of cities and densely populated areas, targeting civilian infrastructure and innocent civilians, considering this within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which should be concerned with investigating such cases.

- The accumulation of information resulting from continuous investigations conducted by the court, relying on strong testimonies and evidence proving the occupation state's violation of international law and humanitarian law in Gaza and implicating both Netanyahu and Gantz personally in those crimes as the individuals leading the war on Gaza and giving orders to the army.

The decision of the International Criminal Court is considered a new and significant step towards holding the entity accountable for its international and humanitarian crimes, and it will remain a stigma haunting its leaders, who were described by the decision as terrorists and criminals, with significant implications on security and politics in the Middle East in the present and near future.