Experts: ICC Arrest Warrants is Start For More Israeli Sanctions

The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant could open the floodgates for more legal challenges for other Israeli officials, as well as Western nations supporting the ongoing genocide in Gaza, experts say.

On Nov. 21, ICC Pre-Trial Chamber 1 issued warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant accusing them of using starvation as a method of warfare in Gaza, along with the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts.

Israeli academic and law professor Neve Gordon believes this could be the tip of an iceberg of cases and warrants against other top Israeli military officials and leaders.

“It is clear that while Netanyahu and Gallant were at the very top of the decision-making and policymaking apparatus, but there are several other high-ranking politicians and military personnel that are implicated in the starvation and in the systematic attacks on health care,” Gordon, an international law professor at Queen Mary University of London, told Anadolu.

“I will not be surprised if in the coming months or even coming years, there will be warrants against the chief of staff, maybe some other generals, the current defense minister, and maybe other ministers.”

Legal expert Michael Becker pointed to ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan’s statement and reference to ongoing lines of inquiry as an indicator of what could come next.

“It could mean additional charges sought against Netanyahu and Gallant. It could also mean new requests for arrest warrants against other potential defendants,” he said.

“There’s probably no shortage of possible candidates that the court might be interested in pursuing.”

For the initial stage, he said the ICC made “a concerted effort to focus their efforts on the leadership, and those people most responsible for making policy decisions about how to conduct the operation in Gaza.”

“It is, of course, possible that other people could end up being the target or the subject of arrest warrants,” Becker, assistant professor of international human rights law at Trinity College Dublin, told Anadolu.

Also, he added, the warrants issued do not cover all the charges sought by the prosecutor, most notably the crime against humanity of extermination.

“We might see the prosecutor try to challenge that determination as the process goes on, in order to get that charge included,” he explained.


Legal troubles for Israel’s allies

Experts say the ICC warrants could also lead to legal troubles for Western governments that are selling arms to Israel and supporting it militarily.

“The pre-trial chamber has opened an avenue for a whole series of other legal petitions in domestic courts, particularly in Europe, where countries continue to send arms to Israel,” said Gordon.

Given the ICC’s charges against the Israeli leaders, these countries are violating their own laws because most of them have a memorandum of arms trade setting out certain conditions, he explained.

Each country “legally restricts itself from trading arms with entities that carry out serious violations of international humanitarian law.”

“There is a high possibility, according to the ruling by the pre-trial chamber, that Israel has carried out crimes against humanity,” he continued.

“Therefore, by continuing to trade arms with Israel, these countries are in danger of being complicit with crimes against humanity, and that is against their own laws.”

This gives human rights organizations and NGOs in these countries the space to file cases against their governments in domestic courts, he said.

“This can actually lead to an arms embargo on Israel, not by the US, but by Germany, Italy, UK, Spain and France, which are the major European countries that trade arms with Israel,” said Gordon.

As opposed to the US and Israel itself, most of Tel Aviv’s European allies are members of the ICC, part of 124 countries around the world that are now legally obliged to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant should they set foot on their territory.

Most of Israel’s European allies, such as France and Italy, have said they would uphold international law and execute the warrants. Other European nations that have said the same include Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Belgium.

The UK has also vowed to “always comply with its legal obligations as set out by domestic law and indeed international law,” but has not explicitly said it would arrest the duo.

Germany has pledged continued support for Israel, with a government spokesperson saying the country generally supports the ICC, but it has not yet decided whether it would actually implement the arrest warrant for Netanyahu and Gallant.


Parallel investigations in West Bank, East Jerusalem

In his statement on the warrants, ICC Prosecutor Khan said his office is also “taking forward additional lines of inquiry in areas under the Court’s jurisdiction, which include Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”

Palestinians in the occupied West Bank have been subjected to ever-escalating Israeli violence and repression in parallel to the genocide in Gaza, with at least 797 killed and more than 6,000 wounded since last October. According to the Israeli advocacy group Peace Now, there are more than 720,000 illegal settlers in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

“I think that one of the things that we have been witnessing particularly since October 2023 is the kind of efforts to displace communities in the West Bank from their ancestral lands, particularly in the South Hebron Hills and in the Jordan Valley, not far from Ramallah,” said Gordon.

“I think there is a chance that the prosecutor will look at the kinds of efforts to displace Palestinians and replace them with Jewish settlers, which is part of the settler colonial logic of cleaning the land from its indigenous inhabitants.”

Earlier this month, Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich openly called for annexation of the occupied West Bank, drawing worldwide condemnation.

Smotrich, defying international law, declared that “the only way to remove the threat of a Palestinian state from the agenda is to apply Israeli sovereignty over the settlements in Judea and Samaria (West Bank),” vowing that 2025 will be the year for Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Palestinian territory.


Impact on ICJ case

Becker, a former staffer at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), pointed out the interplay between the ICC charges and those in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the ICJ.

He said the ICC prosecutor’s decision to focus on the war crime of starvation when he filed for warrants in May arguably was encouraged or facilitated by the ICJ’s provisional measures order in March.

“Out of the three different provisional measures, the risk of starvation and famine was really the focus of that March order. So, it was interesting to see that was what the prosecutors seem to be focused on,” he said, adding that starvation was again a focal point in the warrants.

While any concrete progress at both courts could take years, the ICC warrants could impact the ICJ case in other ways, he said.

The language used in the pre-trial chamber’s decision to justify the warrants “tracks exactly some of the language from the Genocide Convention, even though the charges that the prosecutor has sought are not charges of genocide,” he explained.

“That’s important in the sense that it might give the ICJ further grounds, or the ICJ might find themselves operating on firmer ground, if they also find that Israel’s actions in Gaza have created conditions of life intended to destroy a part of the population, because that’s the language we see in the pre-trial chamber and that tracks language from Article II of the Genocide Convention.”


‘Disincentive for Israel to de-escalate’

On the question of whether the ICC warrants or threat of more legal troubles could stop Israel’s assault on Gaza, Becker fears it could end up having an “opposite effect.”

“If Israel’s defense all along, as it has been, is that we’re not doing anything wrong and we are complying with international law, Israeli officials might say we actually now have no incentive to change our tactics,” he said.

The thinking there could be that if they do make changes, they would “risk that being framed as some kind of admission that what we were doing before was wrong.”

“So, perversely, I think that the ICC arrest warrants might actually be a disincentive for Israel to de-escalate,” he added.

Since last Thursday, Israel has killed at least 150 Palestinians as it continues its relentless attacks on Gaza, raising the overall death toll to nearly 44,200, most of them women and children.

More than 105,000 Palestinians have also been wounded in Israeli attacks, while a crippling siege on water, power, fuel, and all humanitarian essentials has left more than 2 million Palestinians facing death and starvation.

CrossFireArabia

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Related Posts

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

The Epic Fury Operation launched by the US against Iran in February 2026, will go down in modern history as the first open military conflict, where a superpower like the United States, has willingly and openly played the role of a war-proxy, on behalf of its smaller ally, Israel.

The difference of attitude between the two close allies, US and Israel, in relation to what they perceived as Iran’s threat, imminent or potential, was a key factor behind the gradual crumbling of the American-Israeli coordinated military and intelligence efforts, to bring down the regime in Tehran.


Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu’s extreme right-wing government, kept saying Iran posed an imminent existential threat to Israel, and therefore it must be brought down by force. While the US position was constrained by its previous international commitments on the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, as stipulated in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed between Iran and the P5+1 powers, during the administration of President Obama.


Since that moment Netanyahu kept vigorously urging, more likely lecturing the US and the West, on the dangers of the JCOPA agreement. When Donald Trump was elected President in 2017, things took an important and completely different turn. In the following year, he took the United States out of that internationally-backed deal as he had promised to do during his election campaign. He also kept his promises of moving the US Embassy to Occupied Jerusalem and recognize the occupied Syrian Golan Heights as part of Israel.


These symbolic and important gestures, whetted Netanyahu’s appetite for more American concessions to Israeli demands.


Netanyahu’s golden opportunity came when Trump was re-elected to his second term in 2023, the same year when Hamas launched its massive assault on the Israeli settlements in the so-called “Gaza enevlope”. Other militias connected and supported by Iran, including the Houthis in north Yemen, Hezbollah in south Lebanon, Syria under the previous regime and Shia factions in Iraq coordinated their efforts to stand by Hamas during that long and unprecedented confrontation with Israel.

For its part, Iran did not shy from making it clear that it helped create this “chain” of resistance factions to encircle Israel from three directions.

The second turning magical point in the US position on the issue of direct military intervention against Iran came about when Israel succeeded in serving Hezbollah, the severest military blow ever, in the pagers’ operation and the subsequent assassination of Hezbollah’s top leaders, including its charismatic Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah on Sept 27, 2024.


Trump was very impressed with all of that Israeli action and Netanyahu gave himself the full credit for this unexpected success.


Accordingly, Netanyahu’s plan to Trump was simple. Based on the Israeli accumulated intelligence and expertise on the Iranian internal scene and emulating its operation against Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon, accompanied by massive American air strikes would provide both allies with the best chance to finish the Ayatollahs in Tehran once and for all!


But as events unfolded, all of Netanyahu’s plans, personally and strongly endorsed by Trump and his military aides, suddenly started crumbling, one after the other. His relations with Trump slipped into stages of deterioration by the day and week as the closure of the Hormuz Strait by Iran, started hurting the world economy led by the US.


Here new red lights went on and the phone calls between the two men became more intense and vulgar. Then Trump decided to pass on the torch to his deputy, JD Vance, who seemed comfortable to tell Netanyahu what Trump avoided to do!


Conclusion: It is tricky to switch roles of allies in wars. A smaller entity can always stay safe as long as its leaders know the limits of their power and leverage. When people like Netanyahu think they have more power and clout than they actually have, versus their stronger ally, then irritation starts to brew, especially in the case of Trump who likes to show he is always in the driving seat. It also means that the leadership on the side of stronger partner has some problems of its own!


Whether it is a wrangle, rift, collision, divorce or worse between Trump and Netanyahu, we will not know for certain, until the negotiators in Switzerland close their files and head back home!

Continue reading
Will The US-Iran Deal Last?

By Ali Bakir

On June 15, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced via the US social media platform X that a peace deal between the US and Iran had been reached, following over two months of mediation by his country. Sharif expressed gratitude to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye for their significant contributions, stating that the official signing ceremony would take place on June 19 in Switzerland. Following this announcement, a memorandum of understanding was signed electronically by US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance on the US side, and by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on the Iranian side.

The reported agreement is characterized as a framework peace deal aimed at ending the 2026 Israel/US-Iran war and transitioning the current ceasefire into a broader diplomatic process. Although the text of the agreement has not yet been published, key reported elements include immediate cessation of military operations, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, and a 60-day negotiation period to address unresolved issues, particularly Iran’s nuclear program, alongside discussions on sanctions relief and access to frozen Iranian assets during follow-up negotiations.

This agreement follows two significant developments. First, Israel conducted military strikes on Iranian targets in western and central Iran around a week ago, marking the first such actions since April. Explosions were reported in Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan, and other cities in response to Iranian missile launches that were highly performative. Second, Trump warned that Iran would “pay the price” for what he described as slow progress in negotiations to end the conflict, indicating that the US could resume strikes against Iranian infrastructure.

5 bullet points on the agreement

Although the agreement does not necessarily mean that the root causes that prompted the war have fully disappeared, a few observations are worth mentioning and analyzing.

First, a lot of narrative spinning is occurring publicly at the moment. While the main parties are trying to sell the agreement as a victory, there are factions within the broader regional camps (such as hardliners in both Iran and Israel) that oppose it. Critics in Iran have labeled the agreement a “humiliating capitulation,” arguing that it involves unjustified concessions. Hardline opponents have publicly criticized the negotiating team, with Iranian MP Mahmoud Nabavian stating that the latest draft is “more damaging” than previous versions. Similarly, Israeli officials emphasized that Israel was not directly involved in negotiating the US–Iran deal and does not necessarily consider itself bound by its provisions. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz declared that Israel would not withdraw from territory seized in Lebanon and would continue to act against threats from Hezbollah and Iran if necessary.

Second, the timing of the agreement suggests that Iran was running out of options. As the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) focused on messaging and performative measures, the gap between their narrative and reality widened, with Iran’s ability to endure further pressure significantly diminishing. Trump’s counter-blockade against Iran’s restriction of the Strait of Hormuz imposed significant economic costs on Iran, leading to the decision to sign the agreement. It is estimated that the blockade could have cost Iran over $24 billion in just two months — almost equal to Iran’s reported total reserves of foreign currency — leaving the regime with little choice but to agree to the terms or face economic collapse.

Third, despite the negative reactions from hardliners in both Iran and Israel, the agreement highlights Trump’s genuine interest in reaching a resolution with Iran, especially following last year’s swift 12-day war between Israel and Iran. However, radical elements in both Iran and Israel seem intent on using procrastination, escalation, or military actions to sabotage meaningful attempts to achieve peace. Given that there is reportedly a 60-day negotiation period following the signing of the agreement, it is likely that these factions will continue to work against a comprehensive resolution.

Fourth, while Pakistan played a significant role in the mediation process, Qatar’s involvement was also crucial, as acknowledged by American, Pakistani, Saudi, and Turkish officials. Notably, neither the Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman nor the ministry itself reported any independent measures taken by Qatar, apart from endorsing Pakistan’s mediation efforts. In fact, a Qatari spokesman denied any independent role in the mediation at this stage. Qatar’s involvement appears to have been executed at the request of the United States and had several dimensions.

Primarily, Qatar facilitated technical issues between the US and Iran, such as enabling the transfer of Iranian funds without direct US involvement, thereby avoiding the perception of it being a US initiative or taxpayer-funded. Additionally, Qatar played a role in establishing a communication channel between the United Arab Emirates and Iran, which emerged later in the mediation process. Finally, Qatar aligned itself with Saudi Arabia’s position, providing support for the Pakistani initiative.

Changing actors

Fifth, two awkward positions regarding the agreement can be highlighted. Firstly, the Europeans have been largely inactive in resolving the crisis yet somehow managed to host the official signing ceremony between the Americans and Iranians. Instead of crediting Pakistan, Switzerland offered to host the ceremony, which can be seen as an act of opportunism. Secondly, Oman, historically a favored mediator between the US and Iran, has been notably absent from this current arrangement. Oman’s position during this war was not popular in the Gulf Cooperation Council and beyond. According to a senior US administration official, Oman was removed from its mediation role in negotiations with Iran after the US concluded that Muscat had acted “very duplicitously” during the talks.

Finally, we must approach the prospects of the agreement with caution. It is essential to recognize that this is not a comprehensive peace agreement but rather a transitional framework. The future of the agreement will largely depend on the outcomes of negotiations in the next 60 days. Given that several factions within Iran and Israel are opposed to the agreement, we should not dismiss the possibility of sabotage, particularly from Israel.

Ali Bakir is an assistant professor of international affairs, security, and defense at Qatar University and senior nonresident fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs. Anadolu

Continue reading

You Missed

‘We Must Resist The Israelisation of Our Societies – Francesca Albanese

‘We Must Resist The Israelisation of Our Societies – Francesca Albanese

Kier Starmer Quits The Labour Party Leadership

Kier Starmer Quits The Labour Party Leadership

Israel Killed Raghad on The Way to School

Israel Killed Raghad on The Way to School

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

Youngest Palestinian Doctor Gets Guinness

Youngest Palestinian Doctor Gets Guinness

Palestine: 70 Killed Since The Start of 2026

Palestine: 70 Killed Since The Start of 2026