The Path to Solving The Hague Crisis Starts in Riyadh
Maariv, Israel, November 29
The October 7 conflict has persisted for over a year with no resolution in sight, seemingly designed to continue indefinitely. When hostilities erupted, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu found himself navigating a severe conflict of interest.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
His personal agenda appeared to incentivize prolonging the war, thereby securing his hold on power. He hoped that, over time, the initial shock of the traumatic events would fade. Expanding on this, Netanyahu likely anticipated that military victories might revive public sympathy for his leadership, a strategy that seems to have worked to some extent. Thus, a strategy of prolonged engagement was adopted, characterized by recurrent raids into the Gaza Strip without establishing control over occupied territories, each incursion claiming more lives. It’s debatable whether Netanyahu comprehended, during the formulation of this war strategy, the personal and national risks that such a protracted conflict posed. Conversely, Israel’s national interest lies in keeping wars as brief as possible—a strategy historically pursued by the nation. Yet, Netanyahu’s approach of an interminable war exacts a steep toll on all fronts, compounded by the unresolved issue of hostages. Additionally, extending the conflict exacerbates Israel’s vulnerability on the global stage. International vindication of Israel’s actions often wanes over time, intensifying global pressure which may manifest as sanctions. As the longest war in Israel’s history, the October conflict has resulted in a severe erosion of its international standing. Israel has faced unprecedented diplomatic isolation, a threat as substantial as terrorism itself. A host of allied nations, including the UK, France, and Italy, have imposed arms embargoes. The recent UN Security Council resolution demanding Israel cease hostilities without retrieving the hostages garnered 14 supporting votes, and only a US veto prevented a diplomatic disaster for Israel. Compounding these issues, a dubious legal proceeding was initiated against Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague months after the conflict’s onset. Interim judgments, while not halting the war, implied that a majority of judges were leaning towards the baseless accusation of genocide against Israel (with Justice Aharon Barak, part of the representing panel, dissenting). Enforcement of the court’s decisions remains contingent on the UN Security Council, which hasn’t acted due to potential US vetoes. More troubling are proceedings at the International Criminal Court, which recently issued controversial arrest warrants against Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. This relatively new court was formed by the Rome Statute, and over 120 countries are signatories, wielding significant global influence, albeit without comprehensive oversight. The court faces limitations since major nations like the US, Russia, China, and India have not ratified the treaty, thus rejecting its authority. Israel is similarly not a signatory. The court claims jurisdiction over nonsignatory citizens if their actions take place within a signatory state. The warrants against Netanyahu draw parallels from moves the court made against Vladimir Putin, based on Russian activities in Ukraine, a signatory nation. Similar attempts to exercise jurisdiction over US soldiers were thwarted by US threats of sanctions and legislative actions against such measures. The arrest warrants against Israel are criticized as unfounded, relying on the Palestinian Authority’s 2012 UN General Assembly observer state status and its 2015 Rome Statute accession. All this transpired under Netanyahu’s leadership, who paradoxically bolstered Gaza’s Hamas government financially while undermining the Palestinian Authority. The ICC displays a keen interest in prosecuting Israel—a nation that hasn’t ratified the Rome Statute—exploiting the claim that Israel operates in “Palestinian State” territories. Additionally, the ICC faces accusations of predominantly targeting African nations and seeks to rebuff such charges by casting Israel, a Western-aligned nation, as its target. The ICC, inherently political, has found fodder in the Netanyahu government’s approach, including incendiary rhetoric from ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, coupled with the ongoing war’s excessive duration. The ICC issue has shadowed Israel for years, particularly around settlements in disputed territories. International law prohibits an occupying force from transferring its population to occupied lands, posing legal dilemmas for Israel’s territorial claims, which differ from the global consensus. Israel has managed to evade direct confrontations over settlements for decades, hinging on the principle of a demilitarized Palestinian state, with borders negotiated to retain most settlements under Israeli control. Netanyahu once endorsed this approach, but current right-wing policies have dismissed such solutions. Ministerial rhetoric caters to right-wing constituencies, neglecting international repercussions. Meanwhile, unchecked Jewish extremism against Palestinians exacerbates tensions in the territories. Palestinian terrorism does not justify indiscriminate retaliation against uninvolved Palestinians, hinting at broader implications for actions in Gaza. Netanyahu’s appeasement of hardliners might secure his leadership temporarily, yet it has arguably facilitated international actions against him and Gallant. Defense Minister Israel Katz’s refusal to sign administrative orders against Jewish settlers, despite doing so against Arabs, exemplifies policies that may bolster local support yet deteriorate Israel’s global reputation. This decision postdates the issuance of arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, yet exacerbates challenges in contesting these warrants. Such groundless warrants embolden terrorism, legitimizing tactics involving civilian shields. International law, twisted into a propaganda tool for terrorism, severely damages Netanyahu and Israel, dragging the nation toward diplomatic ruin. Efforts to counter these warrants are formidable. The right hopes Trump will align with their views regarding Iran and the annexation of the West Bank. However, Trump’s previous administration sought war resolutions, not initiations. Trump’s tenure saw the US Embassy move to Jerusalem, a symbolic gesture, yet he stopped short of recognizing Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem. Trump’s preference for Middle Eastern stability emphasizes diplomatic agreements. An Israeli-Saudi agreement hinges on Palestinian negotiations. We can only hope that a viable accord with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman will materialize, potentially restoring Israel’s global stature. This could aid the contest against unfounded ICC warrants, especially if Trump imposes sanctions on The Hague and pressures allies to ignore the warrants, improving the odds of resolution. —Daniel Friedmann (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
