There’s no Escape For Netanyahu After This Screw Up

Right, so Benjamin Netanyahu insists the International Criminal Court has no authority over him, which makes his behaviour over the past year faintly hilarious in a very dark way. Because people who genuinely believe a court is irrelevant don’t spend months trying to crush it. They don’t mobilise allies, threaten consequences, lean on funding, or attempting to sideline or intimidate judges. They shrug and move on. Netanyahu did the opposite, and in doing so told us everything we need to know.
What we’re watching isn’t a miscarriage of justice. It’s a man discovering that impunity isn’t a personality trait, and that repeating “we don’t recognise you” doesn’t magically dissolve an arrest warrant once it exists. Worse for him, the effort to bury the court hasn’t just failed, it’s dragged others into the mess — governments that talk endlessly about a rules-based order right up until the moment the rules start pointing in their direction.
This crisis wasn’t imposed on Netanyahu. He built it. And now he’s stuck inside it.
Right, so Netanyahu built this crisis for himself. Not because an international court woke up hostile to Israel, not because activists finally shouted loudly enough, and not because the law suddenly changed, but because a series of political choices collided with a system that, for once, refused to step aside. The arrest warrant sought by the International Criminal Court has not emerged from nowhere. It has emerged from policy, from conduct, and from a sustained attempt to treat accountability as optional, followed by an even more revealing attempt to crush the institution that exists precisely to stop that kind of behaviour.
What matters here is not whether Netanyahu recognises the court. What matters is that the warrant exists, that it remains in force, and that the pressure campaign to make it disappear has failed. And once you understand how much effort went into trying to make it go away, you also understand why this moment has landed so heavily, not just on Netanyahu himself, but on the states that chose to wrap themselves around him and push.
All of this began with policy decisions in Gaza that were not hidden, not accidental, and not isolated. Siege logic, deprivation of essentials, the flattening of civilian infrastructure, the language of collective punishment used openly by senior ministers. These were not fringe actions carried out in defiance of the government; they were the government’s position. Campaigners, humanitarian organisations, and UN officials have been warning about the legal consequences of this for years.
And when the ICC prosecutor moved to seek arrest warrants last year, the response from Netanyahu’s government was not to demonstrate genuine domestic accountability or to de-escalate conduct. It was to declare the court illegitimate, to reject jurisdiction publicly, and then, crucially, to engage with it privately and relentlessly. That contradiction is the key tell. You do not file legal challenges, submit arguments, lobby allies, and threaten institutional consequences against a court you believe has no power. You do that because you know it does.
Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute. That much is true. But the court’s jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of Palestine, which is recognised by the ICC as a state party, is not a novelty invented for this case. That legal framework has been in place for years. Netanyahu’s problem is not that the law suddenly changed. His problem is that the court decided to act on it.
And once that happened, panic set in. Because arrest warrants don’t need consent to do damage. They don’t need immediate enforcement to reshape behaviour. They don’t need applause to function. They constrain travel. They attach stigma. They sit in the historical record. They outlive office. They follow you into every future role and every future biography. That is why Netanyahu has been so desperate to overturn this, despite publicly insisting the court is irrelevant. The behaviour gives the game away.
What followed was one of the most naked pressure campaigns against an international judicial body in modern memory. The United States moved almost immediately to denounce the warrants, not on narrow legal grounds, but as an attack on an ally. Members of Congress introduced legislation aimed explicitly at sanctioning ICC officials. This was not procedural disagreement. This was intimidation. The same machinery used previously to punish court officials investigating US conduct elsewhere was wheeled out again, this time to shield a foreign leader aligned with Washington.
Israel itself engaged in full-spectrum pressure. Diplomatic lobbying of ICC member states, legal filings designed to delay and fragment proceedings, and an aggressive narrative push framing the court as biased, politicised, or hostile. The aim was not to win the case on the merits. The aim was to make the case impossible to pursue.
And then there was the UK. According to filings made by ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan and various reports, a senior UK official warned that pursuing warrants against Israeli leaders could have consequences for the court, including funding and treaty support. That allegation has not been admitted by the UK government, but it exists on the record, and it fits a wider pattern of Western states applying pressure not to test the evidence, but to stop the process.
This matters, because it tells you something about how international law has been treated in practice. The ICC has spent much of its existence being accused, with justification, of operating as a court whose enforcement flows downward. African leaders, Balkan figures, militia commanders, warlords. When those cases landed, Western capitals spoke warmly about accountability and the rule of law. When the court turned its attention toward a Western-aligned leader, the tone changed instantly. Suddenly the court was reckless. Suddenly it was dangerous. Suddenly funding, cooperation, and legitimacy were on the table.
That reaction did more damage than the warrant itself. Because it exposed an assumption that had long been suspected but rarely made so obvious: that international criminal law was acceptable as long as it disciplined others. The moment it looked inward, it was treated as a malfunction.
At this point it’s worth asking the question the pressure campaign itself forces into view. What exactly were Western governments trying to protect here? It wasn’t Netanyahu as an individual. If it were, the response would have been quieter, more contained, more plausibly deniable. What we saw instead was escalation. Threats. Sanctions language. Funding leverage. Judges personally named. That’s not loyalty. That’s fear.
Because once you strip away the rhetoric about alliances and stability, the real anxiety sits elsewhere. The danger wasn’t that Netanyahu might face scrutiny. The danger was that the court demonstrated it could reach a Western-aligned leader at all. That’s the line that wasn’t supposed to be crossed. Not because of Israel’s uniqueness, but because of precedent. If the ICC can survive going after someone this protected, then it stops being a court that only operates downhill.
That’s why the reaction was so disproportionate. You don’t threaten an institution because you think it’s wrong. You threaten it because you think it might be right in a way that matters. The concern wasn’t a single case. It was what this case implied about future ones. About military commanders. About defence ministers. About decisions taken under the assumption that alliance membership functions as legal insulation.
Seen through that lens, the pressure campaign stops looking impulsive and starts looking defensive. The United States didn’t move to sanction ICC officials because Netanyahu’s reputation mattered. It moved because it has spent decades making sure international criminal law never quite touches its own conduct. The UK didn’t flirt with funding pressure because it suddenly discovered legal objections. It did so because the idea of an ICC that doesn’t blink under pressure is a problem for any state that relies on selective enforcement.
And that’s where the miscalculation happened. Because in trying to shut this down, Western governments didn’t protect the system they benefit from. They exposed it. They showed that their commitment to international law is conditional not on evidence, but on direction. When the law points outward, it’s civilisation. When it points inward, it’s politicisation.
That exposure has consequences that extend far beyond Netanyahu. Every future attempt to invoke international law against non-aligned states now carries this baggage. When judges are threatened, when funding is weaponised, when jurisdiction suddenly becomes an existential concern only in one direction, the argument collapses under its own weight. You cannot convincingly defend a rules-based order while openly trying to break the rule-maker.
There’s also a quieter consequence here that doesn’t get talked about enough. By escalating pressure to this degree and failing, Western governments have changed the internal dynamics of the court itself. Institutions remember moments like this. Prosecutors remember who tried to intimidate them. Judges remember where the lines were tested. Even a conservative court, once pushed to the brink, cannot return fully to comfortable accommodation. The option of pretending this never happened is gone.
And that matters because enforcement was never the only lever. Legitimacy is. Once legitimacy shifts — once the court is seen, particularly outside the West, as capable of standing up to power rather than managing it — the centre of gravity moves. Arrests can be delayed. Warrants can sit unenforced. But the political and historical record is already altered. The next time the court moves, the assumption that pressure will make it stop no longer holds.
Which is why this has backfired so badly. The attempt to protect Netanyahu didn’t isolate him from accountability. It expanded the blast radius. It dragged allies into the frame. It demonstrated that the problem wasn’t a rogue prosecutor or an overzealous court, but a political culture that expects immunity to be permanent and reacts with panic when it isn’t.
That’s the irony at the heart of this. In trying to prove the law didn’t apply, they proved exactly why it has to.
And yet, despite all of that, the court did not withdraw the warrant application. It did not fold. It did not quietly back away. The process has continued. Not because the ICC is radical or reckless, but because it is conservative to the point of inertia, and backing down under this level of pressure would have been existential. Had the court retreated, it would have confirmed, beyond any doubt, that it exists only at the pleasure of powerful states. That would not have saved the institution. It would have ended it.
So the pressure failed. And that failure has consequences.
For Netanyahu, the consequences are cumulative and inescapable. The warrant does not go away because he rejects it. It does not fade with time. It does not dissolve when allies complain. It sits there, shaping what he can do and where he can go. Every international visit becomes a calculation. Every change of government in an ICC member state becomes a risk. Even states that currently signal non-enforcement cannot bind their courts forever. One adverse ruling, one activist lawsuit, one political shift, and a safe visit becomes a legal crisis.
It also stains legacy. Whatever else Netanyahu is remembered for, he will now be remembered as a sitting prime minister against whom an international criminal court sought arrest warrants. That is not an activist slogan. It is a factual description. And it is precisely why he fought so hard to stop it from ever existing.
Domestically, this weakens him rather than strengthening him. Netanyahu has long sold himself as Israel’s indispensable international shield. An ICC warrant punctures that claim. It turns him from asset to liability. Combined with his ongoing domestic legal troubles, it creates a convergence of pressure that narrows his room for manoeuvre inside Israel as much as outside it.
And then there are the consequences for those who tried to save him.
By threatening the court, Western governments have handed authoritarian states a ready-made script. When future leaders face scrutiny, they will point to this moment and say, with some justification, that judicial independence is conditional, that funding is leverage, and that law bends when the right allies complain loudly enough. That is a strategic own goal.
They have also weakened their own moral authority. Every future invocation of a “rules-based international order” will now be met with the same question: rules for whom? That is no longer an abstract or illegitimate critique. It is now anchored in documented behaviour.
There is also an institutional consequence that those applying pressure seem not to have anticipated. By failing to break the court, they have strengthened it internally. Judges and prosecutors now have a lived precedent showing that pressure can be resisted. That matters. Institutions are shaped as much by moments of refusal as by statutes.
For campaigners, it is a structural validation. It confirms that the core allegations they have been raising are legally serious, not fringe, and not beneath consideration. They were strong enough to reach the threshold of international criminal scrutiny and to survive the most intense political counter-attack imaginable.
It means that the long attempt to dismiss opposition to Netanyahu’s Gaza policy as hysteria or bad faith has collapsed. The burden of explanation has shifted. Those defending him now have to explain why a standing international warrant is illegitimate, rather than campaigners having to prove they are sane.
And the deeper point here is about power misjudging itself. Netanyahu and his allies believed that accountability could be managed, delayed, or crushed. They believed that the court would blink. When it didn’t, the result was not containment, but exposure. The attempt to subvert international law didn’t neutralise it. It illuminated who was willing to break it to protect one man, especially when that man is Benjamin Netanyahu.
So when we say Netanyahu built this crisis, we are not talking about symbolism. We are talking about cause and effect. Policy choices created legal risk. Attempts to override accountability multiplied that risk. Pressure applied to the court backfired, dragging others into the mess.
The trap he is now inside is not judicial overreach. It is the long consequence of believing that the law applies to everyone else and not him.
By way of some distraction I daresay, the attack in Bondi also readily became something for Netanyahu to latch onto – suspiciously quickly for the likes of some people, so much so that if the incident is not a false flag, its done a very good impression of one nevertheless. Get more on that story here.
Please do also hit like, share and subscribe if you haven’t done so already so as to ensure you don’t miss out on all new daily content as well as spreading the word and helping to support the channel at the same time which is very much appreciated, holding power to account for ordinary working class people and I will hopefully catch you on the next one. Cheers folks.