ICC Will Target Netanyahu: Warning for Western Leaders

It wasn’t long ago when the US was seen as ‘The Shining Light on the Hill’ – the beacon of democracy and staunch advocate of international law.

Americanising yourself or adopting American values and traditions was a compliment for a country born out of a melting pot of differing ethnicities. But America now carries with it a different identity – it faces a profound crisis of credibility.

Covert involvement in proxy wars, against Russia, its unwavering alliance with Israel amidst genocide in Gaza, and military operations training in Taiwan, places the US under greater global scrutiny than ever before.

US hubris has helped it commit geopolitical suicide through self-poisoning.

America has always seen itself as top dog – the world’s elder sibling.

There’s a sense of responsibility that comes with being the number one child. That self-proclaimed sense of responsibility has always fomented a level of resentment from other countries, but not to the extent that many countries now have toward the US.

The Shining Light on the Hill is now a dull glow, obscured by the shadows of uncertainty and neglect. Once a beacon of hope and prosperity, is now a faint reminder of forgotten promises and lost direction.

Matters have grown to become significantly worse for the US.

How the Biden administration has behaved since coming to office has not only strained traditional alliances but has painted a picture of a nation in decline and at odds with the very ideals it professes.

The Biden Presidency has fomented a dramatic negative effect on global sentiment - ‘hatred’ is now a word of resounding feeling toward the US as a country.

As the world continues to watch the genocide in Gaza unfold, the likelihood of a future indictment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the International Criminal Court (ICC) looms larger and sets a precedent impacting perceptions of democratic leaders worldwide.

Through its secret army, the CIA, the US has used proxy wars to destabilise governments it claims are threats to US security and freedom – threats often perceived as justifications to enact hegemony without direct military engagement.

The war in Ukraine typifies the US’s behaviour to facilitate the lie it propagates about Russian expansionism.

While the lie remains a plausible justification in the minds of those in Washington to create anti-Russian sentiment and oppose what it claims is authoritarian aggression, raises ethical and legal questions, highlighting a selective engagement that undermines the integrity of US foreign policy.

Selective interference by the US mirrors the Cold War era's destructive policies, which destabilised many countries who, to this day, still struggle with the legacies inflicted by the US. The inconsistency between advocating for human rights and engaging in or supporting war under the guise of national security has eroded the US's global standing.

The US can no longer be trusted or could it ever be? America’s blind support for Israel is evident; at every UN Council meeting, it uses its veto powers to shield Israel from international criticism and condemnation.

Amidst the uproar, a scenario is brewing with Netanyahu potentially becoming the first democratic leader to be indicted by the ICC.

When the war in Gaza ends, or if Israel fails to lure Iran into a conflict that embroils the Middle East and draws in the US, Netanyahu’s fate is sealed.

Furthermore, the entire Israeli political establishment knows the end of the war means the end of their political future, and they’ll be investigated for their actions on the seventh of October.

Netanyahu, along with the IDF, will be the targets of an even more extensive investigation for how they conducted the war.

He also faces four cases of corruption, each of which could land him in jail.

Israel is now under pressure from two sides: the first from the Palestinian resistance, and the second from their failure to achieve their goals, thanks to the heroism of the Palestinian people; their failure to destroy the resistance and to reoccupy Gaza, to have the hostages returned by their failure to ethnically cleanse Gaza.

There’s another form of pressure taking place - the pressure of the people globally, a revolution of support which is spreading everywhere, including within the US.

Fear of nothing of losing an election motivates people to act - Biden’s Presidency now hinges on orchestrating a ceasefire in Gaza. His unwavering support of Israel and its genocide has made the US complicit in Israel’s war crimes in Gaza.

Election success should not have to be the catalyst to bring an end to genocide; Biden should have been actively working to end the war regardless.

War for Netanyahu is all about political survival. While he tries to save himself, he’s comfortable killing thousands of people to do so – it highlights his psychopathy.

As the Gaza war potentially winds down, the international community's focus might shift from immediate humanitarian concerns to long-term accountability.

Netanyahu's policies in Gaza, characterised by some as constituting war crimes, could lead to his summons before the Hague.

This prospective legal battle is significant, not only for Israel but for all democratic nations whose leaders have previously evaded legal repercussions for international violations.

An indictment would be a landmark event, challenging the unspoken immunity historically granted to leaders of powerful democracies.

It raises pertinent questions about the role of international law in curbing state-sponsored atrocities and whether true accountability is possible.

Should Netanyahu face the ICC, the repercussions for US foreign policy could be profound. It would signal a shift in how democratic leaders are held accountable, potentially inspiring a wave of legal reckonings for similar actions by other states.

It could also lead to a re-evaluation of US-Israel relations, compelling the US to reconsider its diplomatic stances and military support considering legal judgments against its ally.

The US might find its actions, both past and present, under similar scrutiny, challenging its ability to lead globally on issues of democracy and human rights.

The global reaction to a potential ICC action against Netanyahu would likely be polarised. While some view it as a corrective measure against unchecked state power, others might perceive it as a politicized move undermining state sovereignty.

For the US, it presents a diplomatic quandary: how to navigate the fallout without compromising its global leadership role or its strategic alliances.

Can the US adapt its policies to restore its credibility, or will it continue on a path that could lead to its decline as a global moral arbiter?