By: Latifa Jamal 
President of the American Center for Justice (ACJ)

In a historic step, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Galant, and leaders of the Hamas movement as it indicated that war crimes were committed during the recent conflict in Gaza. These charges are based on the killing of 40,000 Palestinians, more than half of whom were children and women, as well as accusations of genocide, which led to severe humanitarian crises, followed by widespread international protests around the world and student protests at American universities, challenging American support for Israel.

Background and Jurisdiction of the ICC
The ICC's investigation into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gained momentum following the violent escalation that began on 7 October 2023. This period witnessed an attack by Hamas on Israel, followed by a large-scale military response from Israel, which led to a large number of civilian casualties and widespread destruction in Gaza. According to reports, Israeli forces killed approximately 40,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children.
The ICC's jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories was established after the Palestinian Authority joined the ICC in 2015. This move allowed the court to investigate and potentially prosecute individuals for crimes committed in these areas. The current investigation targets war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by military officials.

International Diplomatic Reactions 
The arrest warrants issued by the ICC sparked strong reactions from Israeli and American officials. Prime Minister Netanyahu condemned the ICC's actions, saying they undermined Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism. He called on international allies to oppose the ICC investigation, calling it a politically motivated attack against Israel. 
American lawmakers also expressed strong opposition to the ICC’s ruling and urged President Biden to intervene. They say that prosecuting Israeli officials could damage the court's credibility and disrupt ongoing diplomatic efforts in the region. What makes this situation even more complicated are the widespread pro-Palestinian protests on American campuses, which have placed additional internal pressure on the US government to reevaluate its support for Israel.

The Impact of the University Protests 
The protests at American universities reflect growing dissatisfaction with American policies regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More than 30 universities, including top-tier universities such as Harvard, Columbia and Yale, witnessed large student-led demonstrations. These protests, which sometimes lead to confrontations with law enforcement, underscore the growing polarization and demands for accountability in U.S. foreign policy.

These student protests not only shed light on the genocide in Gaza and the resulting unprecedented humanitarian crisis that led to the killing of civilian victims, mostly women and children, but also highlighted Western bias toward Israel and the Israeli lobby’s dominance over American institutions and international diplomatic positions. Could these protests, along with international public opinion shaped by scenes of war and ethnic cleansing, lead to shaping the approach of the International Criminal Court and the broader geopolitical response to the conflict and alleviating the increasing American and Israeli pressure on the International Criminal Court?

Wider implications
The ICC orders are a critical turning point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By pursuing legal accountability for war crimes committed in Gaza, the ICC aims to uphold international humanitarian law and provide justice to victims. However, the political and diplomatic ramifications of these actions are significant, with potential repercussions on international relations and intra-state behavior. 

Effect on the Palestinian Cause
Arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court could have profound effects on the entire Palestinian matter.. Firstly, they confirm the international community’s recognition of the seriousness of war crimes and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. This recognition may strengthen the Palestinian cause and give it greater legitimacy and support on the world stage. It may also draw attention to the fact that resolving the Palestinian issue justly is the only way to bring peace to the region. 

In addition, the intervention of the International Criminal Court may pressure Israel to reconsider its military strategies and policies in dealing with the Palestinians. The potential legal consequences may also lead Israeli leaders to take a more cautious approach in future military engagements, which could reduce the tension and intensity of conflicts in the region. 

On the other hand, the behavior of the International Criminal Court may also complicate peace negotiations, according to the view of the administration of US President Biden. Israeli officials, feeling targeted by international legal proceedings, may become more resistant to a settlement, fearing that any concessions will be seen as an admission of guilt. This dynamic could hinder diplomatic efforts aimed at reaching a long-term solution to the conflict. This Western view of the conflict is matched by another point of view which believes that identification with Israel’s crimes, which amounts to covering them up, often gives Israel a green light to continue committing its crimes and obstructing justice. Some international analysts believe that the ICC orders may have taken into account political balance in order to avoid not issuing final decisions. Ironically both parties think of this matter as equating the assailant with the victim. Israel described it as equality between terrorists and the state. Hamas also thought of it as drawing parallels between the oppressor and the oppressed. Hamas demanded an independent investigation into crimes in the Gaza Strip, including mass graves. As for Hamas, the designation of a number of its leaders, including “Yahya al-Sinwar” and “Al-Deif,” is a disregard for the United Nations charters, especially Law No. 51, which grants Legitimacy: Peoples under occupation have the right to resistance, including armed resistance.