Benjamin Netanyahu

התכנית נשענת על היגיון עקבי: להעמיק את השליטה הטריטוריאלית תוך הכחשת ההשלכות המשפטיות שהמשפט הבינלאומי…

The plan follows a consistent logic: it seeks to deepen territorial control of Gaza while denying the legal consequences that international law attaches to occupation.

Experts analyze critical dimensions of Israel’s strikes relevant responses, covering nuclear diplomacy; strategic, security, and regional implications; and international law.

The ICC might still play a role in walking humanity back from the brink, if States can find the political will to respect and strengthen the work of the Court.

Why did Israel, and then the United States, decide to attack Iran now, even as U.S.-Iranian negotiations sputtered along?

A synopsis of Israeli Supreme Court recent judgment, particularly relevant now that the government has suspended humanitarian aid altogether.

With major powers increasingly skeptical of international institutions, strengthening the Court's legal coherence is necessary for preserving its legitimacy

Israel’s decision to cut Gaza off from essential goods violates IHL and reactivates crimes charged in the ICC’s arrest warrant for Netanyahu, writes Dannenbaum.

State reactions to the ICC’s decision can shed light on their views on legal questions raised in response to the warrant applications, as well as on the Court’s legitimacy.

Beyond complicating the chances of a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, the idea undermines core principles of the international legal order and threatens U.S. interests.

The implementation of the second stage of the agreement, or even just continued calm, likely depends on whether President Donald Trump is prepared to intervene to keep the peace.

The incoming Trump administration can take advantage of the ICC's activities to achieve legitimate U.S. interests in Gaza and beyond.