TEHRAN – When the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants in November last year for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of war crimes in Gaza, the move was hailed by many as a historic step toward accountability.

The charges included using starvation as a weapon of war, deliberately targeting civilians, and obstructing humanitarian aid — violations that strike at the heart of international humanitarian law. 

By naming Netanyahu and Gallant directly, the ICC signaled that responsibility for wartime policies rests not only with military operations but with the political leadership that authorizes them. It was a rare and bold assertion of judicial independence, challenging the perception that powerful states and their allies remain beyond the reach of justice.

The United States responded not by engaging with the evidence but by sanctioning nine ICC judges, including Nicolas Guillou. His testimony reveals the suffocating reach of American power. He described cancelled hotel bookings, frozen accounts, and exclusion from global banking systems, saying, “These sanctions affect every aspect of my daily life… Being under sanctions is like being sent back to the 1990s.” Overnight, Guillou lost access to Visa, Mastercard, and other U.S.-controlled systems, illustrating how Washington’s dominance in finance and technology can be weaponized to intimidate judges and discourage further action against Israeli officials. The sanctions were not symbolic; they were designed to isolate and punish, creating anxiety and powerlessness among those targeted.

Israel, for its part, dismissed the ICC’s legitimacy, portraying the court as biased and hostile. This rejection mirrors past efforts to deflect scrutiny of military operations in Palestinian territories. With U.S. backing, Israel positions itself outside the reach of international justice, relying on political protection to shield its leaders from prosecution. The reaction from Palestinian authorities was markedly different, as they welcomed the ICC warrants as overdue recognition of the suffering in Gaza. Human rights organizations also praised the move, calling it historic and necessary to strengthen accountability for war crimes. European governments, however, remain divided. Some defended the ICC’s independence, while others hesitated under U.S. pressure, exposing the fragility of international consensus when powerful states are involved.

The confrontation highlights the imbalance between law and power. The ICC seeks to uphold universal principles, but its authority is undermined when judges themselves are targeted with sanctions. Guillou’s call for European “blocking regulations” reflects a broader demand for sovereignty in digital and financial systems, without which international justice remains vulnerable to coercion. The episode underscores how dependent Europe remains on U.S.-controlled infrastructure, from payment systems to online platforms, and how this dependence can be exploited to silence judicial independence.

The ICC’s warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant mark a turning point in efforts to hold leaders accountable for war crimes. Yet the U.S. and Israel’s response demonstrated how power can be wielded to suppress justice. Unless Europe and the wider international community defend the independence of the court, victims of Gaza’s devastation risk being abandoned, and the principle that no one is above the law will erode further.