No longer just mist, but real storm clouds of international pressure are gathering over Israel, marking a week of unprecedented lousy news on the diplomatic front.

Karim Khan, a prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC/ICC), which hears cases against individuals, has formally requested arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant on suspicion of intentionally committing war crimes.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), a UN body handling disputes between states, has granted South Africa’s appeal for interim orders demanding that Israel halt military actions in the town of Rafah.

Ireland, Norway and Spain decided to unilaterally recognize the Palestinian State.

Let’s break down each decision and discuss appropriate and inappropriate responses to them.

Decision of the International Criminal Court

The ICC decision came as a surprise to Israel. According to Israeli lawyers, prosecutor Karim Khan was about to make his second visit to Israel since the outbreak of war before making a final decision, but changed his mind and issued a statement on May 20 announcing the request for arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Galant, as well as the heads of Hamas – Ihya Sinuar, Ismail Haniyeh and Mohamad Def.

The statement focuses on the decisions of Israel’s political-military leadership at the outset of the war and beyond, which led to the difficult humanitarian situation in Gaza: starvation, dehydration, lack of sanitation, and infections. While affirming Israel’s right to defend itself and its citizens, the statement also notes significant indications that several military decisions made may have breached international humanitarian law and could potentially amount to war crimes.

The decision to withhold electricity, water and block all humanitarian supplies during the first weeks of the war is heavily emphasized and is seen as a deliberate creation of unbearable living conditions for the entire population in order to pressure Hamas and achieve military objectives, which is contrary to humanitarian law.

The decision sparked a flurry of criticism not only in Israel but also globally, on several fronts.

Requesting arrest warrants for the highest officials of a democratic state along with the heads of a brutal terrorist organization pending investigation and trial is seen as an overly harsh, unjustified and extreme measure.

The court’s jurisdiction does not extend to Israel because Israel has neither signed nor accepted the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding document. However, the court argues that the alleged crimes occurred de facto in Palestinian territories, and the Palestinian Authority has ratified the statute.

Israel has so far boycotted ICC proceedings, asserting that it possesses an independent and robust justice system capable of holding all citizens, including senior officials, accountable. However, for the ICC to refrain from intervening in particular cases, it necessitates the country itself to initiate proper audits and investigations.

If the court decides to issue arrest warrants, Netanyahu and Galant could be restricted from traveling to 124 countries worldwide, including most of Europe. Some countries, like Hungary, have already declared they will not enforce the warrants. The German foreign minister, who criticized the ICC decision, gave a non-committal response when questioned about the possibility of Israeli leaders being arrested on German territory.

Decision of the International Court of Justice

Since January this year, the UN International Court of Justice has been hearing South Africa’s case against Israel for allegedly committing or intending to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. And while the case itself will be heard at a later date, South Africa has already twice requested urgent hearings for interim measures. In January, the court did not accept their request for a complete suspension of military action, but ordered Israel to significantly increase humanitarian aid, prioritize humanitarian considerations in military decision-making, and report to the court on compliance.

This time, the decision was more painful for Israel. The court barred Israel from continuing any military action in the town of Rafah that threatens casualties and severe humanitarian consequences for civilians and ordered allowing any international intelligence team on behalf of the UN to enter Gaza unhindered.

The ruling has sparked criticism as well, but some experts in Israel interpret it as allowing the precise operations in Rafah to continue. However, collectively, this week’s decisions from the two Hague courts inflict substantial diplomatic damage on Israel and pose a significant test for the international legitimacy of future military actions.

The ICJ and the UN lack effective enforcement mechanisms for their directives. However, failure to comply, followed by harsher judgments and UN Security Council resolutions, could potentially subject Israel to sanctions and boycotts.

Decision on the Recognition of the Palestinian State

Finally, three European States announced this week their unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state and urged the European Union to endorse this decision. Without a viable peace treaty defining recognized borders between Palestinians and Israel, state recognition remains symbolic and does not alter conditions on the ground. Nonetheless, it represents another significant diplomatic tool exerting pressure on Israel.

This occurs amidst the Israeli leadership’s consistent reluctance to articulate its future plans and reconfirm its dedication to the two-state solution, now reemerging on the international agenda. Simultaneously, there are both muted and outspoken proposals among Israeli politicians to assert military and potentially civilian authority over the Gaza Strip, including calls for the reintroduction of Israeli settlements in the region.

This was opposed last week by Defense Minister Yoav Galant, who called on the Prime Minister to publicly reject such strategies.

How should and should not we respond to all of this?

Let’s set emotions aside and examine the situation objectively. Despite the evident injustice and prejudice of decisions against Israel, our society and politicians must acknowledge certain facts.

These decisions did not occur in the war’s initial days or months. Experts have consistently cautioned from the outset that global trust is not limitless, and over time, criticism and pressure would intensify. Moreover, these developments are not unfolding out of the blue; they are a response to our actions and inactions.

Nearly nine months of conflict have elapsed, during which, unfortunately, we have not achieved any of our objectives. International law generally permits warfare only when those goals are realistically attainable.

Condemning our actions does not automatically qualify for justifying atrocities or supporting Hamas. Neither do the horrific acts of terrorists entitle us to take any action in retaliation or grant immunity from all criticism.

Complaining and labeling everything as anti-Semitism, firstly, is not always accurate and undermines the significance of this essential term. Secondly, it just doesn’t contribute positively or help us achieve any goals.

Yes, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict holds a foremost place on the world’s agenda and attracts more attention than many other conflicts, regardless of its complexities. However hypocritical it may be, we cannot change that.

Israel faces intense and often biased global scrutiny and operates within a deliberately challenging diplomatic environment. While we may resent it and strive against it, for now, we must accept it as a reality and shape our policies accordingly.

Even if we had conducted this war with utmost precision, the world would still find reasons to criticize. Yet, we have made lots of mistakes, including some that could have been avoided.

From the outset of the war, it was crucial to enforce strict discipline in public statements to avoid providing any unnecessary excuses to our critics and oversight bodies.

It could have been good for ministers to be aware of their responsibilities from day one and refrain from making statements that eventually worked against us. Even if there is some policy in place, perhaps we shouldn’t be blabbing about it at every turn. And yes, if something is said in Hebrew, people abroad still know how to translate and understand when necessary. But if it’s already happening, it would be appropriate for the head of state to articulate some balanced public stance, at least, if not to critique.

The same strict discipline should have been upheld within the military to prevent the rampant use of phone videos, which often portray us in a negative light and occasionally are undermining our defense in The Hague Court. If such incidents occur, it would be appropriate, at the very least, to criticize such actions. Soldiers, despite their undeniable contributions, bear responsibility to understand the boundaries of acceptability in an already challenging situation.

So far, the opposite is happening. In response to last week’s decisions, we continue the policy of burning bridges. Minister Ben-Gvir declares the need to reoccupy Gaza and evict the local population, Minister Smotrich freezes the Palestinian Authority’s financial flows and calls on the Prime Minister to urgently take a series of decisions, including the expansion of settlements in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), to which the Prime Minister responds with little or nothing.

After a diplomatic fiasco, acting out of spite, allowing words and actions that further alienate us from the world and push away not only our foes but also our few loyal partners, is a road to nowhere.

How can our defense team argue that abrupt statements by ministers are merely emotional reactions to the events of October 7 and do not reflect actual policy, when similar statements continue to be made by ministers in the military-political decision-making cabinet?

We could have pursued a proactive foreign policy throughout the war, clearly communicating our stance and preempting diplomatic challenges. Regarding the Palestinian State issue, Israel has almost never opposed the two-state solution. Even the current Prime Minister has affirmed his commitment to this stance in various languages and on different occasions.

Since the international community has been anticipating it, we could reiterate our previously stated position. However, following October 7, we could present a more robust and comprehensive list of our stringent security conditions, demanding that they be met before the question of the actual establishment of a Palestinian state is even raised.

But it was our indecision and inability to disarm our detractors in advance that became the weapon in their hands.

So, if things are so unfair, maybe there’s no point in responding to criticism at all? Unfortunately, we have reached the point of no return, when criticism was just lip service that could be ignored. Criticism has turned into action, and to respond to it with words only is to continue to lose the diplomatic battle.

We should oppose these decisions, voice our dissatisfaction, but focusing solely on resentment and lamenting injustice is not effective politics. Unfortunately, it only leads to complacency. We must wake up, acknowledge our mistakes, plan ahead, and take proactive steps to cut the diplomatic losses we are experiencing.