The proverbial Rubicon has been crossed. The outgoing chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court Fatou Bensouda has left her successor a most juicy parting gift – a probe into Israel's alleged war crimes.
So, with the door closing behind her, Bensouda has opted to make a purely political decision that reeks of populism.
3 View gallery
A protester waves a Palestinian flag outside the International Criminal Court at The Hague
(Photo: AP)
Israel genuinely has nothing to fear for its own future or that of its leaders. As proud Jews who remember the infamous Dreyfus trial, we will prevail and emerge from this affair unscathed.
But Bensouda's actions pose a far more serious danger, delivering a major blow to the prestige of the ICC and that of international law as a whole.
What will happen when member states who reject the court's jurisdiction over Israel's conduct vis-à-vis the Palestinians refuse to cooperate with its warrants?
What kind of enforcement will the court - and criminal international law as a whole - have left?
Israel's justice system, led by the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, is among the most respected and prestigious in the Western World.
But a decision by members of the international community to put Israel under microscope is nothing new - be it out of political, practical or even anti-Semitic motives.
While the ICC decisions on Israel will always reek of external motives, Israel seems to prefer being right instead of being smart.
The peace talks with the Palestinians have essentially been non-existent for nearly 15 years. This complete lack of dialogue means no viable solution to the conflict, making Israel more vulnerable to criticism.
The Palestinians decided to put all their eggs in the court's basket and take a more bellicose stance against Israel as an alternative to the negotiating table.
With no talks in place, the Palestinians' second option was to pressure and attack Israel through the court.
Meanwhile Bensouda, already facing growing criticism for what some saw as the court's botched handling of investigations into alleged misdeeds in Africa, chose an easy distraction.
Instead of opting for a noble but more difficult path and launching probes into Syria and Iran, it was far easier for the ICC to direct its gaze on Jerusalem, which unlike Damascus and Tehran is not a signatory of the Rome Statute that created the court.
3 View gallery
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas meeting in 2014
(Photo: GettyImages)
With this in mind, Israel must formulate a complete, clear and coherent legal strategy to counter the ICC.
Therefore, it is time for Israel to resume talks with the Palestinian leadership, not from a position of weakness, but from one of strength.
Dr. Dana Wolf is a senior researcher, ICT & lecturer at the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy & Strategy at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center