> At some point Netanyahu will be out of power.

I wish and hope that's true.

But I think some of your analysis is really incorrect, unfortunately.

> He's been voted out of office before.

Yes, he was out of power for about a year of the last 15 or so years, and got back into power.

> He's in trouble politically.

True, and I hope it stays that way. However the elections are still two years away, there doesn't seem to be any pathway to forcing the elections to happen sooner, and he is gaining ground, not losing it. It is very much a possibility that he holds on to power.

> He promised a short, victorious war over Gaza, and got into a long major war against Iran and more countries instead.

I'm not sure he actually promised a short war. That said, the war against Lebanon is probably the most successful thing he's done in terms of restoring his power. It's entirely possible that acting more aggressively against more enemies is a winning strategy for him.

> The next government might decide to turn him over to the ICC simply to get him off the political stage.

This basically reads as completely wrong to me. Almost every politician on every side of the aisle in Israel has condenmed the ICC. The intrusion into Israeli sovereignity is a big blow to Israel, implying that Israel's democracy isn't trusted to hold people accountable by ourselves.

Even if privately opposition leaders would want Netanyahu gone, giving him up would be suicide politically.

> The next government might decide to turn him over to the ICC simply to get him off the political stage.

That seems very unlikely. If the next gov really hates him they might prosecute him domestically (the things he is accused of are all illegal under israeli law), but i can't imagine they would hand him to the icc.

Not just because that would look bad, but also because icc is supposed to be a court of last resort only to be used where domestic courts fail.

"instead" ?!

There was already a cold war with Iran before Oct 7, and many warned it could pop any moment. It could be said to the detriment of Netanyahu that he ignored that and didn't want this on his watch. Iran was priming and planning for a moment where a joint Hezbollah-Hamas ground invasion would have put the Israeli military to a stress beyond its means, and with many thousands casualties on the first day. It would have happened sooner or later if it wasn't for the Hamas independent action.

Also, on Oct 2023 he and other officials said it is going to be a long battle from the beginning. He never once promised this to be short. And also, a clear victory from a long war gets him more electorates, so he aligns his own victory with Israel's.

It will not happen to that next administration would turn over Netanyahu to the ICC. Even if they wanted to, he would seek asylum in the U.S. Embassy and he would certainly be granted asylum.

One thing I've learned these past 20 years: when an awful political leader seems to obviously be undergoing a downfall and on their way out of power, you can be sure they'll be there 20 years later. And they'll outlive all of us too, even if they're already geriatric.

> The next government might decide to turn him over to the ICC

The next person to win a fight for a most exclusive position may decide it should be of substantially less value.. But usually only as a tactic to get the position.

>The next government might decide to turn him over to the ICC simply to get him off the political stage.

I thought it was the USA that makes these decisions

International crime or not, the long war with Iran like the long war with Russia is not a choice by Biden/netanyahu. It is always Iran here … can Iran promise a short one. Russia will as well. Just no Isreal or Ukraine.

I have no idea how to resolve this. It is a mess. But one side needs to be PC and the other side was constrained to do this and that. When is icc warrant on putin and get him really arrested.

We hope for peace, rule based … but that is hope. One side disarming will not help.

[dead]

>What this really does is remove the ICC's authority.

Not yet. The UK and Italy both declared that they would be legally obligated to abide by the decision, which is unprecendented and historic in itself. Sure, Netanyahu could call their bluff and go to these places, and if they backpedal, then it would undermine the ICC's authority like you said. But Netanyahu would have to call their bluff for that to happen, or they would have to do an about-face before he arrives.

But until then, I would suggest that even the fact that just two well known western democracies quickly backed the ICC's authority (regardless of what they thought of the ruling) just gave the ICC more authority than it ever had before.