Reflecting on the history a bit...

If you think that trying some head of a small thuggish state, founded by its unilateral declaration of sovereignty over someone else's land, while already cleansing it of unruly natives, and terrorizing British officials for years both in Palestine and internationally (like with assassination campaigns and embassy bombings), that dug its own hole over decades into ethno-supremacy based and messianically driven conflict with Palestinians, will in any way degrade legitimacy of a court and treaty joined by 125 sovereign states (with almost all "western" ones included), then you're deluding yourself.

Especially when he's being explicitly tried for his role in ensuring that children have to suffer amputations and women get c-sections without anesthesia (among other things), which has nothing to do with defense of Israel.

If anything ICC standing rose a bit in many people's eyes today, slightly above the "court for african warmongers only", where it was previously.

There is definitely an argument that the ICC's actions showed independence. I was trying to imply that in what I wrote. Maybe I need to be a little more clear. If nothing happens, these warrants go away, no sort of trial happens, etc etc, then it is likely that the ICC will be seen as increasingly irrelevant and ineffective. It is still likely to be viewed that way even if a trial does actually go forward but definitely if this just dies away quietly I suspect many will see the organization as nothing but a tool that some governments get to use when they want, and not an impartial check on international actions. I tried not to imply anything about the warrants, the people they are for or the events they are in response to because my discussion point was about the ICC and not the defendants.