Israel’s Impunity Was Supposed to Last Forever - They Were Wrong

Right, so for decades, international condemnation of Israel's treatment of Palestinians has echoed through the corridors of the United Nations, international tribunals, and human rights organisations, it has been going on for far longer than just as far back as October of 2023, as we should all know by now. Yet, those condemnations rarely translated into consequences. Instead, international law appeared to exist in two parallel worlds doesn’t it? One in which Palestinian suffering is documented and acknowledged, and another in which Israel is completely immune from meaningful sanction. That may be about to change.
Next week, the Hague Group—a coalition of Global South nations formed to uphold international law in the Israel-Palestine context—will convene an emergency ministerial summit in Bogotá, Colombia. The summit represents not just another diplomatic gathering, but the possible beginning of an international legal and geopolitical shift, a meaningful shift with actual action against Israel, hence the emergency bit. Co-chaired by Colombia and South Africa, the Hague Group's intent is not simply to issue statements, but to utilise the very legal tools for too long rendered impotent by the political impunity Israel has enjoyed and that the Bogotá meeting, especially in light of many other non member states – Israel critical states - also attending, constituting a turning point in efforts to hold Israel accountable, marking a transition from symbolic protest to enforceable, meaningful international action.
Right so, the Hague Group was founded at the beginning of this year, January 31, in The Hague, hence the name, by a coalition of Global South countries: Colombia, South Africa, Bolivia, Namibia, Senegal, Malaysia, Cuba, and Honduras. These states, many of them with histories shaped by colonialism and apartheid themselves, came together in response to the mounting legal consensus that Israel's actions in Gaza amount to genocide. As noted by Jewish Voice for Labour, the group's core mission is to ensure the enforcement of international legal obligations, including the 1948 Genocide Convention, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The timing was significant. South Africa had of course already filed a genocide case against Israel at the ICJ. Colombia had just severed diplomatic ties with Israel in protest of its attacks on Gaza, with President Gustavo Petro calling for an end to what he labelled a campaign of "devastation." As The Cradle has noted, the Hague Group emerged as a response to the paralysis of international institutions, particularly the United Nations Security Council, which has been repeatedly hamstrung by US vetoes shielding Israel from accountability.
The group's objectives go beyond traditional diplomacy though, that hasn’t worked and they readily acknowledged that. Its formation signals a collective legal rebellion instead, a challenge to the geopolitical architecture that has long protected Israel from meaningful accountability. By aligning legal strategy with political coordination, the Hague Group aspires to enforce international law not through Western-led institutions but through Global South solidarity. It is, in essence, an attempt to reclaim the promise of the post-World War II legal order from the betrayal we’re witnessing of political cynicism and selective enforcement - that what happened then should never happen again and yet it is being allowed to happen again.
Scheduled for July 15–16, the emergency summit in Bogotá is the Hague Group's first major ministerial-level convening. It signals a decisive shift from declared diplomacy to coordinated enforcement. That is the purpose of this meeting, to do something. According to Press TV, the summit will focus on implementing concrete legal, economic, and diplomatic measures against Israel, including enforcement of ICC arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, but that’s just scratching the surface.
The significance of the Bogotá summit lies not merely in its timing but in its scope and ambition. The event marks a clear escalation from the diplomatic posturing of the past to a moment of judicial and jurisdictional confrontation. For the first time, a coalition of states is seeking to move from outrage to accountability. The planned agenda involves more than symbolic resolutions. It aims to create binding frameworks through which member states will take synchronised legal action, ensuring that international law is not just referenced but actively implemented.
The geographical choice of Bogotá is also important. Colombia, under President Petro, has become a leading voice in the Global South's legal shift. The decision to host the summit there reinforces Latin America's central role – more broadly than just Colombia - in the emerging anti-impunity movement and demonstrates the regional shift away from US alignment on Middle East policy, which fundamentally operates around protecting and benefiting Israel above all else.
Crucially, the summit will include an expanded coalition of nations as well. Countries such as China, Brazil, Turkey, Ireland, and several EU states like Portugal and Spain have shown interest or declared their support and attendance. This expansion transforms the Hague Group from a core alliance of sympathetic states into a growing global bloc capable of exerting even more diplomatic pressure.
The Hague Group’s initiative draws upon a long legacy of legal accountability efforts, this is nothing actually new, there is historical precedent for this action and why it has worked. Most notably amongst these have been the anti-apartheid movement of the 20th century and international prosecutions following the Rwandan genocide and the Yugoslav wars. In particular, the arrest of Slobodan Milošević and the principle of universal jurisdiction applied to Augusto Pinochet established precedents that state officials could no longer rely on immunity to shield themselves from international crimes. The Group’s invocation of these precedents positions it as a continuation of a global trajectory toward universal accountability—a trajectory that has for too long been obstructed when it comes to Israel.
One of the most consequential proposals under consideration is the collective enforcement of the ICC arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. If even a single Hague Group member detains one of these figures upon entering their territory, it would mark an unprecedented moment in modern international law, because several states have ignored these, especially in Europe. Such an action would establish a legal precedent for the arrest of serving heads of government under charges of genocide and crimes against humanity, shattering long-standing norms of political immunity – that there really are legitimate no go zones for these people. Beyond its symbolic weight – which of course this largely is, Netanyahu can easily avoid these nations - the legal and diplomatic ripple effects would still be enormous—forcing a re-evaluation of state conduct across conflicts worldwide and shaming those abusing these international laws they are signed up to.
The summit is also expected to produce a robust framework for a multilateral arms embargo. This would prohibit weapons transfers, military assistance, and dual-use technologies to Israel. Grounded in the ICJ's ruling that states must not assist or facilitate genocide, such an embargo would signal a strategic commitment to aligning military logistics with human rights law. The inclusion of airspace and maritime restrictions—denying passage to aircraft or vessels transporting arms to Israel—would tighten the enforcement net, forcing military suppliers to reroute or withdraw. It would make global logistics, given how reliant on foreign arms deliveries, far more difficult and more expensive for Israel, especially for goods being routed from as far away as the US.
Economic and financial sanctions are another powerful lever under consideration. These may target banks, institutions, and companies implicated in financing or enabling the Israeli occupation. Targeted asset freezes against Israeli officials, restrictions on imports of settlement products, and bans on investment in Israeli defence contractors such as Elbit Systems or Rafael could weaken the economic underpinnings of the Israeli war machine. Taken together, these financial tools aim to make apartheid and aggression more and more economically untenable.
Support for universal jurisdiction prosecutions marks another evolution in the legal strategy. By coordinating legal resources and expertise, Hague Group states can encourage their own courts—or those of aligned jurisdictions—to open war crimes investigations. Spain’s actions already suggest momentum is building, having done this themselves as I covered the other day. Other countries like Chile, Belgium, or Brazil could follow. These cases do not depend on ICC jurisdiction and offer an alternative venue for justice if international tribunals remain stymied.
Finally, the Group aims to challenge Israel’s legitimacy within the international system. Proposals to suspend Israel from UN bodies, international sporting federations, and law enforcement frameworks like Interpol are all under consideration. These actions, if realized, would not just isolate Israel diplomatically but stigmatise its presence within international spaces, exactly what I can remember being done to South Africa as a child.
The Hague Group’s initiatives are underpinned by some of the most established principles of international law. Chief among them is the 1948 Genocide Convention, which mandates that signatory states prevent and punish genocide. This obligation is not discretionary. In January 2024 and again in July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that there was a plausible case that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. It issued provisional measures instructing Israel to halt genocidal acts and for other states to refrain from assisting in the commission of such crimes. Neither has actually happened. Many states have continued unabated and their leaders are due a reckoning for that at some point themselves.
Equally crucial is the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Under the Rome Statute, signatories are legally obligated to execute such warrants, even against sitting heads of state, as is certainly the case when it comes to Benjamin Netanyahu. This principle has been tested before—most notably when Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir faced travel limitations following his own ICC indictment. There is also the recent arrest of Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines.
Nevertheless, the Hague Group must navigate significant political constraints. The United States, a non-member of the ICC, has repeatedly undermined its authority, even sanctioning ICC officials earlier this year and sanctioning UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese and yet again attempting to shield Israel from legal consequences as a consequence. The UN Security Council, where the U.S. holds veto power, remains paralyzed on Israel. While countries like Ireland and Portugal support enforcement of international law, others in the EU—such as Hungary, Germany, and the UK—remain strong backers of Israel. Thus, while the legal foundations are firm, the geopolitical obstacles are still significant.
If implemented, the Hague Group’s measures could significantly alter Israel’s strategic calculus though. The diplomatic fallout alone could push Israel into isolation unprecedented since the 1980s. Already estranged from all of the aforementioned states, Israel now risks broader alienation across Asia and Africa. Countries withdrawing ambassadors, suspending bilateral agreements, or denying Israeli officials entry will further erode Israel’s global legitimacy.
Militarily, a coordinated arms embargo and denial of airspace or port access for military-linked shipments would disrupt Israel’s supply chains. While Israel has a well-developed domestic arms industry, it remains heavily reliant as we know, on external inputs, its economy could never support domestic only arms use at the rate Israel gets through munitions, not to mention the need for other various precision electronics, and spare parts. Even if the US and Western Europe continue arms flows, which no doubt they will, rerouting and risk exposure will increase costs and reduce operational capacity.
Economically, the stakes are rising already. Israeli defence contractors like Elbit Systems are already facing growing divestment, their plants in the UK having been subjected to significant direct action. A formal multilateral embargo would likely deter new foreign investment and accelerate capital flight. We’re already seeing that in Israel, as investment drops and the economy there suffers further. If compounded by asset freezes or blacklisting by Hague Group central banks, the impact could be felt across Israel’s financial system. Beyond sanctions, the reputational damage could extend to tourism, academic exchanges, and even technology cooperation, already having taken a battering as these have, especially with countries like Brazil and India now drifting away from pro-Israel alignment, India even eying up Iran as a better investment be especially with the transport links Iran’s central positioning offers.
Domestically, the consequences may be even more profound. Legal jeopardy for Netanyahu could destabilise Israel’s ruling coalition, especially if travel becomes restricted and internal dissent grows.
The current momentum marks a decisive break from the legal doldrums we seem to be trapped in where it comes to Israel. But the question remains: why has it taken so long for such coordinated legal action to emerge? We’re nearly 2 years in to Israel’s genocide of Gaza and as I said at the start, their atrocities have gone on for far longer than that anyway.
First, previous actions have always been fragmented. South Africa’s ICJ case, Venezuela’s denunciations, Malaysia’s bans—all were isolated acts without a unifying architecture. The Hague Group solves this problem by institutionalising cooperation across the legal, diplomatic, and economic spheres of all the member states.
Second, there has always been fear of retaliation. Countries have long hesitated to confront Israel directly due to US protection. The threat of secondary sanctions, trade consequences, or diplomatic backlash served to deter them. That fear has now been superceded somewhat if the Hague Group act as a collective and certainly Colombia led the way in taking the fight back to the US in terms of threats of sanctions. Trump’s economic war and his bunging of tariffs, exposed that US threats in this regard have often proved to be hollow.
Third, there was a legal vacuum. While human rights violations were well documented, there was no binding legal finding of genocide or war crimes from global courts. That has now changed. The ICJ and ICC have broken that stalemate, giving states not only moral cover but legal obligation.
Fourth, the global balance is just shifting. The decline of US influence and the rise of multipolarism—with powers like China or Russia or Brazil, asserting independent foreign policies—has emboldened Global South states. The Hague Group here and now is able to leverage an opening on all of these former issues, that did not exist even five years ago.
The formation and mission of the Hague Group would not be possible without decades of grassroots pressure though, ordinary working class people making their feelings felt. Civil society organisations, legal advocacy groups, and Palestinian diaspora networks have laid the foundation for this legal and diplomatic offensive. Organizations like Al-Haq, B’Tselem, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights have meticulously documented war crimes and compiled legal dossiers for years, now being used in courtrooms across Europe and Latin America.
Internationally, movements like BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) have transformed public discourse and shifted the Overton window. From university campuses to corporate boardrooms, the normalisation of Israeli accountability is no longer a fringe issue—it is now mainstream.
The Global South has taken up the mantle of moral and legal leadership. This reflects a broader reassertion of sovereignty against neocolonial legal double standards. Just as the Global South challenged apartheid South Africa and US imperialism in the 20th century, it is now constructing a parallel legal order where international law cannot be selectively applied.
This is a fusion of legal precision and political pragmatism. In taking legal leadership into its own hands, the Global South is no longer appealing to the conscience of the West—it is building the structures to bypass it entirely when the West simply won’t listen, their colonial project in the Middle East remaining of paramount importance to them whatever their crimes might be.
The Hague Group’s path is not without danger. Israel, backed by powerful Western allies, may retaliate economically, diplomatically, or even through covert means. Cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, we know what Israel do by now don’t we? Political destabilisation efforts are not off the table either, goodness knows the US have been trying that with Venezuela as a for instance for some time. Some Hague Group states—especially those with more fragile economies—could face blackmail via IMF pressure, aid withdrawal, or targeted sanctions.
There are also internal risks. Maintaining the cohesion among the Hague Group will be challenging. Not all members share identical levels of political stability or foreign policy independence. Domestic opposition from pro-Israel lobbies or US-aligned political factions may complicate enforcement.
However, the Group’s resilience will depend on its ability to institutionalise its work. Proposals for a Hague Group Secretariat, rotating presidency, legal coordination committees, and an annual summit are already being floated. If these structures materialise, the Group could evolve into a standing international body—one capable of responding to other crises beyond Gaza even, from Yemen to Western Sahara.
Most importantly though, the Group must maintain credibility. Any sign of wavering, compromise with settler-colonial justifications, or slow implementation of promised actions will undermine its legitimacy, but if they’ve come this far already, that really oughtn’t to be an issue. If it stays the course, it will mark the first time since Nuremberg that the Global South has taken the lead in enforcing international criminal law.
The Bogotá emergency summit may come to be remembered as a hinge point in modern international law. For the first time, a coordinated bloc of states is moving beyond condemnation and toward enforcement. The Hague Group is not merely responding to Israel’s atrocities—it is redefining what global justice can look like when led by those who have suffered its absence the longest.
This shift has profound implications. If further arrest warrants are executed, if arms embargoes are enforced, if Israel is expelled from global institutions, it will not only alter Israeli policy—it will shatter the illusion that international law is the exclusive domain of the powerful West.
The Hague Group’s challenge to impunity is also a challenge to the broader architecture of international relations. In its defiance of selective justice, it offers a blueprint for a more pluralistic, consistent, and morally coherent global order. One in which the victims of empire, apartheid, and militarism are no longer silenced, but finally heard—in the courtroom, in the UN General Assembly, and in the streets of Bogotá.
Whether or not Israel is brought to justice in the immediate term, the foundations of its immunity are cracking. And the Hague Group is holding a very big chisel.
For more on the Spanish legal action already underway, please do check out this video recommendation here as your suggested next watch.
Please do also hit like, share and subscribe if you haven’t done so already so as to ensure you don’t miss out on all new daily content as well as spreading the word and helping to support the channel at the same time which is very much appreciated, holding power to account for ordinary working class people and I will hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks.