The State of Israel's strategy for dealing with the ICC has collapsed.

Pato Bensuda, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, has already quietly or publicly made dubious legal claims by the Palestinians, according to which the PLO is a state, all territories of Israel that were subject to the illegal occupation of Jordan and Egypt in 1948-1967, including ancient Jerusalem , They are territories of the State of Palestine; Jewish settlement is an international crime; Therefore the results of the "investigation" are known in advance and it remains to be seen only what "evidence" will be collected. In contrast, the numerous crimes committed by the Palestinians, from torture and anti-Jewish apartheid to acts of terrorism and genocide, are not considered sufficient by the plaintiff to warrant investigation.

The plea added by the plaintiff to her decision only makes matters worse. Upon her declaration, the plaintiff asked the three tribunal judges to confirm that there is a sovereign state of Palestine in all areas of the Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem, by virtue of the Palestinians' desire to do so. About a year and a half ago, the judges ruled that the prosecutor must also advance in another anti-Israeli case - the Comoros state that the cruise ships and military and political command over them committed war crimes in the 2010 Marmara takeover. The tribunal ruling is known in advance, thereby becoming the first international tribunal to rule that the "State of Palestine" has sovereignty over all disputed territories in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

Just two weeks ago, it was reported in the media that senior jurists warned the prime minister not to act to apply Israeli law in the Jordan Valley, fearing that the tribunal will decide to launch an investigation against Israelis about this "crime." Investigation against Israel, regardless of the law in the Jordan Valley, not only did the jurists warn of a complete misunderstanding of the tribunal, but also reinforced its interest in acting against Israel, providing the court with the goods they sought: international proof that the tribunal was successful in changing its conduct Of a state through threats of criminal proceedings.

This is not the first time that the State's lawyers, including the most senior officials, have acted in a way that does not intend to spur the tribunal to advance anti-Israel moves. Senior jurists spoke of the Israeli legal system as a "protective wall" against the criminal court's investigations, as if the court was acting on professional and non-political-legal considerations.

As long as Israel treats the tribunal as a legal entity, as long as contacts with tribunal staff act as if they were acting in good faith, as long as legal claims are made as if there is a listening ear on the part of the tribunal, Israel will continue to lose this battle. Stronger political measures must be taken, as the US has already done, before the nightmare of indictments against IDF soldiers is implemented.