London, July 31 (RHC)-- Never before in the history of the International Criminal Court (ICC) have so many countries tried to block arrest warrants for people suspected of war crimes.

Not long after ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan requested arrest warrants for Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu and his minister of military affairs, Yoav Gallant, the UK, Germany, the United States and others, joined forces to try and stop or at least delay the warrants.

Others such as Norway, Spain and South Africa came out in favor of the ICC ruling.

However, in a reversal of plans announced by the former British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, and under mounting public pressure, the UK's new Labour government has said it is pulling out of the process.

While welcomed as a step in the right direction, it was blasted by Israel lobby groups such as the board of Deputies of British Jews, who expressed concern about its cumulative effect on Israel.

The US is reportedly pressuring the UK not to drop its legal challenge to the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s right to seek an arrest warrant against the Israeli premier.

The core tenet of the U.S. led legal challenge is that the ICC has no jurisdiction to prosecute Israeli leaders, an argument international law experts call tenuous at best.  Palestine has jurisdiction and can bring that claim because it is a party to the ICC and the Rome Statute.

Now, one legal principle to note, and which is a principle that Israel may use, is to say, well, we can investigate the crimes, because ICC has what is known as complementary jurisdiction.  It allows a country to investigate its crimes, but it is highly unlikely, as we've seen in the last year, for Israel to hold its own politicians and warmongers accountable.