In an interview with the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, Hossein Ruyvaran said about the verdict of the International Criminal Court (ICC): the court verdict is very important, although it placed the murderer next to the victim, and in addition to Netanyahu and Gallant, the same sentence was passed against Senwar, Haniyeh and Mohammad Zaif because those who commit so many genocides and crimes cannot be equated with those who legitimately defend their people and land.

He stated that the International Criminal Court has so far ruled in five cases of genocide in Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Congo, and Central Africa, and the maximum sentence it issued was life imprisonment. He added: “In some of these cases, they have succeeded in implementing the sentences issued, including in Sudan, did not.

Referring to the threat of the United States against the countries that supported this ruling and announced that they would prosecute these people, this regional expert said: It is natural that the United States neither accepts this vote nor leaves the countries implementing this ruling at ease … It will surely threaten them with extensive financial and commercial sanctions. This behavior of the US shows that Washington is not law-abiding, and wherever the law stands against it or its allies, it threatens, and this is shameful behavior.

Concerning the support of three European countries for the verdict of the International Criminal Court, Ruyvaran said some European countries supported the verdict and some raised objections. In Europe and many countries that are signatories of the Rome Convention, this court is trusted and respected, but it is doubtful that they consider themselves obliged to implement the rulings, especially since this decision does not have much guarantee of execution for them.

He said about the political impact of this verdict on the ceasefire negotiations and stopping the war: This verdict has a great impact on the future of Rafah and Gaza. In other words, the fact that Netanyahu and Gallant are accused of genocide has disgraced the Israeli regime in the world. Today, the officials of this regime, who have always played the victim and justified their crimes by oppressing and propagating the Holocaust, are wanted, and this has a high moral and political cost for the Israeli regime.

Emphasizing that the court verdict is politically important, this regional expert said that the Zionist regime is a criminal regime and the people who were involved in this crime should be tried; this regime is one of the moral categories that it fraudulently claims. It is in the world and always promotes it, making it far away.

Regarding the arrest of the people mentioned in the criminal court order by the countries, he said it is unlikely that, in many countries, anyone would dare to hand them over to the court. In fact, the trial of the heads of the Zionist regime is very costly for the countries, and the West is trying to prevent this from happening. But the question is, why did this maneuver of moral destruction and political blow to the Zionist regime by the International Criminal Court happen? Why did Europe or some other countries defend it? The answer is that the conditions against liberal democracy in their capitals are so aggravated because they support the Zionist regime that they can no longer oppose this ruling. The Zionist regime commits genocide in broad daylight, and it is natural that this court should take action because if it does not do anything and remains silent regarding the killing of more than 35,000 people, most of whom are women and children, then it cannot speak about other issues.

Ruyvaran clarified that continuing the criminal court’s activity required this verdict. Otherwise, it would lose its legitimacy.

Regarding the `support of some European countries for this ruling, he noted that European countries are also compelled because the pressure of the public opinion of these countries against the criminal actions of the Zionist regime in Gaza and Rafah is very high as demonstrations and protest gatherings in London are unprecedented. Although demonstrations and protest gatherings were started in England regarding the issue of the occupation of Iraq, they ended quickly. They did not continue, but the demonstrations in support of Palestine in the past seven months continue and increase in intensity every day, and in other countries, it is the same. In any case, these systems are liberal and should at least appear to be accountable to their public opinion. Still, they will definitely not go as far as executing the verdict.