IN these unpredictable, volatile times, you can always count on US senator Lindsey Graham to be consistently beyond the pale.

That said, the response from this drum-beating war hawk to the International Criminal Court (ICC) issuing an arrest warrant for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu breaks new records.

Not only does he pour derision on to the court’s decision – common among propagandists attempting to defend the indefensible – he also calls for US sanctions on any state which carries out the procedures of the ICC. And that includes the UK.

Indeed, Graham claims that the US will “crush” the economy should the British Government aid in the arrest of Netanyahu. But the fevered rantings of this Republican senator are not a one-off. They reflect a deepening crisis for the western powers, who are now caught between the international “rules-based order” they claim to represent, and the harsh reality of Israel’s policy in Gaza.

READ MORE: Stephen Flynn calls on UK Government to comply with ICC arrest warrant

The ICC decision comes very late in the day. It should have put Netanyahu and the now former minister for defence Yoav Gallant on notice long before now. Yet when the announcement was made a few days ago, many were in disbelief. And not just those in the political and media establishment, but anti-war campaigners too. For if you know much about the history, track record and practice of the ICC, it has effectively been utilised as an instrument of the West.

There are, in my estimation, three primary reasons why the court’s judges have bucked this unspoken rule now. First, that the scale of the crime in Gaza is so overwhelming that it could not be concealed. To do so would have rendered the ICC as irrelevant and exposed its proximity to western imperial interests in a way that flew a little too close to the sun.

Second, that the position of the US is weakening, in relative terms, within the global system. And thirdly, the court could not evade the vigilance of the international movement of opposition – in all its forms – to Israel’s actions.

READ MORE: Scottish Secretary Ian Murray to visit Malaysia and Singapore

The arrest warrants now echo through the international order, and have fragmented the western axis. But it is a crisis of its own making: a ceasefire could, and should, have been imposed. Israel could, and should, have been restrained.

None of this, it should be said, is in the slightest bit radical. Yet the same people who castigated the public demonstrations calling for a ceasefire last year, are now fumbling around for a sustainable line on developments. Suella Braverman, who tried to ban the protests while home secretary, claims the ICC has made a decision that brings itself into “disrepute”.

It turns out the Palestine solidarity and anti-war movement was not only on the right side of history in defying the draconian measures threatened against it, but also about the criminal brutality meted out against Gaza.

When all is said and done, it is the likes of Braverman whose reputation is in tatters, not the protesters.

France has said it will abide by ICC decisions. As a result, Joe Biden personally called President Emmanuel Macron on behalf of Netanyahu and told him that he said the Israeli PM “had a right to be angry” at the French government for promising to enforce the arrest warrants.

Little wonder, considering the US has been intrinsic to these crimes against humanity. It has supplied the arms, technical support and political cover for Israel. Its attempts at convening ceasefire talks have been no more than tokenistic.

The policy has been disastrous in terms of international prestige. The spokespeople for the American empire now appear to be reduced to temper tantrums and outlandish threats, as the country’s hypocrisies are exposed for all to see on the global stage.

The same can also be said of the UK Government, particularly Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy. In stopping some arms sales, that tacitly accepts that war crimes are taking place. Yet they will never say this, and scald anyone who uses the term genocide.

Martin Shaw, a historical sociologist of global politics, war and genocide and the author of the award-winning books War And Genocide and Genocide And International Relations, says: “Given the ‘plausible risk’ of genocide that the court has identified, the British Government should be ceasing all arms sales to Israel, ending its extensive military and political support, and using its position on the UN Security Council to help force Israel to withdraw from Gaza.

“The Government should be openly condemning Israel’s genocide, not denying it. Unless it takes these steps, Starmer and the UK will be liable for complicity in genocide under the convention.”

READ MORE: Owen Jones: History must be harsh on those who stayed silent

You can believe the leading scholars in the field, UN special committees, aid agencies and the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, or you can side with those who have been active participants in one way or another in the slaughter, and who as a result can only reject the true scale of the devastation, lest they implicate themselves.

And here we arrive at the central contradiction: on the one hand the UK Government has said it “will always comply with its legal obligations as set out by domestic law and indeed international law” in response to the arrest warrants, yet at the very same time it continues to send arms and logistical support to Netanyahu and the Israeli state.

It is an impossible position. And for that reason it is also a morally, politically and legally weak platform which can be exposed by a mass movement and advocates for peace with justice. The horror simply must be put to an end.