The relationship between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and peace should not be seen as a direct one. Just as the ICC aims to achieve its retributive goals by activating national justice systems, the same approach should be expected for the attainment of its restorative goals. International tribunals can promote peace and reconciliation by triggering domestic legal developments in the countries they target, even if they are negatively perceived by the local population. When justice is administered at the national level, it is more likely to be seen as relevant and legitimate by the local population. This perception increases the potential for restorative effects, such as humanizing victims and perpetrators, reducing feelings of revenge, and creating conditions conducive to peace and reconciliation. This is especially true when domestic accountability procedures target both sides of the conflict, which may be the case in Israel.

The recent visit of the ICC Prosecutor to Israel and Palestine and the intensification of the investigation into the "Situation of Palestine" can be attributed to several reasons. These include the gravity of the crimes committed, such as sexual violence and crimes against children, which are priority areas for the ICC. Additionally, the holding of hostages by perpetrators and the urgent need to address the high death toll and humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza caused by the conflict contribute to the pressure on the ICC to act swiftly. The ICC's prompt action could also aim to mitigate the increasing violence by Jewish settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank and inflammatory statements by Israeli politicians regarding Palestinians.

The question at hand is whether the ICC's revamped investigation of Israel/Palestine could promote peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. The ICC's goal of promoting peace is explicitly stated in the Rome Statute, which recognizes that international crimes threaten global peace, security, and well-being. It is important to understand that the ICC's goals can be divided into retributive goals (establishing accountability, reducing impunity, punishing) and restorative goals (promoting peace, reconciliation, healing, rehabilitation). Transitional justice theories and practices have shown that these goals are complementary and mutually reinforcing, moving away from the dichotomy of "peace versus justice." However, some argue that an international criminal tribunal like the ICC, which is geographically and culturally distant from the target societies, may not have a significant impact on delicate domestic processes such as peacebuilding and reconciliation.

There is less controversy surrounding the ICC's ability to achieve its retributive goals. However, it is acknowledged that the ICC's success in this regard depends on the cooperation of national justice systems in addressing atrocities, even in cases where the ICC is involved. The ICC's limited resources and cumbersome procedures mean that it can only try a small fraction of the perpetrators associated with each situation. Therefore, the ICC's retributive goals can only be achieved if national courts also take action. The ICC's Complementarity Principle, enshrined in the Rome Statute, was designed to incentivize domestic trials for atrocity crimes. According to this principle, the ICC will not intervene if a state with jurisdiction is genuinely investigating or prosecuting the case, unless the state is unwilling or unable to do so. This principle assumes that states prefer to avoid scrutiny by the ICC and will initiate their own investigations and trials to prevent cases from reaching the ICC. Other international criminal tribunals, such as the ICTY and ICTR, have successfully encouraged domestic justice systems to address atrocities through referral of cases to national courts.

In conclusion, while some argue that an international criminal tribunal like the ICC may not have a significant impact on peacebuilding and reconciliation processes, there is evidence to suggest that the ICC's engagement can promote peace and reconciliation indirectly. By incentivizing domestic accountability and triggering national legal developments, the ICC can contribute to the restoration of justice and the creation of conditions conducive to peace and reconciliation in Israel and Palestine.