The decision of the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant is risky. At stake is not just the fate of the two defendants but the reputation and relevance of the court itself.

Founded in 2002, it is the first time the ICC has issued warrants for the arrest of democratically elected leaders.

It is also the first time it has pursued individuals whose enterprise has been substantially supported by the West.

Of the 124 member states of the ICC on whom responsibility for enforcement of the warrants now falls, a good number - including the UK and much of Western Europe - provide arms and other military assistance to Israel.

This clash of interests will prove a major test of the court and the independence of its members’ own judicial systems.

Few of the arrest warrants the ICC issues - including an outstanding one for Vladimir Putin - are quickly enforced, but generally not for want of trying.

Of the 25 fugitives it lists as being currently “at large”, the great bulk are in countries outside its jurisdiction, many holed up in the lawless deserts of North Africa and the Sahel.

Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant could also just sit tight. Israel is not a member of the ICC and neither is the US, the country’s most powerful ally.

But their prominence and proximity to the Western interests is likely to draw greater attention and with it questions about the power and relevance of the court. What’s the point of the ICC if it can’t even reach our allies, those we do daily business with?