The accusations are related to the “Hamas” attack on Israel in October 2023 and the subsequent war between Israel and ”Hamas” in the Gaza Strip.
The ICC’s decision makes Netanyahu and the others international wanted suspects, likely to further complicate efforts to reach a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.
However, the practical impact of the ICC decision could be limited because Israel and the US, Israel’s main ally, are not members of the ICC. In addition, several Hamas officials that the ICC decided to detain have already been killed in the war.
Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have condemned ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan’s demand for warrants as anti-Semitic. US President Joe Biden also criticized the prosecutor and expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry said in September that it had challenged the ICC’s jurisdiction, saying the court had not given Israel a chance to investigate the allegations on its own before seeking the warrants.
Despite the warrants, none of the suspects are likely to appear before judges in The Hague anytime soon. The court has no police of its own to execute warrants and relies on cooperation with member states.
However, the threat of arrest could make it difficult for Netanyahu and Galant to travel abroad.
It is true that the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, who is also wanted by an ICC warrant for war crimes in Ukraine, recently visited Mongolia, a member state of the ICC, and was not detained there.
Member states have an obligation to detain suspects if a warrant has been issued and they arrive on their territory, but the court has no mechanism to enforce its warrants.
The three-judge panel made a unanimous decision to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Galant.
“The Chamber found that there is reasonable cause to believe that the two individuals willfully and knowingly denied the necessities of life to civilians in Gaza, including food, water, medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity,” the ruling said.
The court also issued a warrant for the arrest of Hamas leader Mohammed Deif for the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel.
Netanyahu was accused of anti-Semitism by the ICC on Thursday.
“The International Criminal Court’s anti-Semitic decision is comparable to today’s Dreyfus trial – and it will end the same way,” Netanyahu said in a statement, referring to the infamous 19th-century case in which Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish French army captain, was wrongfully convicted of treason.
Netanyahu stated that Israel’s current war in the Gaza Strip is just and that Israel “rejects with disgust the absurd and false actions and accusations leveled against it.”
He accused the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, of corruption and claimed the warrants were an attempt to shield himself from serious allegations of sexual harassment. Khan has denied the allegations.
Netanyahu said the judges were “driven by anti-Semitic hatred of Israel” and vowed that the arrest warrants would not prevent the state of Israel from defending its citizens.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog described the court’s actions as “a dark day for justice.”
“It ignores the basic fact that Israel was barbarically attacked and has the duty and the right to defend its people,” Herzog said.
Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said the ICC has lost all legitimacy by attacking Israel’s right to self-defence.
Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir called on the government to respond by annexing all of the occupied West Bank, which the Palestinians claim as part of their future state.
Yair Lapid, the leader of Israel’s centrist opposition, also criticized the court’s decision.
“Israel defends the lives of its citizens against terrorist organizations that attacked, killed and raped our people. These arrest warrants are a reward for terrorism,” Lapid said.
added the whole message
What are the implications of the ICC’s arrest warrants for Israeli leaders on international relations?
Interview Style: Engaging Dialogue
Interviewer (Editor of Time.news): Welcome, Dr. Sarah Goldstein, an esteemed expert on international law and geopolitical conflicts. Thank you for joining us today to discuss the recent developments surrounding the ICC’s decision related to the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict.
Dr. Sarah Goldstein: Thank you for having me! It’s a critical issue, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it.
Editor: Let’s dive right in. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant, citing “reasonable cause to believe” they have willfully deprived civilians in Gaza of essential needs. How significant is this development in the context of international law?
Dr. Goldstein: This is indeed a significant moment. It represents a rare action from the ICC against high-profile leaders, indicating that there are serious allegations that warrant attention. However, the challenges are considerable, especially given that both Israel and the U.S. are not ICC members. This complicates the enforcement of such warrants.
Editor: You mentioned enforcement challenges. Can you elaborate on why the ICC faces limitations despite issuing these warrants?
Dr. Goldstein: Absolutely. The ICC doesn’t have its own police force; it depends entirely on member states to execute warrants. Given that many countries are wary of acting against powerful leaders like Netanyahu, the practical impact of these warrants might be minimal. Furthermore, some of the alleged Hamas officials have already been killed in the recent conflict, which limits the court’s scope.
Editor: That brings us to another point. Netanyahu has condemned the ICC’s actions as anti-Semitic, comparing the situation to the Dreyfus Affair. Do you think this rhetoric might impact international relations?
Dr. Goldstein: Netanyahu’s rhetoric is quite strategic. By framing the ICC’s actions as anti-Semitic, he aims to rally both domestic and international support, portraying Israel as a victim of bias. This can polarize opinions, potentially hindering constructive dialog and progress toward a ceasefire. Such comparisons, while politically potent, might overshadow the fundamental issues at stake.
Editor: Interesting. There’s also the aspect of why the U.S. supports Israel amidst these allegations. President Biden criticized the ICC’s prosecutor. What does this support entail for international law?
Dr. Goldstein: The U.S. has historically been a strong ally of Israel, often prioritizing geopolitical alliances over legal accountability in international law contexts. Biden’s support underscores a longstanding policy but it also raises questions about the consistency of U.S. commitment to international law, especially when political interests are involved. This duality can lead to perceived hypocrisy, diminishing the credibility of international legal institutions like the ICC.
Editor: You touched on an essential point about credibility. Do you see any potential for the ICC to adapt or change its approach in light of the challenges it faces?
Dr. Goldstein: The ICC will need to navigate these tensions carefully if it hopes to maintain relevance. It might focus on enhancing cooperation with states willing to enforce its warrants or strengthen its outreach to non-member states, highlighting the importance of accountability. Encouraging broader participation in its framework could also be a pathway towards legitimacy.
Editor: Before we wrap up, what do you consider the most pressing issue arising from this situation right now?
Dr. Goldstein: The most pressing issue is the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the need for an immediate ceasefire. While legal proceedings could eventually play a role, the immediate priority should be the well-being of civilians caught in the crossfire. Political solutions must take precedence to prevent further escalation and suffering.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Goldstein, for your valuable insights. The dialog surrounding accountability, justice, and humanitarian needs is crucial, especially in these tumultuous times.
Dr. Goldstein: Thank you for having me. It’s an important conversation, and I look forward to seeing how it unfolds.