The Hague, Netherlands| In a significant blow to Israel’s legal efforts, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has rejected an appeal from the Israeli government, upholding the arrest warrants issued against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
The decision, delivered on Monday by a narrow 3-2 majority, ensures that the warrants—accusing the two leaders of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza—remain fully in effect.
Background on the ICC Arrest Warrants
The ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I originally issued the arrest warrants on November 21, 2024, finding reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant bear criminal responsibility for alleged atrocities committed during Israel’s military operations in Gaza.
These include the war crime of using starvation as a method of warfare, as well as crimes against humanity such as murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.
The charges stem from conduct alleged to have occurred from at least October 8, 2023—following Hamas’s deadly attack on Israel on October 7—to at least May 20, 2024.
The ICC prosecutor had applied for the warrants in May 2024, amid escalating international scrutiny over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
At the time, the court also issued warrants for Hamas leaders, though several were later withdrawn following confirmed deaths of key figures like Yahya Sinwar, Ismail Haniyeh, and Mohammed Deif.
Israel, which is not a party to the Rome Statute (the treaty establishing the ICC), has vehemently rejected the court’s jurisdiction, calling the warrants “antisemitic” and politically motivated.
The decision sparked outrage in Israel and prompted U.S. sanctions on ICC officials, including Prosecutor Karim Khan and several judges.
Details of Israel’s Appeal and the ICC’s Ruling
Israel’s latest appeal centered on the principle of complementarity—a cornerstone of the ICC’s framework.
This principle holds that the court can only intervene if a state is unable or unwilling to genuinely investigate and prosecute alleged crimes domestically.
Specifically, Israel argued that the ICC prosecutor was required to provide formal prior notification under Article 18(1) of the Rome Statute before expanding the investigation to include events after October 7, 2023.
Israel contended that such notification would have allowed its domestic authorities, including the Attorney General’s office, to handle any allegations internally first.
The Appeals Chamber dismissed this argument, ruling that no new notification was necessary.
The ongoing investigation into the Situation in the State of Palestine, opened in 2021 and covering potential crimes since June 13, 2014 with no specified end date, already encompassed post-October 7 events.
The judges affirmed that the prosecutor’s actions complied with the Rome Statute, and prior notification was not required at this procedural stage.
In a statement following the ruling, Israel’s Foreign Ministry condemned the decision as “yet another example of the ongoing politicization of the ICC and its blatant disregard for the sovereign rights of non-party states.”
The ministry emphasized Israel’s independent judicial system and accused the court of overreach.
The 3-2 split among the five Appeals Chamber judges highlights the contentious nature of the case, with dissenting opinions likely focusing on interpretations of complementarity and jurisdictional limits.
Implications of the Upheld Warrants
The rejection of Israel’s appeal clears a major hurdle for the ICC’s ongoing investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
While the warrants do not immediately threaten Netanyahu or Gallant with arrest—Israel is unlikely to cooperate, and enforcement depends on ICC member states—the decision has profound diplomatic ramifications.
All 125 state parties to the Rome Statute are obligated to arrest and surrender the individuals if they enter their territory.
This has already influenced travel plans; reports indicate Netanyahu has rerouted flights to avoid airspace of compliant countries.
Nations like France, the UK, and others in Europe face pressure to enforce the warrants, though some have expressed reservations citing “realpolitik.”
The ruling also reinforces the ICC’s assertion of jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories, despite Israel’s non-membership. Legal experts note that this could set precedents for future cases involving non-member states.
Critics of the ICC, including Israel and the United States, argue the court is biased and lacks legitimacy in this context.
Supporters, however, praise the decision as a step toward accountability in international law, particularly for victims in Gaza amid reports of widespread devastation and humanitarian suffering.
Broader Context: The Gaza Conflict and International Justice
The ICC case is part of a wider international legal scrutiny of the Israel-Hamas war, which erupted after Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack killed around 1,200 people in Israel and took hundreds hostage.
Israel’s subsequent military campaign in Gaza has resulted in tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths, according to health authorities in the territory, and triggered accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), a separate UN body.
While the ICJ handles state responsibility, the ICC targets individual criminal liability. The upheld warrants underscore the growing role of international tribunals in addressing protracted conflicts, even as enforcement challenges persist.
This development comes amid ongoing ceasefire talks and regional tensions, with no immediate comment from Netanyahu’s office on the latest ruling.
As the ICC probe continues, further applications for warrants could emerge, potentially expanding the scope of accountability.
For the latest updates on ICC proceedings, visit the official ICC website or follow developments from reputable sources like ICBNews, Reuters and Al Jazeera.
This case continues to divide global opinion, highlighting the complex intersection of law, politics, and human rights in one of the world’s most intractable conflicts.
Share This Post