Netanyahu and Gallant accused of serious war crimes amid Gaza conflict, can be arrested in 120 signatory countries

On November 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, alleging their involvement in war crimes during the recent Gaza conflict.

The ICC’s decision also includes warrants for Hamas leader Mohammed Deif, citing similar charges. Deif, however, is not around to received the news.

The ICC’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, stated that the court’s decision was based on “reasonable grounds” to believe that the accused were involved in grave violations of international law. Netanyahu and Gallant are alleged to have overseen policies that constituted war crimes, including the use of starvation as a method of warfare, intentionally depriving Gaza’s civilian population of essential goods like food, water, and medicine.

The court has also pointed to the extensive destruction of civilian infrastructure, the targeting of medical facilities, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians as evidence of potential war crimes. While the ICC emphasized that both Israeli and Hamas leaders are subject to scrutiny, this is the first time sitting Israeli officials have been targeted with such measures.

Israeli Rejection of ICC Jurisdiction

Israel, which is not a signatory to the Rome Statute that established the ICC, has consistently rejected the court’s jurisdiction. Israeli officials argue that the ICC has no authority to investigate or prosecute actions involving Israel. In response to the arrest warrants, the Israeli government released a strongly worded statement, calling the ICC’s decision “biased, illegitimate, and politically motivated.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu, addressing the nation shortly after the announcement, vowed that Israel would not cooperate with what he described as “a sham court.” Former Defense Minister Gallant also condemned the decision, stating that it undermines Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism.

U.S. and International Reactions

The United States, a staunch ally of Israel, has also criticized the ICC’s move. U.S. officials expressed concern that the warrants could derail diplomatic efforts to achieve peace in the region and argued that the ICC should not involve itself in matters concerning nations that are not members of the court. Several European nations offered a more cautious response, acknowledging the importance of accountability while urging both Israel and Hamas to respect international law.

Symbolic and Practical Implications

While the ICC’s warrants carry significant symbolic weight, they lack immediate practical enforcement, particularly against leaders in non-member states. Arrests would rely on international cooperation, which remains unlikely given Israel’s opposition and the strong backing it enjoys from allies such as the United States. Nevertheless, the warrants could have long-term consequences, potentially restricting the travel of the accused leaders to ICC member countries and further isolating Israel on the international stage.

Broader Context

The ICC’s decision comes amidst growing international scrutiny of the Gaza conflict. Human rights organizations have long accused both Israeli and Palestinian factions of violating international humanitarian law, calling for accountability. The recent conflict saw extensive civilian casualties and destruction, drawing widespread condemnation and reigniting debates about the application of international law in the region.

Netanyahu’s government has already faced intense criticism over its handling of the Gaza conflict, with domestic and international observers accusing it of exacerbating tensions. The ICC’s actions are likely to add to these pressures, further polarizing an already volatile situation.

Looking Ahead

The issuance of these arrest warrants underscores the international community’s increasing willingness to hold leaders accountable for actions deemed to violate international law, regardless of their nation’s membership status in the ICC. However, the move is also likely to deepen divisions over the legitimacy and scope of international legal institutions, particularly in protracted and deeply politicized conflicts like that between Israel and Hamas.