A protester holds a placard with the photo of the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. It calls him a ‘wanted war criminal’ during the rally. [Getty]
International and political reactions continue to unfold following the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s decision on Thursday to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. This decision marks a historic precedent, arriving over a year after the genocide in Gaza.
But the news has been met with intense reactions from Israeli leaders and society due to its significant implications for Israel’s image, status, and the potential for Israeli officials to face international prosecution. In response, Israeli officials have launched a ferocious attack on the ICC and its Prosecutor, Karim Khan.
While Palestinian and Arab voices, along with numerous international human rights organisations and solidarity movements, have welcomed the decision, questions arise about its legal significance and what it means for Israel in the coming months and years. There is also curiosity regarding what the decision could achieve beyond its symbolic political value, which is seen as a victory for Palestinians and the hope that the ICC remains committed to international law without bias.
Isolation of Israel and accountability
Speaking to Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, The New Arab’s Arabic edition, Nimer Sultany, a lecturer in law at SOAS University of London, described the ICC’s arrest warrant as a historic event “because it makes Israeli leaders fugitives from justice and turns Israel into a rogue state.” He described it as “the first serious attempt to hold Israel legally accountable on an international level after decades of enjoying near immunity, which allowed it to act with impunity.” Sultany added that the decision “struck at the heart of Israel’s legitimacy” and could lead to further consequences, increasing Israel’s isolation and opening the door for accountability.
Sultany continued: “We have to wait and see if the Prosecutor will bring additional charges against Netanyahu and Gallant or other leaders, such as the Chief of Staff or Ben-Gvir, due to allegations of prisoner torture. Other charges are also possible, such as apartheid and settlement expansion.”
Sultany also noted that the court has stated that some of the crimes before it are ongoing, meaning additional charges could be brought against Israeli leaders for targeting civilians in other incidents beyond the two mentioned in the current arrest warrant.
Regarding the immediate impact of the decision, Sultany said: “This decision means limiting the movement of the accused in over 120 countries that are members of the ICC, which are obliged to arrest them if they visit.”
Restrictions on travel not limited to Netanyahu and Gallant
Hassan Jabareen, the director of the Adalah Legal Centre in Haifa, described the decision as the most significant in the Palestinian issue since the Israeli occupation, on both legal and political levels, with implications relating to charges of genocide.
Speaking to Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, Jabareen said: “The question before the international community today is not whether Netanyahu and Gallant are innocent and Palestinians are the terrorists, but rather how to deal with them as accused persons with arrest warrants from the world’s foremost court, which was established primarily in response to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide during World War II, including the Holocaust. Creating this kind of international debate is significant in itself.”
Regarding the legal ramifications for the freedom of movement of Netanyahu and Gallant, Jabareen noted that they may not be the only ones affected. “Other military and ministerial figures could also be impacted because the detailed decision of the court may imply that not only Netanyahu and Gallant are responsible for these crimes, but also military and political leaders involved in the decision-making process during the war. The Israeli Attorney General may issue travel warnings for a number of officials soon to prevent possible arrests.”
Jabareen added: “As legal professionals, we and the ICC are awaiting Israel’s serious response. The initial response accused the court of anti-Semitism, among other things, but there are still legal avenues Israel can pursue, such as requesting the court annul the decision.” He noted that the court had left open the possibility of such a request.
However, for Israel to do so, it would need to commit to presenting Netanyahu and Gallant before the court if legal proceedings begin, and it must also conduct its own investigations into the allegations. Israel would also need to take steps to facilitate humanitarian and medical assistance for the people of Gaza and refrain from obstructing the investigation or harming the evidence.
Jabareen expressed doubts about Israel’s willingness to take these actions, saying, “There may be legal will, but in my opinion, there is no political will in Israel to do so, and I do not expect it to happen.”
Mohammed Deif Vs. Israeli leaders
In comparison to the charges against Mohammed Deif, the general commander of Hama’s military wing Al-Qassam Brigades, which included extermination charges that were not brought against Netanyahu and Gallant, Jabareen explained that there was a vast disparity in the collection of evidence against Deif and the Israeli leaders. The ICC Prosecutor was allowed to visit Israel, where he was given access to all facilities and information—whether accurate or not—whereas he could not do the same in Gaza to gather information.
Jabareen noted that the issue of genocide is crucial in comparing the two sides, but “the court used language indicating the presence of genocide by Netanyahu and Gallant without explicitly using the term. For instance, the court mentioned that the evidence presented regarding them pointed to a serious attempt to destroy a significant part of civilian life in Gaza. This implies a form of civilian erasure, which is one of the conditions for genocide. The court did not use the term ‘genocide’ but used other terms suggesting it.”
When asked why the court did not label it genocide, Jabareen explained that there could be political considerations involved. “The International Court of Justice is currently addressing this issue, and it seems that the ICC is cautious about using the term because it requires very serious documents and evidence regarding the intent to commit genocide. To avoid being accused of bias, the court has been cautious at this stage, but it could address this matter in the future.”
Jabareen concluded: “In my view, the ICC wants to send a message to countries, essentially saying: ‘Look how cautious I was in my decision.’ Some Western countries might respect and appreciate the court for being professional and not political. However, the language used by the court still points to the possibility of genocide.”
Mobilisation against the Occupation
Sonia Boulos, an associate professor in the Department of International Human Rights Law at Nebrija University in Spain, called for reading the decision and its importance within a broader context that considers all the legal developments witnessed over the past year concerning Palestine. Speaking to Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, Boulos said: “Impunity is one of the defining features of Israel’s settler-colonial project. Unlike other settler-colonial states, Israel’s colonial policies were planned and executed against the backdrop of an international legal system that forbids such acts. Since its inception, Israel has consistently violated all the international human rights treaties it is party to, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention Against Torture, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Israel has also systematically breached the core principles of international humanitarian law treaties, including the Fourth Geneva Convention.”
Boulos added that even if the ICC cannot try Netanyahu and Gallant unless they are handed over, the decision has significant legal, political, and moral consequences.
“Firstly, the judges found reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, as well as for crimes against humanity, including murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. The court also found reasonable grounds to believe that they bear criminal responsibility, as civilian leaders, for the war crime of deliberately directing attacks against civilians. This increases pressure on countries that continue to sell weapons to Israel—weapons used to bring further destruction to Gaza—to deter them from doing so.”
“Secondly,” she said, “the decision sends an important message that threats and intimidation against the court and its staff have failed to deter the court. Lastly, the decision limits the accused’s ability to travel freely to Europe and many other countries that have a legal obligation to cooperate with the court, making them international pariahs.”
Boulos argued that Israel’s “unspeakable crimes in Gaza” have led to a path of accountability and justice. She pointed out “the ICJ’s provisional measures in the case brought by South Africa against Israel regarding alleged violations of the Genocide Convention, the ICJ advisory opinion that declared the entire Israeli occupation illegal and a violation of multiple peremptory norms of international law, and now the issuance of arrest warrants—all of these have a cumulative effect indicating that Israel’s and its leaders’ era of absolute impunity is gradually coming to an end.”
Boulos concluded that these legal developments collectively have the potential to criminalise Israel’s assault on Gaza and further isolate Israel. She highlighted recent events, such as the advisory opinion adopted by the UN from the ICJ on the legal consequences of the occupation, saying: “Although the decision itself is not binding, it carries the potential to pave a new historical path and enhance anti-war and anti-apartheid mobilisation, potentially encouraging universities, trade unions, and others to adopt a series of measures that can strengthen efforts towards accountability.”
