On November 21, the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced that arrest warrants had been issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas military wing commander Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri, also known as Deif, who Israel claims was killed in action.
It took the Pre-Trial Chamber six months to decide on Prosecutor Karim Khan’s application for arrest warrants, and it took him eight months after October 7, 2023, to file the petitions for these warrants. Prior to that, Khan’s predecessor, Fatou Bensouda, took almost seven years to initiate an investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes in Palestine since 2014. Given the severity and scale of war crimes in Gaza before and after October 7, 2023, the slow process of the ICC is difficult to comprehend or accept.
The Pre-Trial Chamber has stated it had “reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare”.
Based on the emphasis given to this charge in the ICC’s press release, it appears that humanitarian aid issues are the primary charges against Netanyahu and Gallant. However, considering the high death toll and extensive devastation of Gaza’s infrastructure, particularly medical facilities and schools, it is concerning that “the Chamber found that the material provided by the Prosecution only allowed it to make findings on two incidents that qualified as attacks intentionally directed against civilians”. Just two incidents?
In contrast, the Pre-Trial Chamber concluded that Deif, the elusive Hamas commander, was “responsible for the crimes against humanity of murder; extermination; torture; and rape and other forms of sexual violence; as well as the war crimes of murder, cruel treatment, torture; taking hostages; outrages upon personal dignity; and rape and other forms of sexual violence”.
The evidence presented by the prosecution allowed for the identification of such crimes, including “extermination” defined under Article 7.2.b. of the Rome Statute as “the intentional infliction of conditions of life, including the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population”.
It is noteworthy that “extermination” is not mentioned in relation to the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant, despite the International Court of Justice concluding it was plausible that Israel’s actions could amount to genocide.
Is this a case of double standards or do different burden of proof standards apply? The warrants remain “secret”, but this question must still be raised.
Despite the slim chance of seeing Netanyahu and Gallant facing justice, the international warrants for the two Israeli leaders carry symbolic weight.
While justice may not be swift in halting Israel’s aggressive actions, the ICC’s decision sends a strong message to past and future perpetrators of crimes against Palestinians that impunity is coming to an end.
This historic decision of the ICC will drive prosecutions of war crimes under universal jurisdiction and obligations to prosecute individuals suspected of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and torture.
Notably, the principle of universal jurisdiction has gained traction in international criminal law, as seen in landmark cases involving gross violations of human rights.
With a warrant issued for Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, Israelis suspected of war crimes face risks of arrest if they travel abroad, marking a significant shift in accountability for international crimes.
Netanyahu’s world as a fugitive has narrowed, highlighting a potential end to impunity for Israel’s actions.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
