The Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) urged judges to make a prompt decision on his plea for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others involved in the Israel-Hamas conflict, emphasizing that the court has the authority to intervene. Prosecutor Karim Khan emphasized in a 49-page legal document that the ICC possesses jurisdiction in this matter and pressed for a rapid resolution on his requests made in May for warrants for Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas leaders, two of whom have died.
Khan’s submission followed legal arguments from various entities either supporting or challenging the court’s right to issue arrest warrants in its inquiry into the Gaza conflict and the Hamas attacks in Israel in October. In his initial request for arrest warrants, Khan accused Netanyahu, Gallant, and three Hamas leaders of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza and Israel. Two of the Hamas leaders cited, Haniyeh and Deif, have since been killed, while Sinwar, who orchestrated the October attacks, has taken on a leadership role in Hamas.
Netanyahu dismissed the allegations as a slanderous attack on the Israeli military and the nation as a whole, affirming Israel’s commitment to combating Hamas. Hamas also criticized Khan’s actions, equating the call for their leaders’ arrest to equating “the victim with the executioner.” Even though Israel is not a member of the ICC, potential arrest warrants could hinder Netanyahu and Gallant’s international travel without immediate prosecution risks.
The conflict erupted on October 7, marked by a breach from Hamas and other militants into Israel, resulting in approximately 1,200 casualties, predominantly civilians, and approximately 250 abductions. Over 40,000 Palestinians in Gaza are reported to have been killed in Israel’s subsequent offensive, with details on the composition of militants versus civilians differing. Submissions to ICC judges recently debated whether the ICC’s authority to issue Israeli leaders’ warrants is influenced by a provision in the 1993 Oslo Accords peace agreement, where Palestinians relinquished their criminal jurisdiction over Israeli nationals.
Khan rejected the argument that the accords could override the court’s jurisdiction, deeming it groundless and inconsistent with international law principles. He emphasized that such claims misapprehend key jurisdictional concepts under international law and the application of the ICC’s founding Rome Statute. The timeline for judges to rule on Khan’s warrant request remains uncertain.