The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor on Friday called on judges to “urgently” rule on his request for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over their involvement in prosecuting the war against the Hamas terrorist group in the Gaza Strip.
“It is settled law that the court has jurisdiction in this situation,” Karim Khan wrote in a legal brief.
He called on the judges on the pretrial panel to “urgently render its decisions” on the requests he filed in May.
Khan’s brief came in response to legal arguments filed by dozens of countries, academics and rights groups either rejecting or supporting the court’s jurisdiction to issue arrest warrants in this case.
Among the many on Israel’s side who submitted briefs were Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), UK Lawyers for Israel, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and NGO Monitor.
Those opposed ranged from former U.N. Special Rapporteur Richard Falk to Al-Haq and Addameer, two of six Palestinian NGOs designated as terrorist organizations by Israel.
On May 20, Khan requested warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant for alleged war crimes. He lumped the two Israelis together with then-Hamas chief in Gaza Yahya Sinwar, “military” leader Mohammed Deif and political head Ismail Haniyeh. The latter two have since been assassinated.
The ICC has no jurisdiction in Israel as Jerusalem is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, which established the court. But in a legalistic sleight of hand, the court claimed jurisdiction by accepting the “State of Palestine” as a signatory in 2015, even though no such state exists.
The 124 countries that are signatories to the Rome Convention are obligated to act on any arrest warrant it issues, raising the possibility that Netanyahu and Gallant could be placed under arrest while visiting these places.
Many of the amicus briefs focused on whether the ICC, if claiming jurisdiction, would have the power to issue warrants for Israeli leaders due to a provision in the 1993 Oslo Accords. As part of the deal, the Palestinians agreed that they do not have criminal jurisdiction over Israeli nationals.
Nevertheless, Khan wrote that the argument the peace deal could nullify the court’s jurisdiction was “without merit.”
He called the position “inconsistent with the proper interpretation and application” of an article in the Rome Statute, and contended it “misunderstands basic concepts of jurisdiction under international law, including under the law of occupation, and how these concepts relate to the interpretation and application of the Statute.”
Meanwhile, 84% of Israelis believe that the ICC is a political body, not a legal one, according to a recent JNS poll. Twelve percent disagreed, while 5% of respondents had no opinion.
Respondents were asked a series of questions regarding their assessment of the ICC and how best to handle its actions against Israel, its security forces and its political leaders.
