The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Karim Khan, announced today that he will submit requests for arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant, as well as against Yahya Sinwar and prominent Hamas figures Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh. . Who decides on applications, what can be done now, and what are the implications of the decision?
Who decides, and what are the chances of applications being accepted?
Decisions on applications for arrest warrants rest with a panel of three pre-trial judges from Benin, Mexico and Romania.
Khan is highly respected in the international legal community and is considered professional, diligent and fair. He made the decision to collaborate with two reputable advisors whom he had selected for his team in the past few months: US lawyer Brenda Hollis, and Andrew Cayley, a former military prosecutor in the UK.
In light of the reputable experts' support for the application and the fact that most applications are accepted, the assessment in Israel is that the court will indeed accept this application. Status. “Unfortunately, given the way the court operates and its inherent bias, it can be assumed that unless there are unusual surprises and international decisions,” Raz Nazri, a former deputy prosecutor who is now a senior partner at the Fearon law firm, told Globes. Diplomatic intervention, and in the end the Attorney General’s request will be approved.”
What are the reasons given by the Public Prosecutor for requesting an arrest warrant against the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense?
The Prosecutor claims that there is evidence that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense committed the crimes of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population, starvation of civilians as a method of war, extermination and/or murder, including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, and intentionally causing great suffering. , or causing serious harm to body or health, all of which are crimes under the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court.
The Prosecutor states that “Israel, like all states, has the right to take measures to defend its population. However, this right does not relieve Israel or any state from its obligation to comply with international humanitarian law.” Khan states in his decision that he warned that international humanitarian law requires Israel to allow humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip “on a large scale.” “I specifically emphasized that starvation as a method of war and denial of humanitarian relief constitute crimes under the Rome Statute. I could not have been clearer,” he writes.
Khan accuses Hamas leaders of genocide, murder, hostage-taking as a war crime, rape and other acts of sexual violence, torture and other crimes against humanity.
Khan recalls the impression left on his mind by the visit he made to Israel, which included the settlements located in the Gaza Strip border area that were attacked. “I have seen the devastating scenes of these attacks and the profound impact of the unconscionable crimes charged in today's submissions. Through speaking with survivors, I have heard how the love within a family, the deeper bond between a parent and child, has been so greatly distorted.” They inflict unfathomable pain through calculated cruelty and extreme cruelty, and these actions demand accountability.” He stated that he relied on eyewitness accounts from survivors of the October 7 attack and released hostages, as well as other evidence.
“The equivalence implied by the resolution between a democratic state acting in accordance with the rules of international law, where complaints can be investigated independently, and a terrorist organization that by definition violates all international norms, is disgraceful and sad, and points to the inherent hypocrisy of the international community.” “We must also remember that Israel has never recognized the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, unlike the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which hears cases involving states rather than individuals, and where Israel is involved in a case initiated by South Africa,” says lawyer Nazri. “
What is the importance of arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court?
The point is that all 124 member states of the court will have to abide by the arrest warrants and arrest anyone who enters their territory under an arrest warrant. Assuming the arrest warrants are issued, the Prime Minister and Defense Minister will not be able to travel to those countries without risking arrest. The United States is not a member of the court, nor is Israel, but the prosecutor was found to have jurisdiction over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Palestinian Authority was recognized as a member of the court. It should be noted that even if arrest warrants are issued, this does not necessarily mean that there will be indictments.
The assessment in Israel is that the court's member states will not want to violate the arrest order and therefore would prefer not to have the Prime Minister and Defense Minister visit it. They will not want to violate their obligations to the court. Another fear is that these countries may issue arrest warrants against lower-ranking people in the military and government as well.
What are the implications of arrest warrants?
Besides the practical consequence of being unable to enter the territories of the court's member states, the arrest warrants would classify Israel as an illegitimate state and could inflame anti-Semitism that is already on the rise around the world. The issuance of arrest warrants could lead to economic sanctions being imposed on Israel, including an arms embargo, a move we have already seen in recent months.
In the background, the International Court of Justice is scheduled to decide whether to order a halt to the war in the Gaza Strip, and the decision to submit arrest requests may encourage it to do so. The arrest warrants would place Israel in a group of countries with questionable records such as Russia, Sudan and Libya, and could lead foreign leaders to avoid meeting with Israeli leaders.
“This is a very serious development. It will not necessarily end with just a request for arrest warrants,” Dr. Roy Schoendorf, a former deputy prosecutor for international law and now a partner at the law firm Herzog Fuchs & Neiman, told Globes. The situation may lead to other countries taking action against us, which is not a blow that can be overlooked. It is of broad importance to the position of the State of Israel and its international standing, and there may be diplomatic and military consequences.
How was the decision received in Israel?
In Israel there is anger at the comparison between Netanyahu and Gallant, who are waging war against a terrorist organization in the wake of a brutal attack, and the Hamas leaders who carried out the attack. National Unity Party leader Benny Gantz attacked the decision. “The State of Israel has embarked on a more just war after the massacre committed by a terrorist organization against its citizens. The State of Israel is fighting in the most ethical manner in history, in strict adherence to international law. The State of Israel has established a strong and independent legal system, and the provision by the leaders of a country that went to war to defend Putting its citizens on an equal footing with bloodthirsty terrorists is moral blindness and a blow to the state’s duty and ability to protect its citizens, a historical crime that will not be erased.”
Foreign Minister Israel Katz described the decision as “scandalous” and “a direct, unbridled attack on the victims of October 7 and our 128 hostages in the Gaza Strip.” Katz said that he had created a “war room” to fight the resolution that deprives Israel of the right to self-defense, and that he would speak with the foreign ministers of major countries to demand that they stand against the resolution and announce this. If arrest warrants are issued against Israeli leaders, they will not carry them out.
The Committee of the Families of Israeli Hostages Detained in the Gaza Strip also condemned the decision of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. “The Families Committee rejects the identification between the leadership of Israel and the killers of Hamas, and believes that the way to prove this once again to the whole world is to immediately enter into negotiations for the release of the hostages and live for their rehabilitation and recovery.” “Dead for burial.”
The committee welcomed the request to issue arrest warrants against Hamas leaders: “This represents further recognition of the crimes against humanity they have committed, and continue to commit, against Israeli citizens, including 128 hostages who are still held in Hamas basements and suffering from daily ill-treatment.”
Published by Globes, Israel Business News – en.globes.co.il – on May 20, 2024.
© Copyright Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd., 2024.