ICC issues arrest warrants for Israel’s Netanyahu, Gallant

Updated 21 Nov, 2024

THE HAGUE: The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence chief, as well as a Hamas leader, Ibrahim Al-Masri, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, the court said Thursday.

In their decision to grant the warrants, the ICC judges said there were reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu and Gallant were criminally responsible for starvation in Gaza and the persecution of Palestinians.

The warrant for Al-Masri lists charges of mass killings during the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel that triggered the Gaza war, including rape and the taking of hostages. The prosecution indicated it would continue to gather information with respect to his reported death.

ICC prosecutor Karim Khan announced on May 20 that he was seeking arrest warrants for alleged crimes connected to the attacks on Israel and the Israeli military response in Gaza.

ICC prosecutor seeks arrest warrants for Israeli PM, defence chief and 3 Hamas leaders

Israel has rejected the jurisdiction of the Hague-based court and denies war crimes in Gaza. Israel has said it killed Al-Masri, also known as Mohammed Deif, in an airstrike but Hamas has neither confirmed nor denied this.

Former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett said the ICC’s decision to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were a “mark of shame” for the court. Israel’s main opposition leader Yair Lapid also denounced the court’s move, calling it “a reward for terrorism”.

There was no immediate comment from Netanyahu or Gallant.

Israeli and Hamas leaders have dismissed allegations that they committed war crimes.

The court does not have its own police force to carry out arrests and relies on its member states for that. ICC members include all European Union countries, Britain, Japan, Brazil, Australia and Canada, and in the Middle East region the Palestinian territories and Jordan.

The ICC said Israel’s acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction was not required.

Read Comments