By: Fern Sidman

In a decision that calls attention to the intensifying legal and diplomatic standoff between Israel and the International Criminal Court (ICC), the court’s pre-trial chamber announced on Wednesday that it has formally rejected Israel’s request to withdraw or invalidate the arrest warrants it previously authorized for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The ruling, reported by The Jewish News Syndicate (JNS) on Thursday, comes amid ongoing disputes over the court’s jurisdiction and its authority to investigate alleged war crimes related to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

As the JNS report detailed, Israel had asked the ICC not only to vacate the arrest warrants but also to suspend its investigation into alleged war crimes in Gaza until the court could determine whether it has legitimate jurisdiction over the matter. Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, and has consistently argued that the court lacks authority to adjudicate matters involving the Jewish state.

However, the pre-trial chamber dismissed both requests in its ruling on Wednesday. “There is no legal basis for withdrawing, vacating or declaring them of no force or effect at this point in time,” the chamber wrote, according to the JNS report. The court further clarified that any impact of Israel’s jurisdictional challenge on the validity of the warrants “can only be determined when the chamber will have ruled on the substance thereof.”

In April, the ICC Appeals Chamber had instructed the pre-trial chamber to review Israel’s jurisdictional challenge, a procedural decision that Israel interpreted as proof that the court had not sufficiently established jurisdiction over Israeli nationals. As JNS reported, Israel maintains that until jurisdiction is firmly established, any arrest warrants issued by the court remain without legal standing.

Nevertheless, the pre-trial chamber ruled that its prior decision to review the jurisdiction question does not, in itself, nullify or suspend the existing arrest warrants. This position signals the court’s intent to proceed with its legal process, regardless of Israel’s objections and the ongoing jurisdictional review.

The ICC’s inquiry into Israel’s actions in Gaza was initiated following allegations brought forward by South Africa, which accused Israel of committing acts of “genocide” and other crimes against humanity in connection with its military operations against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. These operations were launched in response to Hamas’s October 7, 2023, massacre, in which the terror group murdered approximately 1,200 people—most of them civilians—and abducted around 250 others in southern Israel.

Regarding the admissibility of the case, the pre-trial chamber stated that for Israel’s challenge to be valid under international legal standards, the state would need to initiate its own internal investigations into Netanyahu and Gallant. The chamber’s position is that a challenge to the court’s admissibility relies on the assertion that the state itself is actively investigating or prosecuting the relevant individuals.

“Until the question of admissibility is resolved, there will thus be two parallel investigations or prosecutions: one before the court and one before the national authorities,” the chamber wrote, as quoted by JNS. This means that unless Israel launches formal proceedings against its own leaders, the ICC investigation will remain active alongside any domestic legal actions.

The ICC’s operations have also been affected by external political pressures. As JNS reported, last month the United States imposed sanctions on two of the three judges from the pre-trial chamber who had approved the issuance of the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant. The sanctions, initiated after the warrants were authorized at the request of ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, reportedly hindered the functioning of both Khan’s office and the court itself.

Khan, who has faced significant scrutiny, is currently on a leave of absence pending an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct. The accusations reportedly include claims that Khan attempted to dissuade a victim from coming forward by suggesting it would jeopardize his case against Israel. These allegations have further complicated the prosecutor’s role and the broader perception of the ICC’s independence and impartiality.

Khan had previously been sanctioned by Washington specifically in connection with his pursuit of the arrest warrants for Israeli officials. According to reports cited by JNS, these measures have placed considerable strain on the prosecutor’s operations and diminished his capacity to manage the ICC’s caseload effectively.

The ICC’s latest decision reaffirms the court’s intention to maintain the validity of the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant unless and until it rules definitively on its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the case. The development marks a critical juncture in the ongoing confrontation between Israel and the ICC, with potential implications for international law, diplomatic relations, and the broader debate over the jurisdictional reach of international judicial bodies.