Hague Appeals Court Rejects Israeli Appeal, Keeps Arrest Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant in Force
The International Criminal Court’s Appeals Chamber in The Hague on Monday evening narrowly rejected Israel’s challenge seeking to halt the ICC’s involvement in alleged war-crimes investigations related to the Gaza conflict. As a result, the arrest warrants issued for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant will remain active.
The 3–2 decision dismissed Israel’s argument rooted in the principle of complementarity — the claim that Israel should first be allowed to investigate the allegations on its own before the ICC steps in. The ruling significantly reduces Israel’s options for overturning the international warrants.
Israel’s core appeal asserted that the ICC prosecutor was obligated to provide formal advance notification before opening an investigation into senior Israeli officials. The judges rejected this claim, stating that the prosecutor relied on what he considered a prior warning allegedly conveyed to Israel even before the October 7 attacks.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry criticized the ruling as fundamentally political, saying the court’s majority disregarded the rights of a democratic state with an independent judiciary. The ministry stated: “Israel rejects the narrow-majority ruling that denies Israel its right to receive advance notice, as required under the principle of complementarity, especially with regard to a democratic nation with a strong and independent legal system. This is what politics looks like when disguised as ‘international law.’”
Because the appeal was dismissed, the ICC arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant on suspicion of war crimes committed during the Gaza war remain in effect, posing ongoing diplomatic and legal challenges for Israel and its leadership.
According to a report cited by Channel 12 News, a source familiar with the decision blasted the court’s conduct, saying: “They keep proving, again and again, that they have no respect whatsoever for the sovereignty of states — including those that are not members and never agreed to the court’s framework. In the end, this will leave the international community no choice but to overhaul this institution from the ground up.”
{Matzav.com}
