ICC’s Rejection of the Appeal to Cancel the Arrest Warrants Against “Netanyahu” and “Gallant” Is a Slap in the Face of the Occupation

In response to the second rejection issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) of the appeal submitted by the Israeli occupation to cancel the arrest warrants issued against Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Gallant, the Legal Department of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine declared the following:

1. Failure of Pressure and Confirmation of Anxiety:
The ICC’s repeated rejection of the attempts to cancel the arrest warrants confirms that the enormous pressure exerted by Israel and the United States on the Court and its judges — on more than one occasion — has so far failed to achieve its objectives. This indicates the growing anxiety among the leaders of the occupation and their continuous efforts, through both legal and illegal means, to obstruct or derail the course of justice.
2. Jurisdiction Firmly Established Under the Rome Statute:
Israel’s legal defense focused on the issue of the Court’s “lack of jurisdiction,” an argument that the ICC had already rejected in April 2024. The Court had previously ruled in 2021 that its jurisdiction extends to the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. This means that the ICC’s jurisdiction stems from the State of Palestine’s accession to the Rome Statute in 2015, granting the Court the authority to examine crimes committed in the occupied Palestinian territories. The fact that Israel is not a member of the Statute does not alter this legal reality. Furthermore, the ICC’s chambers have clarified that, at this stage, the priority is to execute the arrest warrants, and the Court is not obliged to revisit the question of jurisdiction beforehand.
3. Attempts to Stall and Delay Justice:
The arrest warrants issued by the Court are procedural orders that cannot be suspended or revoked before the accused appear before the Court. Israel’s renewed attempt to challenge jurisdiction is a “deceptive maneuver” aimed at freezing the execution of the warrants. The clear purpose behind this is merely to slow down the preliminary procedures and delay the course of justice — a futile gamble on the possibility of political pressure influencing the judges.
4. Independence of the Court and the Need for Implementation:
The International Criminal Court is an institution independent of the United Nations and must remain uninfluenced by political polarization. Its rulings and decisions are guided solely by the Rome Statute. Therefore, the arrest warrants cover crimes committed after October 8, 2023. Moreover, war crimes and crimes against humanity do not fall under any statute of limitations, and the cessation of hostilities does not halt judicial prosecutions.
In conclusion:
The Court’s decision represents a victory for the path of justice and a blow to Israel and the United States, both of which have sought to obstruct the Court’s work through pressure and threats in an attempt to nullify the arrest warrants. This reaffirms the resilience of the Court and its judges, and underscores — once again — that the course of law and justice is not dictated by the dark rooms of politics nor by the daily blackmail practiced by powerful states.
It is to be hoped that this latest decision serves as a message to Israel above all: the era of impunity will not continue. Netanyahu and Gallant have no option but to appear before the Court in person. The states of the world must fully cooperate to ensure the execution of the arrest warrants and the prosecution of the accused for the crimes attributed to them.