The “Legal Department of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine” affirmed that the ruling of the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) rejecting the Israeli appeal against the arrest warrants issued for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Minister of War, Yoav Gallant (on the 15th of this month), represents a new victory for international criminal law and for the principle of ending impunity, and reflects the solidity of the legal foundations upon which the Court based its procedures.
The Department considered that this ruling was legally expected, given the lack of any legal basis for the Israeli appeal, especially as it relied on repeating arguments that the Court had already settled, foremost among them the claim that the Court lacks jurisdiction. The Court has repeatedly confirmed that it is not obliged to rule on this issue prior to the execution of arrest warrants.
The Legal Department explained that the Israeli claim regarding the absence of the Court’s jurisdiction collapses in the face of an established legal fact: Palestine has been a State Party to the Rome Statute since 2015, which grants the ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed in the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967, including the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, regardless of the nationality of the accused. Accordingly, Israel’s non-membership in the Statute does not constitute a legal obstacle to prosecuting crimes committed on the territory of a State Party.
The Department stressed that the significance of the decision goes beyond the rejection of a procedural request; it represents, for the third time, a confirmation of the failure of attempts aimed at emptying the Rome Statute of its substance or obstructing the arrest warrants. This demonstrates the purely political nature of Israel’s efforts, particularly in light of intense U.S. pressure and parallel political plans, such as UN Security Council Resolution 2803 related to halting the aggression against Gaza. The Department emphasized that the decision should constitute a final determination of the issues of jurisdiction and admissibility under Article 19 of the Rome Statute, closing the door to any future challenges, especially in view of the ongoing crimes, the accumulation of evidence, and the continued failure of the accused to appear before the Court.
The Department further clarified that Israel’s real objective in filing appeals is to delay the course of international justice and paralyze investigations, by betting on two main factors: political pressure on the Court and its judges by the United States and its allies, or reliance on potential political, regional, and international settlements that might render the arrest warrants subject to bargaining—despite the Court’s affirmation that investigations will continue and that the warrants remain binding.
The Department noted that Israel’s persistence in filing appeals, despite questioning the Court’s integrity, reveals two fundamental realities. First, fear of a potential conviction if procedures are completed, particularly since the warrants constitute a permanent legal and political constraint on the leaders of the occupation and limit their international movement. Second, the occupation army’s awareness of having committed war crimes against civilians in Gaza, as confirmed by an increasing number of international reports, including U.S. reports, making these crimes liable to prosecution before the ICC and before national courts that apply the principle of universal jurisdiction.
The “Legal Department of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine” warned against any attempts to undermine international justice or interfere with the independence of the Court and its judges. It called on States Parties and human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, to confront U.S. pressure, including sanctions imposed on judges and prosecutors—an unprecedented and dangerous precedent that threatens the international justice system.
The statement concluded by emphasizing that the rejection of the appeal for the third time represents a resounding failure of Israeli diplomacy and a stain of shame on all those who provided political or legal cover for the crimes of the occupation. Any conviction of Israel for committing war crimes, it stressed, will not be limited to the leaders of the occupation alone, but will also extend to states, companies, and institutions that supported the aggression politically, legally, and morally.