On Thursday, November 21, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity during the ongoing war on Gaza, which has lasted 414 days. In a related announcement, the ICC also issued an arrest warrant for Mohammed Deif, commander of Hamas' military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades. Despite Israel’s claims of assassinating Deif, no official confirmation of his death has been provided to date.
This unprecedented move by the ICC marks the first time it has leveled such serious charges against leaders of a nation allied with Western powers. Widely regarded as a landmark decision in the court's 22-year history, these arrest warrants place Netanyahu and Gallant alongside figures like former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and Russian President Vladimir Putin—previous recipients of similar charges.
The ICC’s decision places Netanyahu and Gallant at risk of arrest should they set foot in any nation that is a signatory to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the court. This ruling poses a significant challenge to Israel’s narrative since October 7, 2023, framing its actions as acts of "self-defense," particularly in the court of global public opinion. The decision has been met with widespread approval, both at the governmental and grassroots levels, in many countries. Notably, several Western nations, including Canada, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Switzerland, have indicated their readiness to comply with the ICC's request and detain Netanyahu if he visits their jurisdictions.
Confusion Between Two Cases Stems From Inadequate Media Coverage
Media coverage has often lacked depth regarding the ICC's ruling, focusing more on sensational headlines and speculative analysis of the potential arrest of Israeli officials and the ruling's impact on the trajectory of Israel's wars in Gaza and Lebanon.
While the ICC’s decision has been celebrated across the Arab world as a historic and pivotal moment, the absence of detailed coverage has sparked a wave of misinformation. Thousands of social media users have mistakenly linked the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant to a separate case filed by South Africa against Israel in December 2023. The phrase "Thank you, South Africa" has circulated widely, appearing in hundreds of posts and thousands of comments on platforms such as X, Facebook, and Instagram.
What Is Behind Netanyahu and Gallant’s Arrest Warrants?
In reality, the case resulting in the arrest warrants is separate from the case South Africa filed before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). South Africa's case accuses Israel of violating international law by committing acts of genocide and failing to intervene to prevent them. While the two cases are distinct, they have the potential to influence each other, as outlined below.
The Difference Between the ICC and the ICJ
The first key distinction between the two cases lies in the institutions involved. The arrest warrants were issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which operates independently from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the body handling South Africa’s case. Based in The Hague, the ICJ is a United Nations judicial body established after World War II to adjudicate disputes between states.
The ICJ’s jurisdiction is confined to cases brought by states against other states, meaning it does not address individual accountability. Its main role is to resolve legal disputes between the 193 member states of the United Nations.
In contrast, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is an independent institution, established in 2002, and is not affiliated with the United Nations or any other international organization. Its mandate is focused on holding individuals accountable for crimes like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The ICC relies on its 124 member states to execute arrest warrants. Although Israel is not a member and does not recognize the court's jurisdiction, Palestine was accepted as a member state in 2015.
This distinction highlights the independent nature of the ICC’s arrest warrants and the separate trajectory of South Africa’s case at the ICJ.
ICC Investigations in Gaza and Arrest Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant
The case that led to the arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant traces back to 2018. After the Palestinian Authority officially submitted its accession to the Rome Statute—the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court (ICC)—at the beginning of that year, Palestine referred the "Situation in Palestine since June 13, 2014," to the ICC Prosecutor on May 22, 2018, under Articles 13(a) and 14 of the Rome Statute. Notably, the referral did not include an end date, leaving the investigation open-ended.
On March 3, 2021, the ICC Prosecutor officially launched investigations into alleged war crimes committed in Gaza by Israel, Hamas, and other Palestinian armed groups. This followed a February 5, 2021, decision by Pre-Trial Chamber I, which confirmed by a majority vote that the court could exercise its criminal jurisdiction over Palestinian territories. The ruling expanded the territorial scope of this jurisdiction to include Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.
On December 3, 2023, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan announced that the investigation had expanded to include the events of the Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and the ongoing Israeli war on Gaza.
Consequently, arrest warrants were issued for Netanyahu and Gallant based on reasonable grounds to believe they had committed war crimes in Gaza. These charges include targeting civilians, using starvation as a method of warfare, obstructing the delivery of humanitarian and medical aid, cutting electricity and fuel supplies, and imposing a blockade on Gaza’s population. However, the crime of genocide—which underpins South Africa's case—was not mentioned in these charges.
South Africa’s Case Before the International Court of Justice
The other case, which falls under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and does not involve issuing judgments or arrest warrants against individuals, was filed by South Africa on December 29, 2023. The case accuses Israel of violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention by committing acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Ten countries, most recently Bolivia on October 9, have joined South Africa's case.
Since the filing, South Africa has submitted three petitions to the ICJ requesting emergency interim measures pending the final decision. These petitions, submitted between January 29 and March 28, 2024, allege that Israel committed genocide in Gaza.
After reviewing Israel's petitions to dismiss the case and avoid issuing interim measures, the ICJ issued orders on January 26, February 16, and March 28, 2024. These orders largely supported South Africa’s demands, although the court chose not to address additional measures, such as halting military operations in Rafah or suspending Israel's broader military actions in Gaza. As of now, no further updates have been provided, as cases of this nature typically take years to resolve.
Are the Arrest Warrants Linked to the Genocide Case?
There is no direct link between the ICC arrest warrants and South Africa’s genocide case. However, indirect influence is possible. While the ICC’s decisions are separate from actions like arms embargoes or the ICJ case, the court’s conclusion that there are reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu and Gallant committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza could strengthen South Africa’s position before the ICJ. The ICJ often takes into account rulings and findings from other courts in its deliberations.
Furthermore, the ICC's arrest warrants provide additional momentum to broader legal efforts advocating for arms embargoes on Israel. Many countries have laws that prohibit the sale of weapons to states likely to misuse them in ways that violate international humanitarian law. The ICC’s decision could strengthen these calls for accountability, amplifying efforts on multiple legal and diplomatic fronts.
Read More
Deliberate Disinformation and Bias Favoring Israel During the Amsterdam Clashes
Israeli Propaganda About UNRWA Did Not Start After October 7
