World court rejects Israel’s appeal bid over arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant

0
3
SHARE
"War criminal" . . . a poster condemning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a New Zealand protest against the Gaza genocide as demonstrations across the country continued for the 106th week in a row this weekend. Image: Asia Pacific Report

Asia Pacific Report

The International Criminal Court has rejected Israel’s bid to appeal against arrest warrants for its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over the Gaza genocide, reports TRT World News.

In a ruling that made headlines worldwide, the ICC last November found “reasonable grounds” to believe Netanyahu and Gallant bore “criminal responsibility” for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

The warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant sparked outrage in Israel and in the United States, which later imposed sanctions on senior ICC officials.

Netanyahu denounced the ruling as an “anti-Semitic decision,” while then-US President Joe Biden called it “outrageous.”

Israel asked the court in May to dismiss the warrants while it pursued a separate challenge over whether the ICC had jurisdiction in the case.

The court rejected that request on July 16, saying there was “no legal basis” to quash the warrants while the jurisdiction issue was pending.

A week later, Israel sought permission to appeal the July ruling, but judges yesterday dismissed the bid, stating that “the issue, as framed by Israel, is not an appealable issue”.

Broader challenge
“The Chamber therefore rejects the request,” the ICC said in its 13-page ruling.

ICC judges are still considering Israel’s broader challenge over the court’s jurisdiction.

When the arrest warrants were first issued in November, the court simultaneously rejected an earlier Israeli objection to its authority.

However, in April, the ICC’s Appeals Chamber ruled that the Pre-Trial Chamber was wrong to dismiss Israel’s challenge and ordered it to review the arguments in greater detail.

It is not yet clear when the court will issue a final ruling on jurisdiction.

NO COMMENTS