9 Winter 2025 I would like to share some more personal reflections from The Hague. I do not recall any other event in which so many Israelis engaged with international law, especially through a live broadcast. If we needed a reminder of the importance of our presence in The Hague, it came in the form of a delegation of hostage families who attended the hearing. We had the privilege of speaking with them before and after the session. I should note that this is not the only proceeding before the ICJ involving Israel. Earlier in 2024, the Court issued an advisory opinion on the so called “Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.” Additionally, just recently, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution requesting a new advisory opinion of the ICJ regarding Israel’s obligations towards the UN, international organizations, and states in relation to the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. The Court risks becoming overwhelmed with a disproportionate focus on Israel, which has already been a characteristic of one-sided, politically motivated bodies of the UN. Such a trend would not serve the interests of preserving the ICJ’s reputation as a reliable dispute resolution mechanism, would not mitigate any of the tensions in the region, and would not advance in any way the purpose of promoting peace and stability. The obsessive preoccupation with Israel in international judicial forums is even more absurd when considering that the courts in Israel are open to receiving petitions requesting scrutiny of numerous legal aspects arising from the war, even while the war is still ongoing. The ability to adjudicate such a complex legal and factual issue during an ongoing war reflects the strength of Israel's judicial system. I do not think we should take this for granted. Even during war, the law is not silent. I will now address developments at another international court in The Hague, the ICC. For many years, the Palestinian Authority has been putting the ICC at the forefront of its strategy of pursuing its goals through unilateral action in international fora, hoping to use the ICC to demonize Israel in the eyes of the world, and to have the ICC weigh in on core issues regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Space does not permit me to elaborate on the history of attempts to drag the ICC into the Israel-Palestinian conflict; nor on the preliminary decision on jurisdiction made by the Pre-Trial Chamber in 2021, which has significance when considering the current developments. Following this decision, the previous Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, announced in March 2021 the opening of an investigation into the “situation in Palestine.” The current Prosecutor, Karim Khan, inherited this investigation from his predecessor, but it was only the October 7 attacks and the events that followed that led to the Prosecutor’s decision of May 2024 to apply for arrest warrants against Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and then Minister of Defense, Yoav Gallant, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with the war in Gaza. On November 21, 2024, the Pre-Trial Chamber authorized the request and issued the arrest warrants against the Israeli leaders, as well as against Mohammed Deif, a top Hamas terrorist who had been confirmed dead by the IDF a few months earlier. On the same day on which the arrest warrants were issued ex parte and under seal, the Pre-Trial Chamber also issued two separate decisions in which it rejected two objections which were made by Israel in official submissions before the Court on the issues of jurisdiction and complementarity. It is noteworthy that Israel has appealed the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decisions on jurisdiction and complementarity, and has also requested the suspension of the arrest warrants in the interim. As of now, the matter remains pending before the Appeals Chamber. I wish to highlight some particularly troubling aspects of the Prosecutor’s treatment of Israel and of the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decisions. First, Israel has always been willing, even though it is not a State Party to the ICC, to engage with the Prosecutor and provide information regarding its commitment to the rule of law and the numerous challenges we face in combating the murderous terrorist organization Hamas and its cynical use of the civilian population. Unfortunately, Israel’s willingness was met by the Prosecutor’s rushed and scandalous request to the Pre-Trial Chamber. In requesting arrest warrants, the proceedings take place ex parte and are considered only on the basis of information provided by the Prosecutor under a rather low evidentiary threshold. Second, the jurisdictional issues pertaining to the socalled “situation in Palestine” had not been sufficiently resolved in 2021. The Pre-Trial Chamber rejected Israel’s substantive submissions on jurisdiction in a short, laconic decision, based on procedural grounds, asserting that Israel’s right to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction in this case would only become operative after the issuance of the arrest warrants, and without addressing Israel’s arguments on the merits. The Pre-Trial Chamber also made the dubious claim that the 2021 jurisdiction decision – which was preliminary in nature, and was ex parte in the sense that only the Prosecutor had standing in those
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=