55 Winter 2026 the Situation in Palestine extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”16 But the Pre-Trial Chamber failed to analyze or even mention in passing why it included Gaza as part of the State of Palestine in light of the June 2007 Hamas coup and Gaza’s secession from the rest of Palestine. In fact, we have not located another case in history where the ICC asserted jurisdiction over seceded territory by virtue of the membership status of the state from which the territory seceded, where the succession occurred long before the state acceded to the Rome Statute. Thus, with virtually no analysis or explanation, the ICC extended its reach further than ever before. The Arrest Warrants On May 20, 2024, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan announced he was seeking arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minster Gallant, and for three Hamas leaders, all of whom have since been killed: Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh.17 On November 21, 2024 the ICC issued two separate rulings denying Israel’s objections to the Prosecutor’s request for arrest warrants and granting the Prosecutor’s request to issue the warrants.18 The first decision rejected Israel’s claim that it was entitled to new Article 18 notification because the Prosecutor’s investigation after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks was substantially different than the investigation the Prosecutor originally opened in 2021. The second decision rejected Israel’s claim that it was entitled to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court even before arrest warrants had been issued for an Israeli suspect. On April 24, 2025, the ICC’s Appeals Chamber issued a ruling in response to Israel’s appeals of the November 2024 orders.19 The Appeals Chamber dismissed Israel’s appeal of the Article 18 decision on the ground that the decision was not appealable under Article 82(1)(a) of the Rome Statute. The Appeals Chamber in the second appeal decided to remand the case to the Pre-Trial Chamber for a ruling on the substance of Israel’s jurisdictional challenge. Significantly, however, the Appeals Chamber did not vacate the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, even though the court’s jurisdiction to issue the warrants was placed in doubt. Hamas’s Rejection of the Oslo Accords Hamas denounced the 1993 and 1995 Oslo Accords as 16. Situation in the State of Palestine, No. ICC-01/18, Decision, ¶ 118 (Feb. 5, 2021). 17. Statement, Karim A.A. Khan, “Karim A.A. Khan KC: Applications for arrest warrants in the situation in the State of Palestine” (May 20, 2024), available at https:// www.icc-cpi.int/news/statementicc-prosecutor-karimaa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants 18. Situation in the State of Palestine, ICC-01/18-374, Decision (Nov. 21, 2024), available at https://www.icccpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/0902ebd180a0ebd8. pdf; Situation in the State of Palestine, ICC-01/18-375, Decision (Nov. 21, 2024), available at https://www.icccpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/0902ebd180a0ebd9. pdf; see also ICC Press Release, Situation in the State of Palestine: “ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects the State of Israel’s challenges to jurisdiction and issues warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant,” INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (Nov. 21, 2024), available at https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-statepalestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israelschallenges 19. Situation in the State of Palestine, ICC-01/18-468, Decision (April 24, 2025), available at https://www.icccpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/0902ebd180ccfb3b. pdf 20. M. Hatina, “Hamas and the Oslo accords: Religious Dogma in a Changing Political Reality,” 4 MEDITERRANEAN POLITICS 37, 40-41 (1999). 21. M. Maqdsi (translator), “Charter of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) of Palestine,” 22 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES 122-134 (1993). “treason to Islam.”20 By rejecting the Oslo Accords, Hamas rejected the PLO’s acceptance of Israel’s right to exist, consistent with the Hamas Covenant of 1988.21 Moreover, by rejecting Israel’s right to exist, Hamas also rejected the delimitation of Palestinian territory to the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, instead claiming all of Mandate Palestine as belonging solely to the Palestinian Arabs. To that extent, therefore, Hamas would never have joined the PA’s accession to the ICC, because the PA failed to include Israel in the territory of the “State of Palestine.” If Hamas had joined the accession, it would have been implicitly acknowledging Israel’s right to exist, in violation of its own Covenant. Hamas’s Rejection of the ICC Arrest Warrants for Sinwar, Deif and Haniyeh Hamas slammed the ICC Prosecutor’s May 20, 2024, request for the issuance of arrest warrants against Sinwar,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=