ICC Decision & Context
On July 16, 2025, the International Criminal Court (ICC) formally rejected Israel’s request to withdraw the arrest warrants issued in November 2024 against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The warrants accuse them of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including starvation as a method of warfare and persecution of civilians
Israel had argued—based on an April ruling from the Appeals Chamber—that the lower court lacked jurisdiction, and so asserted that the warrants had no legal basis. However, ICC judges clarified that Israel’s jurisdictional challenge remains pending, meaning the warrants must stay in place until a definitive ruling is made. A separate request to suspend the broader ICC inquiry into alleged atrocities in the Palestinian Territories was also denied
No timeline was provided for when the court will resolve the question of jurisdiction.
Why the Warrants Matter
The warrants represent a significant escalation. They were issued under ICC jurisdiction, which covers crimes committed within the territory of a member state—here, the ICC recognizes “the State of Palestine” as a member since 2015, which is the court’s jurisdictional entry point .
Human rights groups and many ICC member states—particularly EU countries, Canada, Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, Malaysia, and others—have emphasized that the arrest warrants are binding under international law, calling for enforcement if Netanyahu or Gallant enter their territories
Reactions & International Fallout
Israel & U.S. Response
Israel has strongly rejected the ICC’s authority. Netanyahu described the decision as “antisemitic,” comparing it to a modern-day Dreyfus trial, asserting Israel’s right to self-defense and denouncing the court’s legitimacy. Foreign Minister Gideon Saar labeled the ICC “disgusting” and “without authority”
In response to the warrants, the United States imposed sanctions in June on four ICC judges—including two on the panel that rejected Israel’s withdrawal request—calling the ICC overreach unacceptable and reaffirming non-recognition of its jurisdiction .
European & Global Views
EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell declared the ICC ruling “not political” and insisted EU member states must comply. Many nations—including Norway, Sweden, Spain, and France—have pledged to uphold the court’s decision. Meanwhile, countries such as Hungary have either rejected enforcement or signaled withdrawal from the ICC altogether—even as accession obligations remain until formal exit
What’s Next?
-
Jurisdiction Ruling: The outstanding question of whether the ICC has legal authority over Israel’s actions in Gaza will determine the final status of the warrants.
-
Travel Implications: If Netanyahu or Gallant travel to an ICC member state, especially in Europe or Latin America, local authorities may face legal pressure to arrest them.
-
Policy Precedent: How political leaders respond—whether Israel’s pushback influences other governments—could shape the ICC’s reach and credibility.
-
Diplomatic Tensions: The decision intensifies friction between legal bodies like the ICC and national sovereignties, especially those led by U.S. or Israeli allies.