Abdelmajid Merari: The Decision to Arrest Netanyahu and Gallant Is a Historic Achievement Despite U.S. Threats (Exclusive)

Abdelmajid Marari, head of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Department at the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) in France, hailed the International Criminal Court prosecutor’s decision to condemn Israeli war criminals as a historic milestone and a significant victory for the Palestinian cause.

In an interview with Al-Estiklal, the French expert in international law said the condemnation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on November 21, 2024, for committing war crimes in Gaza, is a triumph for justice and the cause of the oppressed.

“The legal implications of the arrest warrant for war criminals Netanyahu and Gallant are extremely important, with immediate legal effects once they are arrested by any country, whether a member of the International Criminal Court or not, according to the statement by the ICC prosecutor [Karim Khan].”

Once they are arrested [should that happen], the trial would begin and an investigation into the war crimes they committed would be launched, according to Marari.

He also noted that this is the first time the International Criminal Court has condemned “Israel” for its crimes, after it has evaded accountability and punishment for decades, since the first Nakba in 1948.

This could eventually lead to the accountability of Zionist leaders for a long history of crimes against humanity in Palestine and the Arab region.

Abdelmajid Marari also hinted that the United States had previously bullied the International Criminal Court twice, and this marks the third instance.

Marari is a member of the legal team working to convict “Israel” before the International Criminal Court and is known as the lawyer for Palestinian victims at the court. He is also the Middle East Director at the International Federation for Human Rights in France.

Procedures and Implications

What are the legal implications of the decision made by the International Criminal Court against war criminals Netanyahu and Gallant?

The implications are highly significant, with immediate legal effects once Netanyahu is arrested by any country, whether a member of the International Criminal Court or not, as stated by the ICC prosecutor.

According to the ruling, war criminal Netanyahu will first face trial and investigation at all stages. The court will ensure that the accused are granted all rights to a fair trial, in accordance with the fair trial standards set by the International Criminal Court.

Before that, the court is relying on cooperation from countries, often regarded as Israel’s allies, such as France, Germany, the UK, Slovenia, the Netherlands, Ireland, and others.

Some countries, like Italy, France, and Germany, which previously cooperated with Israel and justified its crimes, have now declared their commitment to cooperating with the ICC. This is a very important step, as they are bound by the Rome Statute.

What other measures can be taken against the Israel Occupation, particularly Netanyahu and Gallant, in the coming period?

Now begins our most serious and important work as legal teams and lawyers after the issuance of this ruling. We are entering a crucial phase where victim files will be submitted to their dedicated section within the ICC.

This phase comes after the indictment, marking the start of a new stage in the litigation process. We have already completed the initial stage of providing evidence and documentation to the ICC Prosecutor’s Office.

There is significant cooperation with the victims' families, along with presenting evidence and documentation recognized by the United Nations and the ICC Victims' Section, as well as by the ICC Prosecutor’s Office. These are the current procedures being followed.

This will reinforce the ICC's accusations against Netanyahu, Gallant, and several other Israeli leaders in the upcoming list of individuals not yet revealed.

While the court has already named Netanyahu and Gallant, there are other individuals whose names remain unrevealed, with the reasons for this confidentiality yet to be disclosed.

These names will be revealed once they travel outside Israel.

Filing the Lawsuit

How did the legal teams advocating for Palestine navigate the atmosphere while filing the lawsuit, presenting evidence, and making their arguments?

This lawsuit emerged following the Israeli assault on Gaza in October 2023, with the legal team beginning meetings and documenting the crimes.

We were convinced that we were facing a new category of crimes—genocide, in addition to war crimes and crimes against humanity. We then formed a large legal team from various nationalities and drafted a comprehensive complaint, spanning dozens of pages, supported by evidence, documentation, and medical files.

On November 9, 2023, we submitted this complaint to the ICC Prosecutor, accusing Netanyahu, Gallant, and 15 other individuals of committing genocide. We supplemented this with additional files related to war crimes and crimes against humanity, demanding their arrest as war criminals.

Following this, we arranged several working meetings with the ICC Victims' Section and the ICC Prosecutor's Office to organize and present the evidence. Our formal meeting with the Prosecutor’s Office took place in February 2024, a historic encounter where we presented a timeline of material evidence, much of which had already been documented by media outlets.

The meeting lasted over two hours, during which we explained the 15 points of evidence, each related to a specific violation or crime. These included targeting medical facilities, bakeries to cause starvation, and others, thus laying the legal groundwork for genocide charges.

This evidence aimed to convince the Prosecutor and ICC judges. Based on this and other complaints, the Prosecutor began investigations, hearing testimonies from Gaza’s victims, many of whom had fled to other countries for treatment.

He also visited the Rafah crossing, meeting with Palestinian victim families and hearing from Israeli captive families. While we criticized this move, he aimed to maintain balance and avoid accusations of bias.

This lawsuit was supported by over 360 human rights organizations, and the legal team exceeded 3,500 members.

What charges did the court bring against Netanyahu and Gallant, and were there justifications for their actions?

The charges include war crimes such as blocking food, water, and humanitarian aid, and committing war crimes like killing, forced displacement, and targeting civilian infrastructure, hospitals, mosques, churches, etc.. Netanyahu and Gallant are considered war criminals by the court’s decision.

This is an individual court, not one that prosecutes the state of Israel. It focuses on Netanyahu, Gallant, and 15 other Israeli officials.

There is no legitimate justification for the ongoing genocide Israel is committing with full U.S. support, under the pretext of self-defense.

How can self-defense justify the killing of over 45,000 people—mostly women and children—wounding more than 130,000, with around 20,000 still trapped under rubble, or the killing of premature babies and desecration of martyr bodies?

Reactions and Impact

What is your assessment of the international reactions in Europe, the U.S., and other countries to the decision?

I believe that reactions varied across different countries. The United States' position was clear before and after the arrest warrants were issued, characterized by rejection, warnings, threats, and bullying.

The U.S. efforts focused on obstructing the issuance of the arrest warrants and threatening the Prosecutor. However, we paid little attention to the U.S. stance and instead focused on the more measured reactions from countries that spoke thoughtfully.

Several countries handled the warrants responsibly and positively, including Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Norway, and Ireland. Slovenia also expressed strong support for the case.

France's position was particularly important, as it emphasized that all countries must respect the rules of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Italy’s position was demonstrated by a statement from Defense Minister Guido Crosetto, declaring that Italy would be obligated to arrest Netanyahu if he visited the country.

These are significant statements that speak volumes compared to the positions of only two countries—Hungary and the U.S.—which we do not focus on.

The issuance of this decision marks a historic milestone—an achievement not only for the Palestinian people and the oppressed but also for the advancement of international justice.

What is the positive impact of the ICC's decision on South Africa's call to condemn Israel in the International Court of Justice?

Undoubtedly, the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) decision will subtly influence the International Court of Justice (ICJ), especially since Israeli leaders have now been condemned for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. This could help convince the judges at the ICJ.

Although the focus of the ICJ's case is different, as it concerns genocide, and the ICJ is not tasked with addressing war crimes or crimes against humanity, the case still holds relevance. The ICC had initially rejected the notion of genocide, stating that the evidence was insufficient for such a charge—a stance we, of course, disagreed with.

We had planned to send a message to the ICC to express our reservations about this position, as all evidence points to genocide.

The ICC's arrest warrants cover crimes committed between October 8, 2023, and May 20, 2024, when the Prosecutor formally requested warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. However, substantial new evidence has surfaced since then, strengthening the case for genocide charges and solidifying accusations against Israel.

American Arrogance

How do you envision the court's future and its independence following this decision, especially in the face of American pressure?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is not an institution of the United Nations, unlike the International Court of Justice, which is an international body. The ICC is an independent institution established by several countries under the Rome Statute in 1990, and it came into force in 2001. Therefore, the situation is entirely different.

Regarding its future, personally, as someone who has worked with the court since its establishment, I do not doubt its independence, despite facing threats like these, which are far from unprecedented.

The United States has previously engaged in bullying against the court, and this is the third time. It is not the first time the court has issued sanctions either. During the first term of former President Donald Trump, sanctions were imposed on the former prosecutor of the court, Fatou Bensouda, preventing her from entering the U.S. and placing her on the U.S. Treasury Department’s sanctions list. Seven ICC judges were sanctioned after they issued a decision on February 5, 2021, to open an investigation into crimes committed by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2003.

This is not the first time the U.S. has issued such threats, and they will have no impact. The court’s credibility remains intact, bolstered by this decision, which underscores its independence, professionalism, and unwavering commitment to justice, ensuring accountability and denying impunity to perpetrators.

What is the purpose of the repeated U.S. vetoes against the UN Security Council resolution for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza?

The repeated U.S. vetoes highlight its complicity in the crime of genocide and pose a threat to international peace and security.

This raises the need to restructure the Security Council and reconsider its composition and functioning. The Council no longer fulfills its founding purpose, as the veto power, established under the UN Charter to maintain peace and security, is now being used to undermine them.

The question remains: what harm would it have done for the U.S. to vote in favor of a ceasefire, halting the targeting of children and civilian infrastructure, particularly hospitals? What would have happened if the U.S. had supported the delivery of humanitarian aid to the desperate population of Gaza?

This behavior can only be interpreted as reflecting strong U.S. interests in what is happening in Palestine, including facilitating the occupation of Gaza, the annexation of the West Bank, and even Jordan, as openly stated by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and other officials.

Thus, the U.S. veto regrettably provides political cover for further crimes and ensures impunity for those responsible.