1- Jurisdictional challenges, Palestinian statehood dispute: Israel contends the ICC lacks jurisdiction because from Israeli perspective it is not a sovereign state. Whereas Palestine proposes that is an independent and sovereign state as it did accede to the Rome Statute in 2015. Israel, however, contends that Palestine’s statehood still remains unresolved under international law.

• Statute of Rome and non-signatories: The States, who are not a party to the Rome Statute, can argue that the ICC has no authority over its nationals.

• Complementarity principle: a country can assert that its judicial system is capable of addressing the allegations independently; in that case, it will render the ICC involvement unnecessary.

2- Military defence argument:

• Warfare its necessity and proportionality: Defence can argue, the military actions in Gaza were necessary and proportionate to Hamas’ attacks and to the use of human shields and indiscriminate rocket fires. The civilian casualties can be claimed as collateral war damage rather than intentional targeting.

Arrest warrants for Netanyahu-I

• Distinction between combatants and civilians: Israel can claim that Hamas deliberately operates in civilian areas, making it difficult to avoid civilian harm by framing it as violations (by Hamas) of international humanitarian law.

3- Humanitarian aid blockade justifications

• Security concerns: Israel can argue that restrictions on goods entering Gaza were necessary to prevent weapon smuggling to Hamas and it was not a belligerent action being a legitimate measure under international law, aimed at protecting Israeli civilians from ongoing threats.

• Responsibility sharing: Netanyahu’s defense might assert that Gaza’s humanitarian crisis was exacerbated by Hamas’ mismanagement of resources and refusal to prioritize civilian needs.

4- Issue of knowledge and chain of command

• Responsibility: It can be argued that decisions on military........

© Business Recorder