by Sammy Stein (December 2025)
The International Criminal Court’s investigation into alleged war crimes by Israel in the Palestinian territories has entered a decisive phase, one that cuts to the heart of how international justice defines its own authority.
The probe, formally opened in 2021, covers alleged crimes committed since June, 2014 in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. It targets potential violations by both Israeli and Palestinian actors, including Hamas. From the outset, however, the question has never been solely about guilt or innocence, but about jurisdiction: can the ICC prosecute alleged crimes committed in territory claimed by “Palestine,” a state recognised by some but not by others, and against nationals of Israel, a country that has never joined the Court?
That debate intensified in April, 2025 when the ICC’s Appeals Chamber overturned an earlier ruling by the Pre-Trial Chamber, which had dismissed Israel’s challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction. The reversal effectively reopened a central legal dispute which could reshape the future of the entire investigation.
The case traces back to 2015, when the “State of Palestine” was accepted as a party to the Rome Statute despite its ambiguous legal status. This step allowed the Palestinian Authority to refer alleged crimes on its territory to the ICC. Six years later, after an extended preliminary review, then-Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda launched a formal investigation. The scope included allegations of deliberate attacks on civilians, destruction of infrastructure, and the use of starvation as a weapon of war.
Israel, rejecting the Court’s jurisdiction from the outset, submitted a formal challenge in September, 2024 under Article 19(2)(c) of the Rome Statute. It raised three main objections: first, that Israel is not a signatory to the Statute and has not consented to ICC jurisdiction; second, that Palestine does not meet the legal criteria for statehood; and third, that Israel’s own judicial system is capable of investigating alleged misconduct by its forces, rendering ICC intervention unnecessary.
The Pre-Trial Chamber dismissed Israel’s challenge in November, 2024, calling it premature since no suspects had appeared before the Court. But five months later, the Appeals Chamber found that ruling to be an error. It held that a state may contest jurisdiction at any stage of proceedings, and that Israel’s objections deserved a full hearing.
The Appeals Chamber’s decision does not halt the investigation or invalidate existing arrest warrants, including those issued in November, 2024 for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. It does, however, force the Court to revisit its own reasoning which results in a rare procedural win for Israel and a potential turning point for the ICC.
If the Pre-Trial Chamber ultimately sides with Israel, the Court’s jurisdiction over Israeli nationals could collapse, nullifying the arrest warrants and narrowing the investigation’s scope. If the Court reaffirms its jurisdiction, it would strengthen the ICC’s authority to act in contested or partially recognised territories, an outcome that would reverberate well beyond the Israel–Palestine context.
The Court’s credibility has also been tested internally. Prosecutor Karim Khan has taken a leave of absence amid an investigation into alleged misconduct, leaving his office to defend both the validity of the warrants and the broader integrity of the investigation. In May, 2025, the Office of the Prosecutor rejected Israel’s request to suspend the warrants, insisting that the Appeals Chamber’s procedural ruling did not undermine their legality.
Meanwhile, global reactions remain split. Supporters frame the ICC’s actions as a long-overdue step toward accountability in one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. Critics, Israel and its allies foremost among them, see the investigation as a political exercise by a Court exceeding its legal reach.
As the legal process unfolds, the ICC finds itself once again balancing law and politics on a knife edge. The outcome of Israel’s jurisdictional challenge will not only determine the fate of specific warrants, but also the credibility of the Court itself as an institution still struggling to prove that its pursuit of justice can survive the realities of international power.
Table of Contents
Sammy Stein was born a Jewish Palestinian, a description that causes much confusion with people. In 1948, he and all other Jewish Palestinians living in Palestine became Israeli citizens. He now lives in Glasgow and has two daughters, two grandchildren, and is married to Vicci. Sammy is Chair of Glasgow Friends of Israel, which celebrated its tenth anniversary in May 2025.
Follow NER on Twitter @NERIconoclast
