Arab League tells ICC it should hear Gaza war crimes case

US says case against Israeli and Hamas leaders has 'fundamental issues' as lawyers weigh in

Conditions in Gaza after 10 months of war are under the close eye of several international courts and authorities. AFP

Live updates: Follow the latest news on Israel-Gaza

Arab countries have told judges in The Hague they believe it can hear war crimes allegations from Gaza, despite objections from Israel's supporters.

The Arab League said there is "no Palestinian limitation" that would stop Israel's military leadership from standing trial.

The newly released submission to the International Criminal Court rejects arguments by the US and pro-Israel lawyers trying to block the case.

Prosecutor Karim Khan is seeking arrest warrants for Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar.

US lawyers say the case has "fundamental issues", such as a 1990s peace deal that said only Israel could prosecute its citizens in Palestine.

The Arab League says that deal, the Oslo Accords, was "procured through the illegal use of force" and is not relevant to the present case.

In a flurry of submissions made public since Tuesday's deadline:

· Hungary said there were "tools and mechanisms under Israeli domestic law" that could handle war crimes claims, instead of the ICC;

· A group of former Nato commanders said granting arrest warrants would "set standards that are unbearable and unrealistic" for warfare;

· Colombia said there is evidence that Israeli citizens "bear criminal responsibility for horrific crimes" on Palestinian territory;

· Al Quds University, in East Jerusalem, said it would be an "absurd situation" if Palestine's rights as an ICC member were limited by Israeli occupation.

Arab argument

The 10-page Arab submission is signed by Ralph Wilde, a UK lawyer who has represented the Arab League internationally.

It attacks the Oslo Accords line of argument by calling the 1990s deal irrelevant and contrary to wider principles.

The accords opened the door to limited Palestinian self-government, in what was meant to be a first step towards peace.

Several lawyers have cited an Oslo clause that gives Israel "sole criminal jurisdiction" over its citizens in Palestinian territory.

Israel is not a member of the ICC but Palestine is.

The Arab League, in what is formally known as an amicus curiae ('friend of the court') brief, says the Oslo restrictions "are void".

"The Palestinian 'agreement' to Oslo was procured by Israel in the context of an illegal use of force," the Arab brief says.

"Representatives of a dominated people were negotiating and supposedly agreeing with the state exercising domination over them about the terms of domination."

The Palestinian people "do not depend on Oslo" for their sovereign rights, including the right to prosecute people, the Arab League submission says.

"There is no Palestinian limitation excluding jurisdiction over such individuals in this territory to take account of here."

Several lawyers have made similar arguments, including the government of Norway which brokered the Oslo Accords.

US view

The US, Israel's biggest ally, argues in its submission that the Oslo Accords "remain foundational" to the region.

"The accords are clear that Israel retains the sole authority to hold accountable Israelis accused of criminal acts in the territory," the US amicus brief says.

"The [Palestinian Authority] has never had the 'sovereign ability to prosecute' any crimes committed by Israeli nationals within the territory described."

Lawyers also take up procedural issues with Mr Khan, who was accused by the US of jumping ahead of an Israeli legal process.

Mr Khan accuses the Israeli leadership of using starvation as a method of war and intentionally attacking civilians in Gaza.

A brief by the High Level Military Group, which includes retired commanders of Nato forces in the Middle East, contends that hunger in Gaza is an "unavoidable effect of large-scale urban warfare".

"The prosecutor's allegations completely absolve Hamas – who instigated the war – of the responsibility for supplying its own population," it says.

Mr Khan had sought arrest warrants against three Hamas leaders over the October 7 attack on Israel, two of whom have since died.

More than 60 states, campaign groups and individuals have submitted amicus briefs. The UK, which started the ball rolling, later backed out under its new Labour government.