November 27, 2024, a revelation from Israeli daily newspapers Haaretz et Maariv shook the diplomatic scene by revealing a request from Benjamin Netanyahu as part of the negotiations on the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. According to these newspapers, the Israeli Prime Minister would have agreed to sign a truce agreement with Hezbollah, on condition that France does not implement an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against him for war crimes.
The context of the ICC arrest warrant
Advertisement
The ICC arrest warrant, made public in November 2024, targeted Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, due to Israeli military operations in Gaza. The mandate was issued amid growing tensions between Israel, Lebanon and Hezbollah, as ceasefire negotiations were underway.
Following this announcement, France expressed its intention to respect its international commitments as a state party to the ICC, but remained unclear on the question of the application of the arrest warrant if Netanyahu were to go to the ground French. On the other hand, countries like the United Kingdom and Italy have been much clearer about their position on this issue.
Netanyahu’s demand: “immunity” to sign the ceasefire
Faced with this situation, Netanyahu would have set a precondition for signing the ceasefire with Hezbollah: obtaining a form of “immunity protection” from France regarding the arrest warrant. According to Haaretzthis demand was made by Netanyahu, who reportedly asked French diplomacy to recognize that he enjoyed immunity, in accordance with article 98 of the Rome Statute, which deals with exceptions for leaders of countries not party to the ICC, like Israel.
This interpretation of immunity was accepted by Paris, which indicated that it “should be taken into consideration” in the event of a request for Netanyahu’s arrest by the ICC.
The reaction in France and international criticism
France’s position has aroused strong discontent, particularly from left-wing political parties and NGOs. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch strongly denounced this “immunity” granted to a leader accused of war crimes. Bénédicte Jeannerod, director of Human Rights Watch France, called the French position “deeply shocking,” saying France must not show complacency towards those responsible for serious human rights violations.
This situation raises many questions about France’s role in international justice, and how it juggles its obligations to the ICC and its strategic relations with Israel.
Other sticking points in the negotiations
The ICC arrest warrant was not the only sticking point in the ceasefire negotiations. Another delicate subject was the question of Israel’s freedom of military action in the event of Hezbollah’s violation of the agreement. On the advice of France, Lebanon expressed its opposition to this “freedom of action”, but this position was ultimately adopted, allowing Israel to respond militarily if necessary.
Moreover, the United States also put pressure on Israel to sign the agreement. According to Haaretzthe Biden administration reportedly threatened Israel with an arms embargo if the deal was not reached. This pressure has helped move the negotiations forward, but the political price of these concessions remains high.
Diplomatic repercussions and the question of impunity
The implicit agreement between France and Israel regarding Netanyahu’s immunity raises concerns about the management of international justice and the responsibilities of leaders accused of war crimes. France’s decision not to apply the arrest warrant, due to diplomatic imperatives and the desire to maintain the ceasefire, could have repercussions on its international relations, in particular with other States parties to the ICC who expect France to respect its commitments to international justice.
The issue of impunity for leaders accused of serious crimes remains a controversial subject, and this situation could weaken France’s position on the international stage in terms of human rights and international criminal justice.
A fragile ceasefire and diplomatic concessions
The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, while marking a welcome respite for Lebanon, remains fragile and depends on the parties’ commitment to respect the terms of the agreement. France’s role, although crucial in mediating this agreement, has been tainted by its diplomatic concessions, notably on the question of Netanyahu’s immunity. While these decisions make it possible to avoid a new military escalation, they nevertheless raise important questions about international justice and the management of conflicts while respecting the principles of accountability.
Related News :