France has declared that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is immune from arrest under International Criminal Court (ICC) warrants.
This decision comes amid mounting international pressure and growing legal scrutiny.
The French government explained that Israel is not a member of the ICC, and therefore, certain legal immunities apply.
“A state cannot be compelled to act against international law concerning immunities for nations not part of the ICC,” the French foreign ministry said.
The statement added that these protections extend to Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, emphasizing that France would consider these factors if requested to detain them.
France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot backed this stance, saying, “It is ultimately up to the judicial authorities to decide.”
However, he acknowledged that the ICC statute addresses immunity for certain leaders.
The ICC recently issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas military leader Mohammed Deif.
These warrants have been met with mixed reactions across the globe.
Netanyahu condemned the move, describing it as a politically motivated attack.
The ICC, however, insists that the warrants are binding and must be enforced by signatory states.
EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell reiterated the court’s position, underscoring the importance of accountability.
France’s decision has drawn sharp criticism from human rights groups and political leaders.
Amnesty International called the French government’s position “deeply problematic.”
“France must uphold its commitments under the Rome Statute,” Amnesty urged.
French Green party leader Marine Tondelier did not mince words, labeling the government’s approach as “shameful.”
She accused French authorities of prioritizing diplomatic relationships over the pursuit of justice.
“This is a betrayal of victims and undermines international law,” Tondelier said.
Barrot, however, defended France’s broader diplomatic role.
He highlighted France’s efforts in brokering a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon.
The ceasefire agreement requires Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon and hand over control to Lebanese armed forces.
“We are committed to peace and stability in the region,” Barrot stated.
The immunity issue has reignited debates about the ICC’s jurisdiction and its ability to hold world leaders accountable.
Legal experts point out that the ICC’s authority is often challenged by nations that are not signatories to its statutes.
Israel has long rejected the ICC’s jurisdiction, arguing that it is not bound by its rulings.
France’s stance aligns with this interpretation, emphasising respect for state sovereignty.
Critics, however, argue that this undermines the ICC’s mission to combat impunity for serious crimes.
“This sets a dangerous precedent,” said a spokesperson for a legal advocacy group.
Observers note that France’s position could complicate relations with other ICC member states.
Some countries may view the decision as a failure to uphold international justice.
Diplomats warn that the controversy could have far-reaching implications for future ICC cases.
Analysts suggest that France’s move is driven by a desire to maintain strategic alliances in the Middle East.
Netanyahu’s government remains a key player in regional geopolitics, and France may be balancing legal obligations with diplomatic interests.
The international community remains divided on how to address the issue.
For now, France’s approach signals a cautious stance, prioritizing legal interpretation over immediate ac
