Afrasianet - Fuad Bakr - The Pre-Trial Chamber of the Criminal Court concluded that the armed conflict that has taken place since the seventh of October was not between the Palestinian Authority, but between Israel and the military wings of the non-governmental Palestinian resistance factions.

The Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court in the decision regarding Netanyahu's arrest warrant and Galant separated the nature of the conflict, as it considered that the Palestinian issue in general applies to the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and classified it as an international conflict, and as for what happened in the October 7 operation in 2023, and the resulting massacres and crimes committed against the Palestinian people, which extended over 15 years, it was considered a non-international armed conflict, so what is the difference and what does this entail in the legal dimension?

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court indicates that the Court's jurisdiction includes the war crime of starving the civilian population as a weapon in the context of international armed conflicts, and Palestine has not yet ratified the amendment to Article 8 of the Rome Statute in 2019, which expanded the Court's powers to include the war crime of starvation as a weapon in the context of non-international armed conflicts.

The Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court has relied on the fact that the armed conflict that has occurred since the seventh of October 2023 was not between the Palestinian Authority, which dissolved the armed struggle from the PLO program, but between Israel and the military wings of the Palestinian non-governmental resistance factions, which in its view eliminates the nature of the international armed conflict.

If we want to analyze the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court, we find that it argued that Israel starved the population as a weapon against the Palestinian resistance to pressure it, to recover Israeli hostages, and if it is based on the fact that the nature of the conflict is an international unarmed conflict, it lifts the protection of fighters in the Palestinian resistance.

The decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber of the Court violated the nature of the conflict in the occupied Palestinian territories, as it must be based on the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1948, for the protection of civilians during war, and that the Israeli occupation imposed restrictions and controls the movement of goods and people, which falls within the powers of the Palestinian Authority, which proves that the weapon of starvation is used against all residents of the Gaza Strip, including civilians, which falls within the international armed conflict.

Returning to the decision of the International Court of Justice issued on 19 July 2024, which affirmed that the Israeli occupation of the occupied Palestinian territories is illegal and must be ended, in particular the recognition by the United Nations of the Palestinian state as a non-full member of the United Nations, and based on the position of the International Committee of the Red Cross that the laws of international armed conflict apply to the occupied Palestinian territories, and the fact that Israel is an occupying power in the territory of others, only the laws of international armed conflict can apply.

Since the Israeli occupation targeted all residents of the Gaza Strip without exception and without distinguishing between civilian and military, and in accordance with the resolutions of international organizations that affirmed that the conflict in Palestine is an international armed conflict, the International Criminal Court must be reviewed through legal action, provided that it does not affect the essence of Netanyahu's arrest warrant, and the need to focus on targeting the residents of the Gaza Strip because of their national affiliation, which is a crime within the framework of crimes against humanity, which is the crime of persecution, and does not need Delve into the details of the nature of the conflict, whether it is an international armed conflict or a non-international armed conflict.

Despite the positive nature of the decision in its general nature, and its importance in terms of issuing the arrest warrant against Netanyahu and Galant, the issue of determining the nature of the conflict is of utmost importance, in terms of the course of events, so that the court's decision is not considered a precedent, and considering what is happening between the Palestinian resistance factions and the Israeli occupation as a non-international armed conflict, given that the Palestinian resistance is within the framework of a national liberation movement, and demands the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and freedom and an end to the Israeli occupation, and enters into the heart of The Palestinian cause, which falls within the framework of the international armed conflict in accordance with international resolutions, and the failure to differentiate between what the Palestinian factions and the Palestinian Authority are doing, and the invalidation that the conflict between the Palestinian resistance and the occupation is a non-international armed conflict as it is within the framework of two states, not within one state.