Dutch Supreme Court Rules Israeli Commanders Immune from Civil Prosecution Over Palestinian Deaths
In a significant ruling, the Dutch Supreme Court has declared that two Israeli former military commanders, Benny Gantz and Amir Eshel, are immune from civil prosecution in the Netherlands. The commanders, who were accused of involvement in the deaths of six Palestinians during an Israeli airstrike, have been granted immunity due to their status as high-ranking officials executing government policy.
This decision upholds a previous ruling by the Dutch appeals court, which stated that Gantz and Eshel cannot be held liable in a Dutch civil case, regardless of the gravity of the allegations against them. The plaintiff, Ismail Ziada, a Dutch national of Palestinian origin, lost several family members in the attack that took place in Gaza in 2014, during Gantz’s tenure as the commander-in-chief of the Israeli armed forces.
Under Dutch universal jurisdiction rules, Ziada sought unspecified damages against Gantz, leveraging the country’s ability to prosecute serious offenses committed beyond its borders. However, the supreme court’s decision marks the end of the legal process, leaving no room for further appeals.
The court’s ruling has raised criticism from human rights groups worldwide, who accuse both sides of committing war crimes during the seven-week conflict in Gaza. The war resulted in the deaths of approximately 2,200 Palestinians, with an estimated 1,500 of them being civilians, according to figures from the United Nations. Conversely, Israeli military and health officials report that 67 soldiers and six civilians in Israel were also killed as a result of the conflict.
This verdict highlights the challenges faced by those seeking justice for alleged war crimes committed by high-ranking officials. With immunity granted to Gantz and Eshel, the ruling not only closes the door to further legal recourse for Ziada but also raises concerns about accountability for such incidents.
The case raises broader questions around the responsibility of governments and individuals in addressing allegations of war crimes and the limitations of universal jurisdiction in securing justice for victims. As human rights groups continue to advocate for accountability, this ruling serves as a reminder of the complex and often unresolved nature of such cases.
“Zombie enthusiast. Subtly charming travel practitioner. Webaholic. Internet expert.”