Follow us on social

google cta
What war crimes warrants would mean for Netanyahu, Hamas leaders

What war crimes warrants would mean for Netanyahu, Hamas leaders

ICC charges would dramatically reduce freedom of movement for Israeli leaders

Reporting | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court announced Monday that his office will seek arrest warrants for several Israeli and Palestinian leaders, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for alleged war crimes committed during the Gaza war.

If the warrants are approved by the ICC, Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Yoav Gallant will face charges of starving civilians, intentional attacks on innocents, and other aspects of what Prosecutor Karim Khan described as “a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza.”

Hamas leaders, for their part, could face charges of hostage taking, rape, and intentionally killing civilians. Khan is seeking arrest warrants for Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar, military boss Mohammed Deif, and politburo leader Ismail Haniyeh.

The warrants would dramatically reduce freedom of movement for Netanyahu and Gallant, who could no longer step foot in roughly half of the world’s countries without facing arrest. Parties to the ICC include nearly all of Europe and Latin America, as well as Canada, Australia, Japan, and much of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Those restrictions will be more familiar for Hamas leaders, who have historically only traveled to friendly or neutral countries like Russia, China, Iran, and Qatar, none of which are parties to the Rome Statute, the international agreement that underpins the ICC.

The decision over whether to issue a warrant now goes to the ICC’s pre-trial chamber, which could take several months to make a decision, according to Just Security. Only one publicly known request for a warrant has been denied by this chamber, suggesting that the charges are likely to move forward.

ICC states have sometimes chosen not to arrest leaders facing charges out of political convenience, usually justified as a result of special diplomatic immunity. Such was the case for former Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir, who traveled freely to South Africa and Jordan while serving as president despite an outstanding warrant.

But, in 2019, an ICC appeals court ruled against this immunity doctrine, making it more difficult to justify any attempt to avoid arresting Netanyahu, Gallant, or the Hamas leaders.

Netanyahu recently argued that an arrest warrant against him and other Israeli officials would represent an “unprecedented antisemitic hate crime” and “a distortion of justice and history.”

Israeli leaders argue that their campaign has been proportional to the threat posed by Hamas and that any civilian casualties are due to militants’ use of civilians as “human shields.” But legal experts and human rights NGOs have found numerous examples of alleged war crimes committed by Israeli soldiers and political leadership.

The potential charges put the United States in a difficult place. While the U.S. never ratified the Rome Statute, it endorsed the court’s 2023 decision to bring charges against Russian President Vladimir Putin for alleged war crimes in Ukraine.

While Secretary of State Antony Blinken said recently that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have likely violated international law in their campaign, the U.S. maintains that Israel can hold its own troops accountable for any alleged war crimes. American leaders have reportedly worked with Israeli officials in an attempt to stop the charges.

The potential charges are likely to spark furor in Congress. In a recent open letter, ten GOP senators threatened to retaliate against the ICC for any charges brought against Israeli officials.

“If you issue a warrant for the arrest of the Israeli leadership, we will interpret this not only as a threat to Israel’s sovereignty but to the sovereignty of the United States,” the lawmakers wrote, making reference to a U.S. law that authorizes “all means necessary” to prevent any “U.S. or allied personnel” from facing prosecution.

“Target Israel and we will target you,” the letter continued, threatening sanctions against ICC officials. Signatories include Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) — a top candidate for Defense Secretary if Donald Trump wins election this fall — as well as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

The senators argued that any warrants against Israeli officials would be “illegitimate and lack legal basis.”

But international law experts disagree. A panel including famed international lawyer Amal Clooney and a former legal adviser to Israel’s foreign ministry “unanimously endorsed” the decision to bring charges.


Netanyahu is giving more gifts to the right-wing in his fight to hold power
google cta
Reporting | QiOSK
Trump $1.5 trillion
Top image credit: Richard Peterson via shutterstock.com

The reality of Trump’s cartoonish $1.5 trillion DOD budget proposal

Military Industrial Complex

After promising on the campaign trail that he would drive the war profiteers out of Washington, and appointing Elon Musk to trim the size of government across the board, some will be surprised at President Trump’s social media post on Wednesday that the U.S. should raise the Pentagon budget to $1.5 trillion. That would mean an unprecedented increase in military spending, aside from the buildup for World War II.

The proposal is absurd on the face of it, and it’s extremely unlikely that it is the product of a careful assessment of U.S. defense needs going forward. The plan would also add $5.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Budget.

keep readingShow less
Trump Venezuela
Top image credit: President Donald Trump monitors U.S. military operations in Venezuela, from Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, on Saturday, January 3, 2026. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

Trump's sphere of influence gambit is sloppy, self-sabotage

Latin America

Spheres of influence stem from the very nature of states and international relations. States will always seek to secure their interests by exerting influence over their neighbors, and the more powerful the state, the greater the influence that it will seek.

That said, sphere of influence strategies vary greatly, on spectrums between relative moderation and excess, humanity and cruelty, discreet pressure and open intimidation, and intelligence and stupidity; and the present policies of the Trump administration in the Western Hemisphere show disturbing signs of inclining towards the latter.

keep readingShow less
 Ngo Dinh Diem assassination
Top photo credit: Newspaper coverage of the coup and deaths, later ruled assassination of Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu. (Los Angeles Times)

JFK oversaw Vietnam decapitation. He didn't live to witness the rest.

Washington Politics

American presidents have never been shy about unseating foreign heads of state, by either overt or covert means. Since the late 19th century, our leaders have deposed, or tried to depose their counterparts in Iran, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, and elsewhere.

Our presidents indulge in regime change when they perceive foreign leaders as inimical to U.S. security or corporate interests. But such efforts can backfire. The 1961 attempt to topple Fidel Castro, organized under President Eisenhower and executed under President Kennedy, led to a slaughter of CIA-trained invasion forces at the Bay of Pigs and a triumph for Castro’s communist government. Despite being driven from power by President George W. Bush in retribution for the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban roared back in 2023, again making Afghanistan a haven for terrorist groups.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.