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
Iran nuclear
Top image credit: An Iranian cleric and a young girl stand next to scale models of Iran-made ballistic missiles and centrifuges after participating in an anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli rally marking the anniversary of the U.S. embassy occupation in downtown Tehran, Iran, on November 4, 2025.(Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via REUTERS CONNECT)

Want Iran to get the bomb? Try regime change

Middle East

Washington is once again flirting with a familiar temptation: the belief that enough pressure, and if necessary, military force, can bend Iran to its will. The Trump administration appears ready to move beyond containment toward forcing collapse. Before treating Iran as the next candidate for forced transformation, policymakers should ask a question they have consistently failed to answer in the Middle East: “what follows regime change?”

The record is sobering. In the past two decades, regime change in the region has yielded state fragmentation, authoritarian restoration, or prolonged conflict. Iraq remains fractured despite two decades of U.S. investment. Egypt’s democratic opening collapsed within a year. Libya, Syria, and Yemen spiraled into civil wars whose spillover persists. In each case, removing a regime proved far easier than constructing a viable successor. Iran would not be the exception. It would be the rule — at a scale that dwarfs anything the region has experienced.

keep readingShow less
Much ado about a Chinese 'mega-embassy' in London
Top image credit: London, UK - 3rd May 2025: Protestors gather outside the Royal Mint to demonstrate against plans to relocate China's embassy to the site. (Monkey Butler Images/Shutterstock)

Much ado about a Chinese 'mega-embassy' in London

Europe

A group of Russian nuns were recently sighted selling holy trinkets in Swedish churches. Soon, Swedish newspapers were awash with headlines about pro-Putin spies engaged in “funding the Putin war machine.” Russian Orthodox priests had also allegedly infiltrated Swedish churches located suspiciously close to military bases and airports.

Michael Ojermo, the rector of Täby, a suburb of Stockholm, tried to quell the alarm. There is no evidence of ecclesiastical espionage, he said, and “a few trinkets cannot fund a war.”

keep readingShow less
world powers
Top photo credit: (Ben_Je/Shutterstock)

US-China symposium: Spheres of influence for me, not for thee?

Asia-Pacific

In the new National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy, the Trump team charges that the Monroe Doctrine has been "ignored" by previous administrations and that the primary goal now is to reassert control over its economic and security interests in the Western Hemisphere.

"We will guarantee U.S. military and commercial access to key terrain, especially the Panama Canal, Gulf of America, and Greenland," states the NDS. The U.S. will work with neighbors to protect "our shared interests," but "where they do not, we will stand ready to take focused, decisive action that concretely advances U.S. interests."

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.