The International Criminal Court in The Hague issued an order calling for the arrest of leaders of both Hamas and Israel for crimes against humanity. The supporters of each side have called foul, but the ICC is absolutely right. There is no excuse or rationale for atrocities or killing of innocent civilians. Meanwhile, Rep. Elise Stefanik addressed the Israeli Parliament and urged Israelis to keep fighting Hamas until they had achieved “total victory.” She said “Total victory starts, but only starts, with wiping those responsible for October 7 off the face of the Earth,” a maximalist goal that rejects negotiations to end the war.
The Israeli publication Haaretz says that the ICC got it right:
Reading the statement by Karim Khan, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in the Hague, calling to arrest top Hamas and Israeli leaders is physically dizzying. It is at once a terrible reliving of the cruel events of this war, and a forced confrontation with atrocities that “my” side (whichever you’re on) is committing. It is a soaring, noble effort to constrain them, but one that seems just as likely to fail.
If the court issues those warrants, three Hamas leaders, Yahya Sinwar, Muhammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, run the risk of being arrested in any of the 124 countries who are parties to the 1998 Rome Statute that established the ICC. Customary international law allows diplomatic immunity for top national leaders, but they shouldn’t count on it – there are legal precedents for the court overriding such immunity.
The ICC is one of the world’s most audacious experiments: Creating a universal standard of law to constrain the equally universal barbarism of war. The project has been dogged by accusations of the politicization of justice for years, and the court perennially struggles for legitimacy.
But calling to arrest both Hamas and Israeli leaders has tremendous significance for the parties involved – and possibly for the court’s own global standing.
That’s because Khan presents unrelenting allegations against both sides, not as artificial both-siderism, but out of commitment to the law. It is the first call to arrest leaders backed by major Western powers. And along the way, the text renders subtle judgment on some of the painful public debates on this issue.
For example, the statement, which starts with accusations against Hamas, cleanly dispenses with the bizarre public inquisition against the C-word. Hamas’ alleged war crimes “were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas.”
Issue closed: Of course there is a context, and it is no excuse for atrocities, full stop.
Specifying that there is an international armed conflict is also important. For the Court, Palestine is a state, recognized by the UN as a non-member observer state in 2012, which allowed Palestine to accede to the Rome Statute in 2015. It’s a good reminder that foreign involvement is not a violation of Israel’s sovereignty but a legitimate matter for the international community.
Denialists of sexual violence can crawl back into whatever dark moral void they came from. Like the exhaustive media, civil society, and UN investigations, Khan, too, found sufficient evidence to accuse Hamas of committing these crimes – which are probably ongoing against hostages.
The court called on Hamas to release the hostages immediately, as “a fundamental requirement of international humanitarian law.”
And the top charge among eight different accusations against Hamas was “extermination as a crime against humanity.” The whole list is a horrifying replay of October 7 itself: murder, hostage taking, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture.
Starting with Hamas might have reflected merely the chronology of the current war. But it could inject “Team Israel” readers with a sense of vindication – perhaps the court hoped for inoculation – for the charges against Israel.
These charges are devastating: starvation as a method of war, a war crime. Israel is accused of intentionally attacking a civilian population. And fifth on the list: “extermination and/or murder…as a crime against humanity,” followed by two additional crimes against humanity.
The court also bluntly observed that “Famine is present in some areas of Gaza and is imminent in other areas.” This is a reminder that Israeli denialism must vanish forever.
The prosecutor also made the unforgiving distinction between self-defense, war and war crimes:
“Israel, like all States, has a right to… defend its population. That right, however, does not absolve Israel… of its obligation to comply with international humanitarian law… intentionally causing death, starvation, great suffering, and serious injury to body or health of the civilian population – [is] criminal.”
Beyond the content, Khan noted that his office “worked painstakingly to separate claims from facts and to soberly present conclusions,” and he leaned on a panel of international law luminaries. Among them is the nonagenarian jurist Theodor Meron – the Israeli (in addition to other nationalities) who first warned the Israeli government back in 1967 that civilian settlements in occupied territory would violate international law – when they were still just an idea.
The Prosecutor’s earnest efforts will never be enough. Everywhere international courts rule on such cases, the side on the dock feels persecuted, victims feel their perpetrators got off too lightly, and everyone blames the court. But in this case, no one even waited for verdicts.
A dozen GOP Senators already issued Tony Soprano-like threats to the court weeks ago:
“Target Israel and we will target you… we will move to end all American support for the ICC, sanction your employees…bar you and your families from the United States. You have been warned.”
Among apoplectic Israeli leaders, the Nazi-accusations runneth over, as do their attacks on international justice altogether, from Smotrich to the president, Isaac Herzog.
The ICC might have lost Israel forever. But the court seeks and pursues justice as the Bible commands. If this doesn’t destroy it, the court may win a second chance from the rest of the world.

Do you agree with the Biden administration and bipartisan Congressional representatives talking about imposing sanctions in response to the ICC prosecution?
LikeLike
I agree with sanctions to both sides. Of course, it’s hard to find Hamas to sanction them because the leaders live in luxury in Qatar, and the other terrorists are living in the tunnels. There’s no PO Box.
LikeLike
Sanctions against the ICC.
LikeLike
I believe that Dienne77 is talking about sanctions being imposed upon the ICC, not Hamas or Israel.
LikeLike
Biden is absolutely wrong on this.
LikeLike
Thank you for that much.
LikeLike
Also, thank you for making it clear my question was perfectly understandable.
LikeLike
Anyone happen to know what the standard for “crimes against humanity” is?
LikeLike
Flerp, if you want that answer, look at this list and what those on that list did to get there.
Which leaders are on the ICC’s most wanted list? | Reuters
LikeLike
I meant what specifically do prosecutors have to prove.
LikeLike
It sounds to me like they have to prove intent to act in a way militarily that will bring about the deaths of large numbers of civilians.
LikeLike
From the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court [ICC]:
Article 7
Crimes against humanity
1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(a) “Attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
(b) “Extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;
(c) “Enslavement” means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;
(d) “Deportation or forcible transfer of population” means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
(e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
(f) “Forced pregnancy” means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;
(g) “Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;
(h) “The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
(i) “Enforced disappearance of persons” means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
3. For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term “gender” refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term “gender” does not indicate any meaning different from the above.
LikeLike
yes. Thanks, Duane.
LikeLike
They must prove that the nation or group engaged in “a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.” Note the “or.”
LikeLike
Also note “directed.” Wonder what that means.
LikeLike
It doesn’t mean that one can indiscriminately murder civilians, that’s for damned sure. One cannot, for example, drop a nuclear bomb on a city and then say, “Yes, but our action was directed against a criminal who lived in that city.” Obviously.
LikeLike
So, if fire is in the direction of civilians, it is illegal. It is directed in the sense that it is known beforehand that civilians will be hit.
LikeLike
Are you saying what you would guess the answer is, or what you know the answer is? (Put differently, as lawyers say, “Citation?”) Because it’s not clear to me that dropping a bomb at a location where you know there are civilians in order to destroy a military target is illegal.
LikeLike
That is one of the most bizarre statements I have ever read online, Flerp. Surely you do not mean that.
LikeLike
Absolutely I mean it. I am not aware of any international law that makes it per se illegal to strike a location for military purposes because there are civilians at that location. Maybe there is such a law but I’m not aware of it.
LikeLike
Obviously, Flerp, that action would violate the principle of proportionality in LOAC.
LikeLike
I’m no expert in this but I think proportionality requires a balancing of the expected military advantage to be gained by an attack against the risk of civilian casualties. In other words, no per se rule that it’s illegal to strike a location for military purposes just because there are civilians at that location.
LikeLike
The scenario we were discussing was nuking an entire city to get at a criminal. ROFL.
LikeLike
Oh, I thought we were talking about a non-nuke strike.
Which raises the question of whether a nuke is per se illegal. Maybe it is.
LikeLike
What would the analysis look like with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The civilian toll was enormous. But the military advantage gained was enormous. Probably would involve arguments about how soon the war would have ended absent the nukes.
LikeLike
A lot of people (not you) assume proportionality is about comparing the number of deaths on each side.
LikeLike
NO. Read the article I posted. It is a matter of acting in proportion to the grievance. If a country temporarily blocks a ship’s passage and the aggrieved party responds by leveling half a dozen of its cities, that is a response that is not in proportion to the grievance.
LikeLike
I’ll take a look, that doesn’t sound correct to my recollection.,
LikeLike
Proportional response. It’s a fundamental part of the Law of Armed Conflict. And of many other parts of International Law.
LikeLike
This is so sad. It has been 229 years since Kant published “On Perpetual Peace”–the proposal that led to the League of Nations and then the United Nations. There is a very solid body of International Law, it is is commonly flouted, and almost no one understands the most basic stuff from it–that you cannot kidnap/deport the citizens of a country (as Putin has been doing with Ukrainian youth; that you cannot invade another sovereign UN state except on approval by the UN for a limited purpose and with a limited scope; that you cannot target civilians; that you cannot use indiscriminate weapons. WE HAVE A BODY OF LAW HERE, and IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT, and almost no one, except those who, like me, have an International Law survey course, knows any of it, including American politicians. That’s horrifying to me.
LikeLike
This is what I was thinking of. The test for proportionality is codified in Article 51 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention. Article 51(5)(b), specifically. Link below to the code. The proportionality test is whether “an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, . . . would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”
It’s not whether the loss of civilian life is excessive compared to the loss of life on the attacking side. It’s whether the loss of civilian life is excessive in comparison to the anticipated military advantage that the attack would give. Obviously this isn’t the only rule at play, but this is the “proportionality rule.” I don’t think you’re disagreeing with me, but hard to tell.
I definitely don’t disagree that most people, including me, are quite ignorant about this stuff. Thanks for the many enlightening comments here.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51#:~:text=1.,dangers%20arising%20from%20military%20operations.
LikeLike
Thanks, Flerp. Clearly, the law is contradictory and unclear. I was thinking of cases I have studied regarding disproportionate response that was adjudged illegal. And I wonder whether you read the rest of Article 51.
51(1) The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising form military operations. . . .
51(2) The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. . . .
51(4) Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.
51(4)(b) [Indiscriminate attacks are: those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective
51(5)Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and (b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
I will stop there.
LikeLike
One of the reasons for this widespread ignorance is that people think that the United States is lawful, but it is an international scofflaw. It belongs, for example, to a tiny group of countries that voted against the truly outstanding Rome Statute, which empowers the International Criminal Court. That list consists of Iraq, Israel, Libya, China, Qatar, Yemen, and the United States. Nice company we keep.
LikeLike
If the world would decide to take very seriously the enforcement of international law, a lot of evil and ugliness would end.
LikeLike
The military advantage WAS NOT enormous. At the very time when these bombs were dropped, Japan was debating internally the terms of its surrender–mostly based on retaining the prestige and place of the Emperor.
LikeLike
Yes I’m familiar with that argument but I didn’t think the evidence was conclusive. But this is probably the kind of analysis you’d need.
LikeLike
The evidence is conclusive. Japan had in fact responded to the demand for surrender with a message saying that it was under consideration.
LikeLike
Japan had already suffered far more casualties and devastation via the targeting of its cities, including its civilians, as a result of LeMay and McNamara’s saturation bombing. It was finished and knew it. The nuclear bombs were superfluous. One of the most extreme criminal acts in history, and utterly unnecessary.
LikeLike
No. Using nuclear weapons is illegal under international law. There’s a long list of illegal weapons. Basically, any that are indiscriminate–chemical, thermobaric, nuclear, etc.
LikeLike
Ah, did not know that. Well that certainly shortens the analysis.
LikeLike
Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions outlaws targeting of civilians and indiscriminate weapons. It also lays down as a fundamental principle of international law proportionality of response.
LikeLike
So, to take a classic example of customary International Law, suppose that Ivankalandia and Elbonia have been feuding. A group of Ivankalandian schoolchildren go on a hike and wander accidentally over the line into Elbonia. The Elbonian National Guard and Ocarina band captures the schoolchildren. Ivankalandia demands their return. Elbonia refuses until Ivakalandia surrenders 1/3 of its territory to Elbona, which needs “Elbow Room.” Ivankalandia appeals to the UN and announces its decision to cross into Elbonia and rescue the children. The UN approves this. But only this. The action directed at rectifying its legitimate grievance. However, Ivankalandia takes this as an occasion to conduct an all-out war to take over Elbonia. That would be illegal.
LikeLike
It is not that we lack law in place internationally to prevent major horrors–laws that were put into place precisely to prevent stuff like mass slaughter of civilians. We have such laws, explicit and customary. The problem is that the UN has so little enforcement power. This needs to change to fix the system. The Security Council veto has to go. If ever there were an Orwellian term, “Security Council” is that term, for the Council commonly vetoes (it takes only one vote) appropriate action under existing law.
So, because the UN doesn’t act in some egregious situations or hasn’t the power to act in others, we end up with many people thinking that there is no governing law when there is. That’s a great shame.
And we end up with nutcases who think it perfectly normal to murder 40,000 civilians and some kind of crazy leftie kookiness to think that a) that’s illegal and b) prosecutable.
LikeLike
https://www.weaponslaw.org/instruments/1977-additional-protocol-i
LikeLike
Proportionality in International Humanitarian Law: A Principle and a Rule – Lieber Institute West Point
LikeLike
Flerp. You are a lawyer. You can do the research if you legitimately want to answer this question.
LikeLike
lol true.
LikeLike
Putin is on that list, too, along with Sudanese former president Omar Bashir, Ugandan Warlord Joseph Kony, and more. As long as these powerful mass murders stay in the country they rule or where they are protected, they get to continue their crimes or avoid justice, without worry.
LikeLike
Likely why Henry Kissinger didn’t travel much.
LikeLike
Henry K. One of the worst war criminals in history.
LikeLike
“But the court seeks and pursues justice as the Bible commands.”
What is that supposed to mean? Does the Bible now rule over the world?
LikeLike
Now the court needs to issue arrest warrants for those “leaders” (war criminals) who cooked the intelligence and got us into the also illegal Second Iraq War.
LikeLike
What was the difference between the First Iraq War and the Second, you might ask? Well, the U.N. Charter–its most fundamental law–asserts the inviolability of the sovereign territory of a U.N. member state. Iraq broke this international law when it invaded Kuwait, and so military action to send it packing was legal under international law. Not so for the Second Iraq War. The U.S. invaded Iraq in that war on the pretext of cooked intelligence and on international law that the Bush maladministration just tried to make up–the so-called “Bush Doctrine” that claimed that preemptive war was legal. It wasn’t, and it isn’t.
LikeLike
The leaders of Hamas and of the current Israeli government have violated a whole slew of International laws, including many articles of the Convention against Genocide and the Rome Statute. They are guilty of war crimes and of crimes against humanity. Should they step foot on the territory of another U.N. state, they should immediately be arrested and sent to the ICC for trial.
LikeLike
Let them join Putin as indicted war criminals and intenational pariahs.
LikeLike
This blog often descends into loony Leftisms and this posting is just the latest example. Notice how two members of the Israeli war cabinet are targeted by the ICC, but not the third member Benny Gantz. All major strategic and tactical decisions of the war in Gaza have been approved by all three men. The ICC equates Israeli military actions against Hamas with the October 7, 2023 terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas. If Israel wanted to commit an actual genocide against Gaza, they have the military capability to do so – why haven’t they?
LikeLike
34,900 civilians dead SO FAR. OK with you, Ben? Wouldn’t want to get all sentimental about MURDERING BABIES AND GRANDMOTHERS.
LikeLike
From the UN Convention on Genocide:
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
LikeLike
Also suggest that you familiarize yourself with the Rome Statute (1998):
Rome-Statute.pdf (icc-cpi.int)
LikeLike
Gantz did not approve the attack. That’s why. Duh.
LikeLike
It might be that the ICC is still putting together its case against Gantz. I was wrong about his not approving it.
LikeLike
Murdering 35,000 civilians is hunky dory, and attempting to prosecute someone who has murdered 35,000 civilians is “looney Leftism”?
Well, that’s quite the perspective, I must say.
LikeLike
To avoid “murdering” civilians, the IDF would have had to not conduct ANY military operations in Gaza. Hamas puts civilians in harm’s way as human shields. Apparently you believe Israelis should have just held candlelight vigils and recited poetry rather than going after Hamas.
LikeLike
Did I say anything about candlelight vigils and poetry? If you had read any of my previous postings, I said that Netanyahu should have said the following:
As grave as this incident was, we are not going to take immediate military action in retaliation. But here is what we are going to do: We are going to devote enormous resources of human capital, money, and technology to hunting down every member of the leadership of Hamas and every person who participated in any way in this attack, and kill you. That is a promise. We will find you, and we will kill you. Tomorrow, the next day, a week, a month, a year from now? You will not know. But rest assured. If you had a part in this, you are a dead man walking. This I guarantee.
LikeLike
Ben,
This is not a “looney left” site.
As to Israel, I have many times condemned the terrorists and atrocities of Hamas. I have also decried Netanyahu’s devastation of Gaza. I think he is destroying Israel, not just Gaza. His latest idiocy is turning down an offer of normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia in exchange for agreeing to a Palestinian state. There must be and there will be a Palestinian state but at the same time, Israel must have security and be protected from ongoing terrorism. Like you, I wish there were a way for the Israelis to pinpoint Hamas targets but Hamas has long embedded its terrorists behind civilian facilities like schools and hospitals. Hamas has no physical location. Israel under Netanyahu is becoming a pariah state, which I consider tragic. I wonder how the U.S. would have reacted if a band of Mexican terrorists had crossed the border and massacred 30,000 Americans. Proportionately, that’s what Israel suffered in October 7.
Personally, I wish Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab nations would put an end to terrorism, which has repressed economic and social progress for decades.
LikeLike
In other news, new Trump ad promises a lot of things: a closed border and “a unified Reich” among them.
LikeLike
Yeah, Elise Stefanik is deep into the cult of Trump, yet she feels empowered to call to account anyone who she believes to be insufficiently pro-Israel. How do you square that circle?
On the other hand, let’s not be intellectually lazy. I think Phillip Bump has a very good reading on the Reich dustup:
No paywall: https://wapo.st/3QVfLsf
LikeLike
OK. I’m going to read this. But Trump has claimed that only he and one other person have access to his Pravda, uh, Truth Social Account. And that Reich bit is pretty hard to miss.
LikeLike
Trump frequently whistles the dogs in the “white power/white militia” part of his base. Might be just another example of this. He’s desperate. He needs to become president to avoid prison.
LikeLike