RSS
What You Need to Know About the ICC Arrest Warrants for Israeli Leaders
You may have heard that the ICC (International Criminal Court) is on a path toward issuing arrest warrants against Israeli leaders. But you may not know how this came about, where we are in the process, and what it could mean for Israel, America, and the entire free world.
To help you cut through the disorganized reports, sensationalism, and widespread misinformation, here is a thorough and clear update — from a lawyer.
The ICC is distinct from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). At the ICJ, South Africa is attempting to make a case against Israel for genocide, which will take years to complete. However in the meantime, South Africa has repeatedly presented emergency motions for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, including an attempt just last week which does not technically accomplish that goal, but comes perilously close.
Separately, but in parallel, the ICC prosecutor, Karim A. Khan, has brought a request to the ICC to issue international arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as several Hamas leaders.
If granted, these arrest warrants will make it impossible for Netanyahu to leave Israel and enter any of the 124 countries that are members of the ICC (approximately two thirds of the world), as well any additional countries that have mutual law enforcement agreements, such as all Interpol countries.
The United States is not an ICC member, and would be unlikely to enforce the warrant, however most European countries are either ICC or Interpol members (or both), as well as much of South America and some of the Asia-Pacific.
So how did this all come about?
The ICJ has jurisdiction over Israel because Israel signed the Genocide Convention of 1948. In fact, Israel helped draft the document, which is meaningfully connected to the very soul of Israel, as the whole concept is an outgrowth of the Holocaust. It is therefore a cruel irony that Hamas and its allies would weaponize the ICJ against Israel. Paradoxically the ICJ does not have jurisdiction over Hamas, so if they do issue a “ceasefire” order, it will be one in which Israel ceases, but Hamas fires.
By contrast, the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Israel, except insofar as the Court unilaterally decided that it does.
Specifically, the ICC is charged with enforcing an international treaty called the Rome Statute, which was ratified by 124 countries but notably, not by Israel or the United States. How then did the ICC come to the conclusion that it can enforce a treaty over a country that never actually agreed to it?
The ICC’s rules hold that the Court may exercise jurisdiction over any events that occur inside the borders of a member state. The ICC recognizes a Palestinian state, and includes it as a member of the ICC. Although the “state” of Palestine has no recognized borders or territory, the ICC nonetheless ruled in 2015 that events occurring inside the West Bank and the Gaza Strip count as being “inside” the “borders” of the “State of Palestine,” and are therefore subject to the Court’s jurisdiction.
In recent days, the ICC prosecutor accused Israel of a number of violations of the Rome Statute, which is paradoxical on several levels at once: for one, Israel never agreed to be bound by the Rome Statute, and secondly, the specific accusations are patently untrue.
For example, the prosecutor accuses Israel of preventing the flow of humanitarian aid, even though according to well verified data, Gaza has received enough aid to feed every man, woman, and child twice over. (There is nonetheless an apparent food shortage as both Hamas and UNRWA employees steal much of the food.) The prosecutor accuses Israel of closing the crossings by which aid enters the Gaza Strip (the crossings are actually open and active despite Hamas’ frequent bombings of the crossings) and, of course, Israel stands accused of genocide, despite taking historic measures to protect civilians, and producing the lowest civilian to combatant casualty ratio for a conflict of this type in human history.
Moreover, by requesting arrest warrants against both Israeli leaders and Hamas terror operatives, Prosecutor Khan has effectively drawn an astonishing moral and legal equivalence between Israel, a modern Western democracy with a famously independent judiciary, and one of the world’s most notorious terror groups — and a parallel between the October 7 terrorist massacre, and the self defense of the very victims of that massacre.
To be clear, the arrest warrants have not yet been issued, but are currently being presented to the ICC’s panel of 18 judges for approval. Yet this arrest approval process is not a trial in which both sides present evidence and make arguments. To the contrary, the prosecutor needs to show merely that there are “reasonable grounds” for the arrest warrants, but without the accused having a right to reply or to present evidence as part of that decision. This process is roughly comparable to what American courts call a “Grand Jury hearing,” and American lawyers have an old joke that in such hearings the evidentiary requirements are so low that, “a Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich if you ask them to.”
So in a cruel paradox, by the ICC’s own rules, evidence is irrelevant, truth is irrelevant, and even reality itself is irrelevant. It is enough that the ICC prosecutor makes an accusation, and then world leaders who never even agreed to the Court’s jurisdiction can find themselves subject to its arrest powers. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that Khan will stop with Israeli leaders — by Khan’s logic, as expressed in this prosecution, it is possible that IDF soldiers and former IDF soldiers (in other words, most Israelis) could eventually face international arrest as well.
So what happens now?
It is not clear how long it will take the judges to approve the arrest warrants — deliberations could take anywhere from days to months. It is rare that the ICC judges would refuse to approve an arrest warrant, but this case may be different because the United States has announced that it will take action.
Fearing that America’s enemies could use the ICC as a weapon against American leaders and soldiers, the US not only refused to join the ICC, but also passed a bipartisan law in 2002 affirming that America would protect American service people and allies against a weaponization of the Court. A bipartisan bill currently working its way through Congress envisions placing sanctions on the ICC prosecutor, the judges, and their families. This would limit their ability to travel, and also may shut down their bank accounts and other access to basic day to day life necessities — in other words, this is a powerful diplomatic tool.
Although it is not clear what will happen in the coming days and months with respect to the ICC, one thing is clear: Hamas, which cannot defeat the IDF on the battlefield, is attempting to weaponize international law to defeat Israel off the battlefield. Whether they will succeed, and whether other terror organizations use such weapons in the future, depends on how Israel and America respond in the days to come.
An important additional note: many throughout the world, including some Israelis, blithely say that some Israeli leaders are “criminals” and deserve to be arrested (a common refrain in politics). Yet the specific claims against Israeli leaders in this case do not relate to normal domestic political issues, such as corruption, judicial reform, or the like. To the contrary, the case against Israel relates to issues on which almost all Israelis agree — specifically the performance of the IDF and Israel’s self defense.
In fact, it is notable that the Israeli prime minister is not the “Commander in Chief ” of the armed forces as the US president is. Rather, that role belongs to the war cabinet, which is composed of Israeli representatives from the right, left, and center, and enjoys broad public support. In other words, a criticism of the IDF or of Israel’s self defense in Gaza is not merely a criticism of Netanyahu as some like to claim, but rather of the entire State of Israel and the broad consensus of the Israeli people.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post What You Need to Know About the ICC Arrest Warrants for Israeli Leaders first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Down and Out in Paris and London
The Oxford Circus station in London’s Underground metro. Photo: Pixabay
JNS.org – In my previous column, I wrote about the rape of a 12-year-old Jewish girl in Paris at the hands of three boys just one year older than her, who showered her with antisemitic abuse as they carried out an act of violation reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Oct. 7 Hamas pogrom in southern Israel. This week, my peg is another act of violence—one less horrifying and less traumatic, but which similarly suggests that the writing may be on the wall for the Jews in much of Europe.
Last week, a group of young Jewish boys who attend London’s well-regarded Hasmonean School was assaulted by a gang of antisemitic thugs. The attack occurred at Belsize Park tube station on the London Underground, in a neighborhood with a similar demographic and sensibility to New York’s Upper West Side, insofar as it is home to a large, long-established Jewish population with shops, cafes and synagogues serving that community. According to the mother of one of the Jewish boys, an 11-year-old, the gang “ran ahead of my son and kicked one of his friends to the ground. They were trying to push another kid onto the tracks. They got him as far the yellow line.” When the woman’s son bravely tried to intervene to protect his friends, he was chased down and elbowed in the face, dislodging a tooth. “Get out of the city, Jew!” the gang told him.
Since the attack, her son has had trouble sleeping. “My son is very shaken. He couldn’t sleep last night. He said ‘It’s not fair. Why do they do this to us?’” she disclosed. “We love this country,” she added, “and we participate and we contribute, but now we’re being singled out in exactly the same way as Jews were singled out in 1936 in Berlin. And for the first time in my life. I am terrified of using the tube. What’s going on?”
The woman and her family may not be in London long enough to find out. According to The Jewish Chronicle, they are thinking of “fleeing” Britain—not a verb we’d hoped to encounter again in a Jewish context after the mass murder we experienced during the previous century. But here we are.
When I was a schoolboy in London, I had a history teacher who always told us that no two situations are exactly alike. “Comparisons are odious, boys,” he would repeatedly tell the class. That was an insight I took to heart, and I still believe it to be true. There are structural reasons that explain why the 2020s are different from the 1930s in significant ways. For one thing, European societies are more affluent and better equipped to deal with social conflicts and economic strife than they were a century ago. Laws, too, are more explicit in the protections they offer to minorities, and more punishing of hate crimes and hate speech. Perhaps most importantly, there is a Jewish state barely 80 years old which all Jews can make their home if they so desire.
Therein lies the rub, however. Since 1948, Israel has allowed Jews inside and outside the Jewish state to hold their heads high and to feel as though they are a partner in the system of international relations, rather than a vulnerable, subjugated group at the mercy of the states where we lived as an often hated minority. Israel’s existence is the jewel in the crown of Jewish emancipation, sealing what we believed to be our new status, in which we are treated as equals, and where the antisemitism that plagued our grandparents and great-grandparents has become taboo.
If Israel represents the greatest achievement of the Jewish people in at least 100 years, small wonder that it has become the main target of today’s reconstituted antisemites. And if one thing has been clear since the atrocities by Hamas on Oct. 7, it’s that Israel’s existence is not something that Jews—with the exception of that small minority of anti-Zionists who do the bidding of the antisemites and who echo their ignorance and bigotry—are willing to compromise on. What’s changed is that it is increasingly difficult for Jews to remain in the countries where they live and express their Zionist sympathies at the same time. We are being attacked because of these sympathies on social media, at demonstrations and increasingly in the streets by people with no moral compass, who regard our children as legitimate targets. Hence, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that while the 2020s may not be the 1930s, they certainly feel like the 1930s.
And so the age-old question returns: Should Jews, especially those in Europe, where they confront the pincer movement of burgeoning Muslim populations and a resurgent far-left in thrall to the Palestinian cause, stay where they are, or should they up sticks and move to Israel? Should we be thinking, given the surge in antisemitism of the past few months, of giving up on America as well? I used to have a clear view of all this. Aliyah is the noblest of Zionist goals and should be encouraged, but I always resisted the notion that every Jew should live in Israel—firstly, because a strong Israel needs vocal, confident Diaspora communities that can advocate for it in the corridors of power; and secondly, because moving to Israel should ideally be a positive act motivated by love, not a negative act propelled by fear.
My view these days isn’t as clear as it was. I still believe that a strong Israel needs a strong Diaspora, and I think it’s far too early to give up on the United States—a country where Jews have flourished as they never did elsewhere in the Diaspora. Yet the situation in Europe increasingly reminds me of the observation of the Russian Zionist Leo Pinsker in “Autoemancipation,” a doom-laden essay he wrote in 1882, during another dark period of Jewish history: “We should not persuade ourselves that humanity and enlightenment will ever be radical remedies for the malady of our people.” The antisemitism we are dealing with now presents itself as “enlightened,” based on boundless sympathy for an Arab nation allegedly dispossessed by Jewish colonists. When our children are victimized by it, this antisemitism ceases to be a merely intellectual challenge, and becomes a matter of life and death. As Jews and as human beings, we are obliged to choose life—which, in the final analysis, when nuance disappears and terror stalks us, means Israel.
The post Down and Out in Paris and London first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Says No Major Changes to Ceasefire Proposal After ‘Vague Wording’ Amendments by US
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Joe Biden speaks during a campaign rally in Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S., June 28, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz/File Photo
i24 News – A senior official from the terrorist organization Hamas called the changes made by the US to the ceasefire proposal “vague” on Saturday night, speaking to the Arab World Press.
The official said that the US promises to end the war are without a clear Israeli commitment to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and agree to a permanent ceasefire.
US President Joe Biden made “vague wording” changes to the proposal on the table, although it amounted to an insufficient change in stance, he said.
“The slight amendments revolve around the very nature of the Israeli constellation, and offer nothing new to bridge the chasm between what is proposed and what is acceptable to us,” he said.
“We will not deviate from our three national conditions, the most important of which is the end of the war and the complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip,” he added.
Another Hamas official said that the amendments were minor and applied to only two clauses.
US President Joe Biden made the amendments to bridge gaps amid an impasse between Israel and Hamas over a hostage deal mediated by Qatar and Egypt.
Hamas’s demands for a permanent ceasefire have been met with Israeli leaders vowing that the war would not end until the 120 hostages still held in Gaza are released and the replacement of Hamas in control of the Palestinian enclave.
The post Hamas Says No Major Changes to Ceasefire Proposal After ‘Vague Wording’ Amendments by US first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Sacred Spies?
A Torah scroll. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
JNS.org – How far away is theory from practice? “In theory,” a new system should work. But it doesn’t always, does it? How many job applicants ticked all the boxes “theoretically,” but when it came to the bottom line they didn’t get the job done?
And how many famous people were better theorists than practitioners?
The great Greek philosopher Aristotle taught not only philosophy but virtue and ethics. The story is told that he was once discovered in a rather compromised moral position by his students. When they asked him how he, the great Aristotle, could engage in such an immoral practice, he had a clever answer: “Now I am not Aristotle.”
A similar tale is told of one of the great philosophers of the 20th century, Bertrand Russell. He, too, expounded on ethics and morality. And like Aristotle, he was also discovered in a similarly morally embarrassing situation.
When challenged, his rather brilliant answer was: “So what if I teach ethics? People teach mathematics, and they’re not triangles!”
This idea is relevant to this week’s Torah portion, Shelach, which contains the famous story of Moses sending a dozen spies on a reconnaissance mission to the Land of Israel. The mission goes sour. It was meant to be an intelligence-gathering exercise to see the best way of conquering Canaan. But it resulted in 10 of the 12 spies returning with an utterly negative report of a land teeming with giants and frightening warriors who, they claimed, would eat us alive. “We cannot ascend,” was their hopeless conclusion.
The people wept and had second thoughts about the Promised Land, and God said, indeed, you will not enter the land. In fact, for every day of the spies’ disastrous journey, the Israelites would languish a year in the wilderness. Hence, the 40-year delay in entering Israel. The day of their weeping was Tisha B’Av, which became a day of “weeping for generations” when both our Holy Temples were destroyed on that same day and many other calamities befell our people throughout history.
And the question resounds: How was it possible that these spies, all righteous noblemen, handpicked personally by Moses for the job, should so lose the plot? How did they go so wrong, so off-course from the Divine vision?
Naturally, there are many commentaries with a variety of explanations. To me personally, the most satisfying one I’ve found comes from a more mystical source.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, in his work Likkutei Torah, explains it thus: The error of the spies was less blatant than it seems. Their rationale was, in fact, a “holy” one. They actually meant well. The Israelites had been beneficiaries of the mighty miracles of God during their sojourn in the wilderness thus far. God had been providing for them supernaturally with manna from heaven every day, water that flowed from the “Well of Miriam,” Clouds of Glory that smoothed the roads and even dry cleaned their clothes. In the wilderness, the people were enjoying a taste of heaven itself. All their material needs were taken care of miraculously. With no material distractions, they were able to live a life of spiritual bliss, of refined existence and could devote themselves fully to Torah, prayer and spiritual experiences.
But the spies knew that as soon as the Israelites entered the Promised Land, the manna would cease to fall and they would have to till the land, plow, plant, knead, bake and make a living by the sweat of their brow. No more bread from heaven, but bread from the earth. Furthermore, they would have to battle the Canaanite nations for the land. What chance would they then have to devote themselves to idyllic, spiritual pursuits?
So, the spies preferred to remain in the wilderness rather than enter the land. Why be compelled to resort to natural and material means of surviving and living a wholly physical way of life when they could enjoy spiritual ecstasy and paradise undisturbed? Why get involved in the “rat race”?
But, of course, as “holy” and spiritual as their motivation may have been, the spies were dead wrong.
The journey in the wilderness was meant to be but a stepping stone to the ultimate purpose of the Exodus from Egypt: entering the Promised Land and making it a Holy Land. God has plenty of angels in heaven who exist in a pure, spiritual state. The whole purpose of creation was to have mortal human beings, with all their faults and frailties, to make the physical world a more spiritual place. To bring heaven down to earth.
While their argument was rooted in piety, for the spies to opt out of the very purpose of creation was to miss the whole point. What are we here for? To sit in the lotus position and meditate, or to get out there and change the world? Yes, the spies were “holy,” but theirs was an escapist holiness.
The Torah is not only a book of wisdom; it is also a book of action. Torah means instruction. It teaches us how to live our lives, meaningfully and productively in the pursuit of God’s intended desire to make our world a better, more Godly place. This we do not only by study and prayer, the “theoretical” part of Torah but by acts of goodness and kindness, by mitzvot performed physically in the reality of the material world. Theory alone leaves us looking like Aristotle with his pants down.
Yes, it is a cliché but a well-worn truth: Torah is a “way of life.”
The post Sacred Spies? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.