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
Teachers Unions Across US Under Fire for Alleged Antisemitism
National Education Association president Becky Pringle leads hundreds of demonstrators in chants during a rally to end US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, in Washington, DC, US, on, June 9, 2025. Photo: Allison Bailey/NurPhoto via Reuters Connect
Teachers unions across the United States have come under intense scrutiny from both Jewish activists and federal lawmakers for allegedly promoting antisemitic ideas and fostering a hostile environment toward their Jewish members.
The US House Committee on Education and the Workforce, for example, has opened an investigation into the National Education Association (NEA), the nation’s largest teachers union, over allegations that its policies and materials discriminate against Jewish members.
Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), the committee’s chairman, sent a letter late last month to NEA President Becky Pringle demanding documents tied to what he described as “antisemitic content” in the union’s 2025 handbook and its decision to sever ties with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) over its support for Israel.
“The NEA’s 2025 handbook … contains passages and priorities that are hostile towards the Jewish people,” Walberg wrote, citing language that he said downplays the uniquely Jewish suffering of the Holocaust and promotes lessons on the so-called Palestinian “nakba,” the Arabic term for “catastrophe” used by Palestinians and anti-Israel activists to refer to the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948.
In July, the NEA refused to adopt as policy a ban on the ADL voted for by the group’s Representative Assembly during an annual conference.
“The National Education Association stands firmly for every student and educator, of every race, religion, and ethnicity, and we unequivocally reject antisemitism,” the NEA told JNS in response to Walberg’s letter. “We have fought against all kinds of hate, including antisemitism, throughout our history and remain focused on ensuring the safety of Jewish students and educators.”
The congressional probe comes as teachers unions across the country face mounting criticism from Jewish educators and civil rights advocates who say the organizations are failing to protect them, and in some cases are actively fostering hostility.
In Massachusetts, the Zionist Organization of America filed a sweeping civil rights complaint last week against the Massachusetts Teachers Association, accusing the organization of creating a discriminatory environment. The filing cites union-distributed images and posters viewed as antisemitic, including one showing a dollar bill folded into the shape of a Star of David and another reading “Zionists [Expletive] Off.” Some Jewish educators say they have already left the MTA over its stance.
In New York, meanwhile, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) has come under fire from its own Jewish members for their responses to antisemitic incidents in schools. The criticisms stem in part from an incident at Hillcrest High School, where a Jewish teacher was reportedly forced to lock herself in an office during an anti-Israel protest. Union critics also blasted the UFT for endorsing New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, a supporter of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel who has been accused of antisemitism.
“How can we feel safe? When our teachers get attacked, our union says little and does nothing. When our protected rights are infringed upon, our union says little and does nothing. When they need us, they pretend we matter, and when they don’t, they ignore our concerns,” Moshe Spern, head of the United Jewish Teachers caucus, said last week at an “End Jew Hatred” rally, according to the New York Post.
Spern noted that more than 150 teachers are moving to cancel their union dues in protest.
RSS
Iran’s Executions in August Jump 70 Percent Compared to Previous Year as Rights Groups Warn of Troubling Surge
Illustrative: A February 2023 protest in Washington, DC calling for an end to executions and human rights violations in Iran. Photo: Reuters/ Bryan Olin Dozier
The Islamic regime in Iran accelerated its execution machine last month, killing at least 152 prisoners according to the Hengaw Organization for Human Rights.
The figure represents a surge of 70 percent compared to the 94 executions conducted in August 2024.
While Hengaw has identified 148 of those killed last month, four individuals remain unknown. Two people killed include Roozbeh Vadi, alleged to have engaged in “espionage for Israel,” and Mehdi Asgharzadeh, an alleged ISIS member. Iran executed at least five women for murder and one woman on drug charges.
According to Hengaw, two or more of the executions took place in public in Beyram and Kordkuy, cities in the country’s southern and northern provinces, respectively.
On Monday, the Human Rights Activist News Agency (HRANA) released a report of human rights violations in Iran during August, noting that the number of executions had increased 40 percent compared to June and July, bringing the total execution count to 837 for the year. In comparison, the Islamic regime executed 930 people for the entire year of 2024.
HRANA broke down last month’s executions by charges, finding 87 drug offenses, 60 murder charges, two rapes, one for security offenses, and one person’s offenses are unknown. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, during the first half of 2025, nearly half of Iran’s executions targeted those convicted over drugs.
Iran killed one person on the charge of “corruption on earth,” which translates from the Koranic term “mofsed-e fel-arz” (مفسد فی الارض), a vague concept that Islamic judges have often applied toward political dissidents, alleged spies, or religious converts.
One tool that HRANA identifies Iran regularly deploying in its judicial system is forced confessions.
“Extracting forced confessions from political and ideological defendants, followed by broadcasting them on state television, is one of the regime’s routine practices against its opponents,” the human rights group stated. “In 2024, HRANA documented 28 cases of forced confessions. This month as well, Iran’s state television aired the forced confessions of a group of Christian converts.”
HRANA also found 73 arrests last month for citizens speaking out about their political views and beliefs; in addition, the state sentenced 27 people to 658 months in prison, 132 months of exile, and 130 lashes for speech offenses.
United Nations spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani warned last week that the human rights situation in Iran could be even worse than documented figures suggested.
“The high number of executions indicates a systematic pattern of using the death penalty as a tool of state intimidation, with disproportionate targeting of ethnic minorities and migrants,” Shamdasani said. “Public executions add an extra layer of outrage upon human dignity … not only on the dignity of the people concerned, the people who are executed, but also on all those who have to bear witness”
Shamdasani warned that “the psychological trauma of bearing witness to somebody being hanged in public, particularly for children, is unacceptable.” She argued that the death penalty “should never be imposed for conduct that is protected under international human rights law.”
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on Saturday announced the capture of eight people accused of aiding Israel’s Mossad espionage agency. During Iran’s 12-day war with Israel in June, police arrested as many as 21,000 individuals.
Australia announced the expulsion of Iran’s ambassador on Aug. 26, giving the diplomat seven days to leave following the discovery that the Islamic regime had directed antisemitic terrorism against the country’s Jews.
“These were extraordinary and dangerous acts of aggression orchestrated by a foreign nation on Australian soil,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said. “They were attempts to undermine social cohesion and sow discord in our community.”
Mike Burgess, director general of Australia’s security agency, said “they’re just using cut-outs, including people who are criminals and members of organized crime gangs to do their bidding or direct their bidding,”
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Aug. 24 that “they want Iran to be obedient to America. The Iranian nation will stand with all of its power against those who have such erroneous expectations … People who ask us not to issue slogans against the US … to have direct negotiations with the US only see appearances … This issue is unsolvable.”
RSS
Belgium Ties Palestinian State Recognition to Hamas Exit, Hostage Release, Imposes Sanctions on Israel
People take part in pro-Hamas protest in Brussels, Belgium, Nov. 11, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Yves Herman
Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot has announced that Brussels will recognize a Palestinian state at this month’s United Nations General Assembly if the Hamas terrorist group is removed from power in Gaza and all remaining hostages are freed.
“Belgium will recognize Palestine during the joint initiative of France and Saudi Arabia,” the top Belgian diplomat said in a post on X on Tuesday, calling the move a “powerful political and diplomatic signal.”
La Palestine sera reconnue par la Belgique lors de la session de l’ONU ! Et des sanctions fermes sont prises à l’égard du gouvernement israélien. Tout antisémitisme ou glorification du terrorisme par les partisans du Hamas sera aussi plus fortement dénoncé.
Au vu du…
— Maxime PREVOT (@prevotmaxime) September 2, 2025
Prévot’s announcement came after Prime Minister Bart De Wever warned that recognizing a Palestinian state would be “pointless and even counterproductive” without strict conditions in place.
“Hamas must disappear completely, there must be a credible Palestinian Authority, an agreement must be reached on borders, and Israel must receive security guarantees. Without that, recognition makes no sense,” De Wever said last week.
Ahead of this month’s UN gathering, the Belgian declaration marks a conditional pledge to recognize a Palestinian state, provided there is mutual recognition of Israel in the Arab world, democratic elections in “Palestine,” and an agreement on final-status talks between the two parties.
Belgium is the latest country to join the initiative to recognize a Palestinian state, alongside France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and others — a move sharply criticized by US and Israeli officials as a “reward for terrorism.”
Senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad has previously praised the increasing Western support as “the fruits of Oct. 7,” citing the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
“The fruits of Oct. 7 are what caused the entire world to open its eyes to the Palestinian issue,” the terrorist leader said in an interview with Al Jazeera.
However, Prévot has pushed back against such accusations before, insisting that this initiative does not support or condone terrorism.
“Incidentally, recognition is not at all a reward for the horrific terror of Hamas. On the contrary, it’s about recognizing a state, not a government. And certainly not a terrorist group,” Prevot said in an interview with De Standaard on Sunday.
In his statement, Prévot also announced a package of 12 sanctions targeting Israel and Hamas, including a ban on imports from Jewish communities in the West Bank, entry bans on “two extremist Israeli ministers … and Hamas leaders,” and a review of public procurement policies with Israeli companies.”
“Given the humanitarian tragedy unfolding in Palestine … and the violence committed by Israel in violation of international law … Belgium was compelled to take decisive measures to increase pressure on both the Israeli government and Hamas terrorists,” the Belgian diplomat wrote.
“It is not about punishing the Israeli people but about ensuring their government respects international and humanitarian law and taking steps to try to change the situation on the ground,” Prévot continued.
He also affirmed that Belgium will continue advocating within the European Union for the suspension of all cooperation with Jerusalem, including the Association Agreement — a pact governing the EU’s political and economic ties with the Jewish state.
“Belgium will recognize Palestine … to preserve the prospects for a two-state solution and to condemn Israel’s expansionist intentions through its settlement programs and military occupations,” Prévot said.