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
Trump Administration Says George Washington University Ignored Campus Antisemitism
US President Donald Trump holds a press briefing on Aug. 11, 2025. Photo: Andrew Thomas via Reuters Connect
The Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) said on Tuesday that it has amassed sufficient evidence to prove that George Washington University violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, alleging that the institution responded to campus antisemitism “by acting deliberately indifferent” to the harm it posed to Jewish students and faculty.
“The division finds that GWU took no meaningful action and was instead deliberately indifferent to the complaints it received, the misconduct that occurred, and the harms that were suffered by its Jewish and Israeli students and faculty,” the agency said while sharing a document containing its findings. “The Justice Department will seek immediate remediation with GWU for its civil rights violations.”
George Washington University, speaking through spokesperson Shannon McClendon, responded to the Justice Department in a statement which summarized the institution’s actions and policies while stopping short of offering a contentious refutation of the government’s case.
“We have taken appropriate action under university policy and the law to hold individuals or organizations accountable, including during the encampment, and we do not tolerate behavior that threatens our community or undermines meaningful dialogue,” McClendon said. “We have worked diligently with members of GW’s Jewish community, as well as Jewish community organizations, city, and federal authorities to protect the GW community from antisemitism and we remain committed to working with them to ensure every student has the right to equal educational opportunities without fear of harassment and abuse.”
As previously reported, George Washington University in Washington, DC has been a hub of extreme anti-Zionist activity that school officials have struggled to quell. A major source of such conduct has been the campus group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which, among other things, has threatened a Jewish professor and intimidated Jews on campus.
Recently, a student used her commencement speech to lodge accusations of apartheid and genocide against Israel, a notion trafficked by neo-Nazi groups and jihadist terror organizations.
The student, Cecilia Culver, accused Israel of targeting Palestinians “simply for [their] remaining in the country of their ancestors” and said that GW students are passive contributors to the “imperialist system.” An economics and statistics major, Culver deceived administrators who selected her to address the Columbian College of the Arts and Sciences ceremony, the university said in a statement, claiming she strayed from her prepared remarks.
GW faculty have also allegedly contributed to the promotion of antisemitism on campus. In 2023, former psychology professor Lara Sheehi was accused of verbally abusing and discriminating against her Jewish graduate students.
As recounted in a 2023 civil rights complaint filed by StandWithUs, Sheehi was accused of expressing contempt for Jews when, on the first day of term in August 2022, she asked every student to share information about their backgrounds and cultures. Replying to a student who revealed that she was Israeli, Sheehi allegedly said, “It’s not your fault you were born in Israel.” Jewish students said they made several attempts to persuade the university to correct Sheehi’s behavior or arrange an alternative option for fulfilling the requirements of her course. Each time, StandWithUs alleged, administrators said nothing could be done.
Later, the complaint added, Sheehi spread rumors that her Jewish students were “combative” racists and filed misconduct charges against them. One student told The Algemeiner at the time that she never learned what university policies Sheehi accused her and her classmates of violating.
In May, a civil lawsuit recounted dozens of antisemitic incidents which occurred at the university following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel. It alleged that school officials failed to respond to adequately to them because of anti-Jewish, as well as anti-Zionist, bias. Among the incidents detailed, the campus Hillel Center was vandalized; someone threw a rock through the window of a truck owned by a Jewish advocacy group; and a Jewish student was told to “kill yourself” and “watch your back” in a hate message which also called her a “filthy k—ke.”
That and more transpired, court documents charge.
“Protesters at GWU raised repulsive, antisemitic signs and shouted slogans like ‘final solution,’ ‘the irony of being what you once hatred,’ a message that equated the swastika to the Star of David; and ‘Globalize the Intifada,’ an express call for violence against Jews,” the complaint adds. “Protesters vandalized university property in what amounted to rioting and blocked Jewish students from traversing campus freely, attending class, and otherwise engaging in educational opportunities.”
The plaintiffs, Sabrina Soffer and Ari Shapiro, said in court documents that the university’s anemic response to campus antisemitism constituted a violation of Title VI. They are seeking damages and injunctive relief.
On Tuesday, assistant attorney general Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department’s civil rights division said the Trump administration will continue identifying universities which allegedly miscarried justice, saying, “Every student has the right to educational opportunities without fear of harassment or abuse. No one is above the law, and universities that promulgate antisemitic discrimination will face legal consequences.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
RSS
Iran, South Africa Deepen Military, Strategic Partnership to Counter ‘Global Arrogance’
Iranian Maj. Gen. Amir Hatami and South African Gen. Rudzani Maphwanya meet in Tehran on Aug. 12, 2025, to discuss strengthening military cooperation and strategic ties. Photo: Screenshot
Iran and South Africa held high-level military talks this week as both nations seek to deepen cooperation and strengthen their partnership against what they called “global arrogance and aggressive colonial approaches.”
On Tuesday, Iranian Maj. Gen. Amir Hatami, chief of staff of Iran’s army, met with Gen. Rudzani Maphwanya, the visiting chief of the South African National Defense Force, in Tehran.
During a joint press conference, Hatami said that both countries share a strong commitment to opposing “colonialism and global arrogance,” with South Africa playing a significant role in Iran’s foreign policy priorities.
“The Islamic Republic and South Africa have always supported each other and oppressed nations,” the Iranian commander said, according to Iran’s state-run media, emphasizing that their shared mission must continue “until restoration of an international order based on justice and human dignity.”
Hatami also emphasized the strong political alignment between Tehran and Pretoria, saying it has granted South Africa “a special position” in Iran’s broader strategy toward Africa.
He expressed hope that this partnership, particularly their shared military capabilities, would soon lead to tangible joint projects.
For his part, Maphwanya called for deeper ties between the two nations, especially in defense cooperation, affirming that “the Republic of South Africa and the Islamic Republic of Iran have common goals.”
“We always stand alongside the oppressed and defenseless people of the world,” the South African general said.
The meeting came after the Middle East Africa Research Institute (MEARI) released a recent report detailing how South Africa’s deepening ties with Tehran have led the country to compromise its democratic foundations and constitutional principles by aligning itself with a regime internationally condemned for terrorism, repression, and human rights abuses.
For example, the report noted that while Iran supports South Africa’s coalition government partly because of their shared revolutionary and liberation ideologies, Pretoria has often defended Tehran at the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by voting against sanctions or abstaining.
In doing so, the study claimed that the South African government has both undermined its democratic values and bolstered Iran’s regional ambitions by defending its nuclear program and downplaying its human rights abuses.
During the press conference in Tehran, Hatami praised South Africa’s “firm stance” in condemning what he called “the joint atrocities committed by the Israeli regime and the United States against Palestinians,” describing it as both “courageous and commendable.”
He also commended Pretoria’s decision to “challenge the Zionist regime at the International Court of Justice [ICJ] over its ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip,” calling the move one that “would go down in history.”
Since December 2023, South Africa has been pursuing its case at the ICJ, the UN’s top court, accusing Israel of committing “state-led genocide” in its defensive war against the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Gaza.
Israeli leaders have lambasted the case as an “obscene exploitation” of the Genocide Convention, noting that the Jewish state is targeting terrorists who use civilians as human shields in its military campaign.
MEARI’s report questioned whether South Africa’s case against Israel was genuinely rooted in constitutional principles — or driven by outside political pressure.
According to the study, South Africa’s open hostility toward Israel and its biased approach in filing the case — failing to acknowledge Hamas’s role in launching the war with its Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel — undermines the government’s credibility.
The study also explained that, shortly after filing the ICJ case, South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC), struggling with financial difficulties, unexpectedly paid off a multi-million-rand debt, fueling speculation about possible covert support from Iran.
During Tuesday’s press conference, Hatami also emphasized that Gaza’s population requires immediate and concrete support from governments and international organizations, rather than mere symbolic gestures.
“Unfortunately, due to the influence of the United States and some Western powers, such support is more verbal than practical. As a result, the crimes of this regime continue with intensity,” he said.
Since the start of the war in Gaza, the South African government has been one of the fiercest critics of Israel’s military campaign, which seeks to free the hostages kidnapped by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, and dismantle the terrorist group’s military and administrative control in the enclave.
Beyond its open hostility toward Israel, South Africa has actively supported Iran’s terrorist proxy by hosting two Hamas officials at a state-backed conference expressing solidarity with the Palestinians in December 2023.
Iranian leaders routinely declare their intention to destroy the state of Israel.
RSS
Zohran Mamdani Overwhelmingly Unpopular With New York City Jews, New Poll Finds
Zohran Mamdani. Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
A new Siena College poll shows Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani facing an overwhelming backlash from Jewish voters in New York City, with a staggering 75 percent holding an unfavorable opinion of the Queens Democrat and just 15 percent viewing him favorably.
The numbers mark Mamdani as one of the least popular figures among Jewish New Yorkers, undermining narratives that the progressive lawmaker enjoys substantial support from the Jewish community. His unfavorable rating among Jewish voters is more than 38 points higher than his standing with the general electorate, where 37 percent view him negatively compared to 28 percent favorably. (The remainder responded they either don’t know or have no opinion.)
The steep disapproval comes as Mamdani continues to face criticism for adopting explicitly anti-Israel rhetoric during his campaign. He has repeatedly accused Israel of “apartheid,” called for a US arms embargo on the country, and championed pro-Palestinian causes. He has also accused Israel of committing a so-called “genocide” in Gaza and refused to affirm its right to exist as a Jewish state.
Many local Jewish leaders have condemned these positions as dangerously one-sided amid rising global antisemitism. Critics within the Jewish community have said Mamdani’s rhetoric ignores Israel’s right to defend itself and alienates Jewish New Yorkers who see anti-Israel animus leading to increased antisemitism in the US.
Only 20 percent of Jews stated in the new poll that they plan on voting for Mamdani, undercutting previous polling which indicated the firebrand progressive winning a plurality of New York City Jewish support. According to the poll, 44 percent and 23 percent of Jews in the city plan on voting for former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and conservative activist Curtis Sliwa, respectively. Only 4 percent plan on voting for incumbent Mayor Eric Adams.
Mamdani, the 33‑year‑old state assemblymember and self-proclaimed democratic socialist, defeated Cuomo and other candidates in a lopsided first‑round win in the city’s Democratic primary for mayor, notching approximately 43.5 percent of first‑choice votes compared to Cuomo’s 36.4 percent.
A little-known politician before this year’s primary campaign, Mamdani is an outspoken supporter of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination. Mamdani also defended the phrase “globalize the intifada”— which references previous periods of sustained Palestinian terrorism against Jews and Israels and has been widely interpreted as a call to expand political violence — by invoking the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during World War II. In response, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum repudiated the mayoral candidate, calling his comments “outrageous and especially offensive to [Holocaust] survivors.”