The International Criminal Court, The Hague, Netherlands. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

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.