

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is placed at risk."
The International Criminal Court on Wednesday hit back at the Trump administration one day after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced new sanctions against ICC officials.
The ICC described the new sanctions, which target President Tomoko Akane and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Saye, as "a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution."
"When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is placed at risk," the ICC said. "Threats and coercive measures also impact the ability of victims to seek justice, as they turn to the court when all other avenues have been exhausted."
However, the court said that it is "undeterred" from pursuing its mission, while pledging to stand "firmly behind its personnel and behind victims of unimaginable atrocities."
In total, the US has now sanctioned half of the ICC's 18 judges, as well as both of the court's deputy prosecutors, a former prosecutor, and a staff member.
The sanctions on the ICC also drew condemnation from the government of the Netherlands, where the court is physically located.
In a social media post, Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen insisted that "international courts and tribunals must be able to freely carry out their mandates," and pledged to "fully support the court and its staff."
Balkees Jarrah, the Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, said the sanctions were "just the latest example of the Trump administration’s utter contempt for international law and a naked attempt to shield American and Israeli officials implicated in serious crimes from justice."
Although no American is currently under investigation or being tried by the ICC, the Trump administration has been targeting ICC officials who have been investigating alleged war crimes committed by Israel with the backing of the US government.
Saye, a target of Tuesday's US sanctions, was charged with investigating war crimes allegedly committed by Israel during its yearslong assault on Gaza.
The Trump administration also sanctioned then-ICC prosecutor Karim Khan, who obtained arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, last year.
"When you are shameless, contemptuous of international law, and morally bankrupt, you boast of disgrace as though it were an achievement," said one critic.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday drew an outraged reaction from critics after he unveiled sanctions against Tomoko Akane, president of the International Criminal Court.
In announcing the sanctions, Rubio described the ICC as "a corrupt and fatally politicized" institution that has supposedly "abused its authority and exceeded its mandate."
Rubio said the ICC "has repeatedly attempt to assert authority over... the United States and other countries that have not consented to its jurisdiction," which he said "sets a dangerous precedent for all nations."
In addition to sanctioning Akane, Rubio said the US would also be sanctioning ICC senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Saye.
While Rubio did not mention what specific actions the ICC has taken to warrant such sanctions, a Tuesday report in The Guardian noted that Saye was charged with investigating war crimes allegedly committed by Israel during its years-long assault on Gaza.
The Trump administration had previously sanctioned then-ICC prosecutor Karim Khan—who obtained arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant—and an additional eight ICC officials.
The social media account of Drop Site News accused Rubio of attacking the court solely to protect Netanyahu from war crimes prosecution, pointing out that "there is currently not a single American citizen under indictment, investigation, or facing an arrest warrant" from the ICC.
The sanctions earned the praise of the Israeli American Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which accused the ICC of conducting "politically motivated investigations and prosecutions targeting America and Israel."
Rutgers Law School professor Adil Haque said the ICC sanctions showed the US was acting like a "rogue government" and engaged in "deranged behavior."
Michael Karanicolas, law professor at Dalhousie University, didn't just point fingers at the US over the sanctions, but at US allies who have sat back as international institutions have come under assault.
"I’m no longer surprised by the Trump administration’s efforts to destroy the ICC," wrote Karanicolas. "What I keep waiting for is any response from Canada or the European governments who ostensibly still believe in international law to defend these institutions."
War correspondent and international political analyst Elijah Magnier delivered a withering rebuke of Rubio's announcement.
"When you are shameless, contemptuous of international law, and morally bankrupt," wrote Magnier, "you boast of disgrace as though it were an achievement."
Israel’s official position leaves the international community with no choice but to take direct, coordinated action across five key fronts.
It is now official: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has flatly rejected the core conditions of the Board of Peace framework, explicitly stating that Israel will neither adhere to a ceasefire nor withdraw its forces from Gaza.
During a cabinet meeting on Sunday, Netanyahu stated with unambiguous language, "Israel rejects the 15-point document published by the Board of Peace for Gaza."
In a previous conversation with lead envoy Nickolay Mladenov, Netanyahu set conditions—such as demanding unilateral operational freedom for the Israeli military to strike inside Gaza at will—that render a genuine peace agreement structurally impossible.
The Israeli army leadership, under Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir, reinforced this posture by outlining three uncompromising "red lines" to the political establishment: complete operational freedom to eliminate perceived threats anywhere in the strip, strict control over all weapons entering or exiting Gaza, and zero military withdrawal unless Hamas is completely disarmed.
We must resolutely reject the premise that the slaughter of the innocent can ever become an accepted routine.
One can fault Netanyahu for many things, including ongoing genocide. But in recent years, he has been remarkably straightforward about his intentions; therefore, no one can claim that Netanyahu has fooled anyone.
Earlier this year, while speaking at a conference in an occupied West Bank settlement, Netanyahu explicitly boasted that he had instructed the Israeli military to expand its physical footprint and permanently occupy at least 70% of the Gaza Strip—a massive expansion far beyond the temporary administrative demarcation lines established in previous truce outlines.
Meanwhile, his far-right ministers have pushed the government’s rejectionist stance even further. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Missions Minister Orit Strock issued a joint demand for an emergency cabinet meeting to roll back authorization for the deployment of the International Stabilization Force (ISF).
The ISF, designed under the Board of Peace framework as a transitional peacekeeping body, was meant to oversee humanitarian security, starting with pilot recovery zones in Rafah.
Yet Smotrich and Strock claimed the security cabinet was "misled" into approving the force, arguing that allowing international personnel into Gaza endangers Israeli operational freedom and directly contradicts their explicit war aims.
These latest moves, along with the military's strict "red lines," confirm what recent months of relentless bombardment have made clear: The Israeli government has no intention of ending its genocide in Gaza or relinquishing control over the besieged and devastated territory.
But highlighting such positions will make no difference, aside from once more accentuating Israel's total lack of desire for peace and its intention to perpetuate conflict.
While true, such realization on its own is worthless considering that what is taking place in Gaza and the West Bank is beyond horrific, and that the daily killing of Palestinians makes the term "ceasefire" a cruel joke.
While diplomats debate frameworks, Israeli strikes continue to claim civilian lives daily—bringing the post-truce death toll to over 1,250 and the total killed since October 2023 to more than 73,000.
Therefore, action is needed, and urgently so. Indeed, Israel’s official position leaves the international community with no choice but to take direct, coordinated action across five key fronts.
First, Arab, Muslim, and allied governments must leverage every available international platform, starting with the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council, to formally condemn Israel’s violation of the Gaza peace framework and expose its bad-faith negotiations.
States must move beyond symbolic statements and invoke mechanisms like the "Uniting for Peace" resolution to bypass Western vetoes, push for binding sanctions, and implement a universal arms embargo against Israel.
Second, a renewed global campaign must recenter Gaza and the West Bank, exposing Israel's broader territorial objectives—specifically the systematic ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the quiet, administrative annexation of the West Bank.
Civil society, trade unions, and grassroots organizations worldwide must pressure their respective national governments to sever diplomatic, economic, and military ties with Israel until it complies with international law.
Third, International legal bodies must accelerate their proceedings. Pressure must be renewed on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to execute arrest warrants for senior Israeli leadership, while the International Court of Justice (ICJ) must enforce provisional measures and issue definitive rulings regarding Israel’s violations of the Genocide Convention.
Legal compliance must be treated as a non-negotiable prerequisite for international relations.
Fourth, a unified international media push is necessary to counter state-sponsored propaganda, keeping public focus fixed on Israel's long-term strategic plans: the permanent displacement of Gaza's population and the formal takeover of Palestinian land.
Independent media outlets, journalists, and cultural institutions must challenge official narratives that frame Israeli aggression as self-defense, centering the lived realities and testimonies of Palestinians under siege instead.
Fifth, the international community must bypass Israeli obstruction to ensure massive quantities of food, medical supplies, and shelter materials enter Gaza immediately to prevent widespread starvation and winter exposure.
International aid agencies must establish protected humanitarian corridors by global mandate, refusing to allow Israel to use manufactured famine and humanitarian denial as weapons of war.
With Israel’s intentions fully unmasked, the global community must shift from passive mediation to active enforcement.
Israel wants to normalize genocide, just as it normalized the illegal siege on Gaza before that; the military occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza before that; and the ongoing displacement of Palestinians since 1948.
We must resolutely reject the premise that the slaughter of the innocent can ever become an accepted routine.
Knowledge of the atrocity is not enough. Expressing solidarity in words alone is not enough. Concrete, decisive action is required today—and holding the perpetrators accountable remains entirely within our power if the world finds the political courage to act.
One critic said he hopes the Hague-based tribunal will investigate the Trump administration's "illegal, unproven, expensive, destructive, and pointless boat strikes."
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday urged Latin American governments to quit the International Criminal Court, accusing the Hague-based tribunal of plotting to prosecute American and allied military personnel while defending the Trump administration’s increasingly aggressive—and, experts say, illegal—campaign against alleged drug traffickers.
"We are working together, we are building together, and we are training together," Hegseth said during a speech in Panama at a gathering of the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition (ACCC), a group of mostly right-wing regional governments. "We are killing terrorists. And we're defeating the failed and toxic ideologies of radical socialism and communism."
"Now, speaking of socialism, make no doubt about it, the international left, along with their enabling left-wing media, is plotting to unlawfully assert International Criminal Court jurisdiction over US and partner military personnel and operations," Hegseth asserted, offering no evidence or explanation to support his claim.
Legal experts, including former US military Judge Advocate General Corps attorneys, have argued that aspects of the Trump administration's bombings of boats allegedly smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean—particularly Hegseth's alleged order to "kill everybody" and follow-up attacks targeting survivors—may constitute unlawful extrajudicial killings and war crimes. More than 220 people have been killed in at least 66 such strikes over the past 11 months, with survivors, victims' relatives, and regional governments claiming at least some of those killed were fishers with no narco-trafficking ties.
Hegseth has also been accused of promoting war crimes in the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran by vowing that US forces would not be bound by "stupid rules of engagement," threatening to destroy critical Iranian civilian infrastructure like power plants and bridges, and by boasting that US forces were delivering "death and destruction from the sky all day long" as airstrikes killed hundreds of civilians, including 156 students and staff massacred at an elementary school in Minab on February 28.
"To be clear, there is no legitimate basis for the ICC's lawless power grab that they will entertain anywhere they can in the world," Hegseth said in Panama. "Our efforts in this effort are 100% lawful under the laws of armed conflict. It's striking that this so-called court and other globalist bodies undermine our efforts but do nothing to hold real terrorists and real tyrants accountable. And that's why the ICC poses a threat to your national sovereignty, your constitutional mandates, and the national interests of your people—just as it does ours."
"That's why I strongly encourage every ACCC member to leave the ICC, and reject their attempts to rob your governments and your courts of your sovereignty," he added. "I know as a soldier, I swore an oath to the Constitution, not some fake and illegitimate international court."
si
Trump's assault on the ICC, which began during his first administration, has escalated during his second term. In February 2025, the president issued an executive order declaring a national emergency over the ICC and authorizing sanctions against court personnel involved in investigations concerning the United States and Israel—two of whose leaders are fugitives from the tribunal.
In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation. The court also ordered the arrest of three Hamas leaders for the same categories of crimes allegedly committed during and after the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, but Israeli forces extrajudicially assassinated all three of the men.
The warrants for the Israeli leaders incensed the Trump administration, which responded with sanctions and threats.
Last month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a "campaign to dismantle" the ICC, promising to “teach” the court "the full meaning of American resolve." The State Department, meanwhile, said the campaign would seek to “systematically disable” the tribunal’s ability to operate or target US personnel.
The US is not a party to the Rome Statute governing the ICC. However, the treaty states that individuals from nonsignatory nations can be held liable for crimes committed in the territory of a member state, a situation applicable in Palestine, which is an ICC member, while Israel is not.
US disdain and animosity toward the ICC long predates Trump's presidencies. During the administration of George W. Bush, the US passed the American Service Members’ Protection Act—also known as the Hague Invasion Act—which authorizes the president to use “all means necessary and appropriate,” including military intervention, to secure the release of American or allied personnel held by or on behalf of the ICC.
The Trump administration is seeking to persuade countries to abandon the ICC.
Chad and Venezuela—where Trump ordered a January invasion to abduct President Nicolás Maduro and his wife—have announced plans to withdraw, with Chad saying its decision followed a call from a senior US diplomat. The ICC’s Assembly of States Parties has urged both countries to reverse course, warning that the departures threaten the global fight against impunity. The two nations join Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, which also initiated ICC withdrawals in 2026.
Only Burundi and the Philippines have actually completed withdrawals from the Rome Statute. Hungary, meanwhile, reversed its planned departure this year after voters ousted longtime right-wing Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
Hegseth’s Panama appearance coincided with Colombia becoming the ACCC’s 19th member, as new right-wing President Abelardo de la Espriella requested joint US-Colombian military operations against drug cartels and trafficking.
The alignment marks a sharp turn from the government of former leftist President Gustavo Petro, which repeatedly criticized Trump administration boat strikes and supported the South African-led genocide case against Israel currently before the International Court of Justice, also in The Hague.
Such cooperation has led to US intervention in Ecuador's war on drugs. US and Ecuadorian forces are carrying out Operation Total Extermination, a joint counternarcotics operation beset by allegations of human rights violations, including arbitrary detention, torture, and destruction of civilian property.
Responding to reporting, University of Virginia researcher and doctoral student Joseph Bouchard wrote on X that the "ICC may investigate the US's illegal, unproven, expensive, destructive, and pointless boat strikes."
"They should, and hopefully hold these criminals accountable," he asserted. "They are killing hundreds of fishermen for no reason beyond cruelty."
The head of one affiliated organization called Trump's sanctions "a slap in the face to victims and survivors of grave crimes everywhere who depend on the ICC as a court of last resort.”
A quartet of US human rights groups filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday challenging the Trump administration’s sanctions targeting members of the International Criminal Court for their roles in seeking to hold Israeli leaders accountable for alleged crimes against humanity in Gaza.
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), Human Rights Watch (HRW), and the Open Society Institute (OSI) filed suit in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the Trump administration’s sanctions against ICC prosecutors and judges, a United Nations human rights expert, and three Palestinian human rights groups.
The groups argue that US President Donald Trump's February 2025 executive order that imposed sanctions on the ICC are a “blatantly illegal attack on international justice and should be struck down."
James Goldston, executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, called the sanctions "a slap in the face to victims and survivors of grave crimes everywhere who depend on the ICC as a court of last resort.”
Trump's sanctions follow the ICC's November 2024 issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation. The tribunal simultaneously issued warrants for the arrest of three Hamas leaders for the same categories of crimes allegedly committed on and after the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. However, Israel extrajudicially assassinated all three of the men.
The groups' complaint argues that the Trump administration has effectively transformed human rights advocacy into a potential criminal offense. Organizations can face severe civil and criminal penalties for providing what the government may determine are “services” to sanctioned individuals or groups.
That threat, they contend, has already had tangible consequences. The plaintiffs say the sanctions have disrupted their ability to represent victims of war crimes, submit evidence and legal arguments to the ICC, and collaborate with sanctioned Palestinian organizations on research, litigation, advocacy, and humanitarian work.
Targeted groups and individuals have experienced "frozen or closed bank accounts, rejection of financial transactions, denial of access to digital services, and travel bans," CCR notes. "US organizations, including the plaintiffs, can face punishment of up to 20 years of imprisonment and exorbitant fines for providing services to sanctioned persons or entities."
CCR called the sanctions "one of many" actions taken by the Trump administration "against free speech, protest, and advocacy in support of the human rights of Palestinians."
“For many years, I have represented victims in pressing for justice for crimes committed by the powerful, and finally saw much-needed, even if overdue, investigations opened at the ICC," said CCR senior staff attorney Katherine Gallagher. "In response, the Trump administration took the extraordinary step to not only deny Palestinians and victims of US torture equal access to justice, but to criminalize and punish them, their lawyers and advocates, and their partners."
Israeli officials and their supporters argue that the ICC and the International Court of Justice—where Israel is facing a genocide case filed by South Africa and formally supported by nearly 20 nations—have unfairly singled out Israel. However, the ICC has launched 18 investigations involving conflicts in countries including Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Libya, the Philippines, Sudan (Darfur), and Ukraine.
Trump’s order asserts that ICC efforts involving US or allied nationals constitute a threat to American national security. But the new complaint argues that there is no genuine “national emergency” that can lawfully justify invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act against the court’s routine judicial work.
"The US government’s efforts to dismantle the ICC and punish people seeking justice for grave human rights violations harm far more than the individuals and groups facing sanctions," AFSC general secretary Joyce Ajlouny said in a statement Tuesday. “It is an affront to all victims and survivors of war crimes and genocide."
Ajlouny asserted that the Trump administration "seeks to intimidate human rights defenders and deter people of conscience from advocating for the rights and dignity of others."
"We are joining this lawsuit because we refuse to stay silent when the pursuit of justice is criminalized," she added.
Tuesday's complaint is the latest in a string of lawsuits challenging Trump's sanctions.
Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, earlier this year sued Trump and three of his senior Cabinet officials over sanctions imposed on her and her family. Although a federal district judge temporarily blocked the move on First Amendment grounds, an appeals court quickly reinstated the sanctions via an administrative stay.
In April 2025, two human rights advocates sued over sanctions against then-ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, arguing that the restrictions violated their First Amendment rights. A federal judge subsequently found the advocates were likely to succeed on their constitutional claims and issued a preliminary injunction protecting their communications with the court.
In June, three sanctioned ICC judges—Judges Kimberly Prost of Canada, Solomy Bossa of Uganda, and Reine Alapini-Gansou of Benin—filed suit against the Trump administration, arguing that the president's order directly violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which prohibits the government from making arbitrary and capricious policy changes.
Last month, Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) and the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide also sued Trump and senior administration officials over the ICC sanctions.
“The Trump administration is using the blunt instrument of economic sanctions not only to punish human rights defenders but to police the political expression of millions of Americans,” DAWN executive director Omar Shakir said at the time. “The government is violating the constitutional rights of American citizens in order to shield officials of a foreign government who have committed a genocide.”
Criticizing individual Israeli leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu should not be seen as an attack on all Jews.
Does criticizing actions of the Israeli government or the behavior of its prime minister fuel antisemitism? Despite the stretch of logic required to make this argument and the danger its bizarre conflation presents to American Jews, some US pro-Israel organizations are working overtime to establish the case that criticizing Israel puts American Jews at risk. Their view on this matter has now been echoed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who, before leaving Israel for his meeting with US President Donald Trump, used an interview with an American TV network to level this very charge against New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
While tensions between Mamdani and pro-Israel groups have been brewing since his 2025 election campaign, it was recently reignited in the lead up to Netanyahu’s announced visit to the US. Mayor Mamdani was asked by a reporter whether he would fulfill a campaign pledge to arrest the Israeli prime minister as a war criminal, as per the indictment issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In response, the mayor convened a group of legal experts who concluded that the city, on its own, did not have the authority to make an arrest—only the federal government could do that. In an effort to put the matter to rest, Mamdani released a short video in which he acknowledged that he lacked the power to order an arrest but nevertheless called out Netanyahu as a war criminal responsible for the deaths of “more than 73,000 people” and stated that he would not welcome him in New York City. In his video, Mamdani did not mention Israel, nor did he mention the Jewish people or the citizens of Israel. This was, he observed, simply about Netanyahu’s crimes cited in the ICC arrest warrant.
Some pro-Israel groups immediately denounced Mamdani’s video and charges against the Israeli prime minister. They accused him of “repeatedly singling out the world’s only Jewish state…leaving many Jewish New Yorkers feeling targeted and unwelcome.” One group characterized the video as “blood libel and outrageous lies.” While still another charged Mamdani with “fomenting antisemitism.”
A few days later, a Hispanic man, whom police said had mental health issues, allegedly stabbed two people, one was Asian and another Jewish. In both instances, observers said they heard the attacker shouting “Allahu Akbar.”
The same pro-Israel groups that have been conflating Israel with American Jews and relentlessly condemning Mamdani leapt into the fray, blaming the mayor for making New York unsafe for Jews by “using his platform to viciously attack Israel.” One prominent Jewish leader called on the mayor to resign, charging him with “dereliction of duty.”
Mamdani immediately responded to these charges condemning the stabbings as “hateful and despicable attacks that have no place in our city” and noted that his administration had already dramatically increased investment in hate crime prevention “so that we can start to address the root causes of this bigotry and hatred, as we look to root out the scourge of antisemitism.”
The mayor added: “When it comes to my comments about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, they are critiques based not on my personal analysis, but rather on objective facts. They are critiques of a political leader, not of people of a specific faith or religion or background. And my responsibility as mayor of the city is to keep every New Yorker safe, no matter where they come from, what they believe in or frankly, even if they agree with my politics. My job is to keep them safe.”
The mayor was not without defenders in the Jewish community. Brad Lander, who describes himself as a liberal Zionist and who recently defeated a pro-Israel congressman, described the attacks as “almost certainly an antisemitic hate crime and quite likely an anti-Asian hate crime, but they are not the fault of the mayor for calling Netanyahu a war criminal.” Lander added, “The effort to connect the mayor to that… is a political effort to shut down criticism of Israel,” and called it “weaponizing antisemitism.”
Peter Beinart, one of America’s most thoughtful progressive Jewish thinkers, directly took on the pro-Israel Jewish establishment by noting that it was they, not the mayor, who are conflating Israel with the Jewish community. Beinart wrote: “Zohran Mamdani keeps saying again and again that his critique of Israel… has nothing to do with his feelings toward Jews in New York, because he separates Israel, as a state, from Jewish New Yorkers. The people who are making this conflation… are the very establishment Jewish leaders who are now attacking Mamdani.”
The problem here is two-fold. Antisemitism is real, and conflating American Jews with Israel is wrong and dangerous whether it is done by pro-Israel advocates who want to identify all Jews with Israel for political purposes, or by haters of Jews who want to hold Jewish people, in general, responsible for the crimes committed by that state. In the first instance the effort is designed, as Lander notes, to silence criticism of Israel claiming that charges leveled against that state put all Jews at risk. In the second instance, the conflation serves to fuel the preexisting bigotry of some by holding all Jews responsible for the crimes committed by others.
The bottom line is Mamdani, Lander, and Beinart are right, and the pro-Israel establishment is wrong.
The effort to sideline the International Criminal Court may prove more costly than it looks.
At Camp David on July 31, Donald Trump said plainly what Washington’s fight with the International Criminal Court is now about. The US government's campaign to weaken the court, he said, was meant to defend Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and “various other people,” not himself. Marco Rubio added that five countries had announced plans to leave the ICC since the administration began its latest push against it. That makes the dispute larger than one court or one case. The real question is what the United States gives up when it treats an institution as useful against an adversary but intolerable when it reaches an ally.
Military strength, economic weight, and alliances matter, of course, but they are not the whole story of great-power influence. For decades, the United States also benefited from helping write the rules and from being able to say that those rules reflected something more than American preference. The postwar legal and institutional order became part of US power itself. It helped Washington isolate rivals, keep allies together, and present its policies as defenses of a wider system. That is why the current approach carries a cost that is easy to miss. In protecting allies from legal pressure today, Washington may be spending some of the credibility it will need tomorrow.
The contrast with Russia is especially hard to explain away. During Joe Biden’s presidency, Washington backed accountability efforts over Russian crimes in Ukraine, and Congress loosened restrictions on U.S. assistance to the ICC for its Ukraine investigation. The tone changed once the court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in November 2024. Trump’s 2025 executive order authorized sanctions connected to ICC actions against the United States and Israel. Since then, the administration has broadened the pressure to include travel restrictions, more sanctions, and diplomatic pressure on governments that continue to support the court.
There is a serious legal argument on the American side, and the article does not depend on pretending otherwise. The United States never joined the Rome Statute; Israel did not either. US officials have long objected to the prosecution of nationals of non-member states without their governments’ consent. The ICC answers that it has territorial jurisdiction over Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Those are competing legal positions. But there is still a difference between challenging a court’s jurisdiction and punishing its officials while urging other countries to abandon it. One contests a ruling. The other can end up weakening the institution that produced it.
That is where the damage to American credibility begins. A legal order does not have to be perfectly consistent to matter, but it cannot survive for long if its most powerful defenders appear to want one standard for opponents and another for friends. After the Netanyahu and Gallant warrants, Josep Borrell, then the European Union’s foreign policy chief, said the decisions were binding on EU member states. Outside the West, the contradiction is even harder to ignore. Washington asks governments to uphold sovereignty, accountability, and international rules in one crisis, then attacks an institution applying those rules in another. That does not erase U.S. power, but it makes American appeals less persuasive.
A common reply is that international law has always followed power. Courts have no armies, and major states can often avoid consequences that weaker ones cannot. There is plenty of truth in that argument. Still, political protection has a way of expiring. Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London in 1998 on a Spanish extradition request. Former Chadian president Hissène Habré was eventually tried in Senegal and sentenced to life imprisonment. Slobodan Milošević was put on trial after he lost power, though he died before a verdict. The legal routes in those cases were different, but the lesson is similar: power can postpone accountability. It does not always cancel it.
The value of the ICC should therefore not be judged only by how many people it immediately puts behind bars. Warrants can change diplomatic calculations even when an arrest never happens. After the court issued a warrant for Vladimir Putin in 2023, he did not attend the BRICS summit in South Africa in person. Pretoria, as a member of the ICC, would otherwise have faced intense pressure over whether to arrest him. That episode was modest compared with a trial, but it showed that legal exposure can narrow a leader’s room for maneuver.
This matters even more because the international system around the United States is changing. Western governments once had far more influence over the institutions and language used to define international legitimacy. They still have enormous influence, but not the near-exclusive position they once enjoyed. South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice is one sign of the shift. Governments in the Global South are increasingly using the same legal institutions that Western states helped build, sometimes in ways Washington and its allies did not expect. The argument is no longer only about whether international law matters. It is also about who gets to interpret it.
That is why the effort to sideline the ICC may prove more costly than it looks. Washington can sanction officials, restrict travel, and encourage governments to leave the court. It may even succeed in making the institution weaker. But weakening a forum also means giving up some ability to shape what that forum becomes. Rules are not written once and then left alone; they are interpreted, challenged, and remade over time. A country that walks away whenever the outcome is inconvenient leaves more room for others to do that work.
America’s problem, then, is not really one arrest warrant. It is the gap between claiming leadership of a rules-based order and accepting the rules only when they produce comfortable results. Shielding an ally from immediate legal pressure may look like a win in Washington. The harder question is what happens when the next crisis requires the United States to persuade other governments that sovereignty, accountability, and legal restraint should apply even when compliance is costly.
The coming international order will not be shaped by aircraft carriers, GDP, and military budgets alone. Legitimacy will matter too, especially as more states compete over how global rules are read and enforced. The United States helped build a system that gave it unusual influence over that process. Its gamble now is that it can weaken parts of that system without weakening its own position inside it. That may turn out to be a much more expensive bet than Washington expects.
Israel’s prime minister has been met with relentless chants and jeers of “war criminal” and “genocide” around the US capital.
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has traversed Washington, DC this week amid talks with US President Donald Trump, scores of angry protesters have rarely been far behind.
Across the nation's capital, relentless chants and jeers have followed Israel's leader, who has been accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and whom numerous human rights organizations say has committed genocide in Gaza.
American support for Israel has only continued to curdle as Trump has plunged deeper into a war with Iran that Netanyahu has goaded him to escalate; Israeli settlers have rampaged across the West Bank committing what have been described as "pogroms" against Palestinians; and the Israel Defense Forces have flattened entire neighborhoods in Lebanon, displacing over a million people.
Polls from YouGov earlier this week found that Americans believe Israel is committing genocide by a 19-point margin. By a margin of 22 points, they said they wanted to see American authorities arrest Netanyahu in accordance with the ICC warrant.
As Netanyahu's motorcade arrived near the White House on Monday, protesters were there to let him know, waving Palestinian flags and pepper him with expletives.
"That's our tax dollars going right there, to protect a fucking war criminal!" shouted one man as a squadron of black SUVs escorted Netanyahu, one video from Al Jazeera shows.
Outside his government-provided residence, Blair House, more protesters gathered, pounding drums, blowing whistles, and holding signs calling to "expose Israel's control of Washington" and "stop the US/Israel war machine."
One keffiyeh-clad protester, identified as Joey, said he was taking part because "the only place [Netanyahu] belongs is locked up at the ICC." He said he did not want his tax dollars being used by the US government "to defend someone like that."
The Trump administration has not only refused to enforce the warrant, but aggressively sanctioned the ICC and those who cooperate with it as part of what Secretary of State Marco Rubio described as an effort to "dismantle" the court.
While he appears immune from legal justice on US soil, protesters have taken it upon themselves to remind him that he's still on trial in the court of public opinion.
As the prime minister joined members of Congress for a dinner at the Four Seasons hotel honoring the late war hawk Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Monday night, more protesters stormed the hotel lobby.
"Bibi, Bibi, you can’t hide! You’re committing genocide!" they chanted before they were escorted out by armed security.
The protests continued the next day as Netanyahu met with Trump at the White House, where they reportedly discussed negotiations with Iran regarding its nuclear program and its control over the Strait of Hormuz, US attempts to increase economic pressure on Iran, and the possibility of Israel once again joining US attacks.
At the height of rush hour, a group of protesters braved the pouring rain to occupy a roadway in an attempt to block Netanyahu's motorcade.
According to Bloomberg reporter Emily Birnbaum, the "unreal scene" occurred "because the White House erected extra black fencing that prevented the protest from setting up where they usually do, in front of Lafayette Square."
Video posted by the social media account Eye on Palestine shows police forming a barricade and forcibly dispersing the protesters.
"Despite an ICC war crimes warrant," the account said, "the Trump administration and local authorities allowed his free movement, fencing off a sprawling section of the city to shield him from demonstrators' arrest demands."
"Prime Minister Netanyahu has a warrant out for his arrest for committing war crimes," said one Democratic senator. "He should be nowhere close to the Oval Office of the president of the United States."
As with his proposals for government-run grocery stores and a tax on the second homes owned by rich New Yorkers, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's recent call for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, an accused war criminal, to be arrested on US soil sparked outrage among Trump administration officials and others on the right.
And just like his other proposals, despite the claims that the mayor's comments displayed "extreme views" and were dangerous and divisive, Mamdani's demand that the US execute the International Criminal Court's (ICC) arrest warrant for Netanyahu is broadly supported by the public.
A poll taken by The Economist/YouGov between July 25-27 found that 49% of Americans believe the US should arrest Netanyahu, who arrived in Washington, DC on Monday to meet with President Donald Trump and attend the late Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) funeral.
Just 27% of respondents said the US should not execute the warrant, while 23% were unsure, according to the poll released Tuesday.
Nearly a quarter of people who voted for Trump in 2024 agreed with Mamdani, as well as 21% of people who identified themselves as supporters of Trump's MAGA political movement. The view was also held by 68% of Democrats and 55% of Independents, as well as 24% of Republican voters.
Forty-seven percent of respondents also said they believed Netanyahu was guilty of war crimes.
With Americans increasingly disapproving of Israel and the powerful pro-Israel lobby, sympathizing with Palestinians, and now backing the arrest of Netanyahu by an "overwhelming margin," said the Institute for Middle East Understanding, Trump is nevertheless "welcoming him back into the White House to lobby for more impunity, more war, and more of our tax dollars going to Israel."
Columbia University professor Anthony Zenkus wrote that while nearly half of Americans believe the US should execute the ICC warrant, "we've got prominent Democrats and Republicans and their online supporters calling Mamdani a terrorist for wanting to do that very thing."
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and Trump's ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, are among those who have condemned Mamdani's demand for Netanyahu's arrest. Waltz said the US would not execute the warrant because the country, like Israel, is not party to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, and does not recognize the court's authority. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has threatened to "dismantle" the court.
On Tuesday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) denounced the White House for hosting the Israeli prime minister while Israel is "wrongfully detaining an American citizen," 20-year-old student Sama Safi, who was detained in the West Bank on June 2.
"As I speak, we've not been able to get justice for American citizens killed by violent Israeli settlers or by the IDF," Van Hollen continued, referring to the Israel Defense Forces. "As I speak, Palestinians in the West Bank are under violent assault by Israeli terrorists who are terrorizing Palestinian villages, lighting mosques on fire, torching cars, pushing Palestinians off their lands, killing innocent Palestinians."
"When Donald Trump meets with Bibi Netanyahu, things don't go well for the United States of America," said the senator, noting that five months after Israel convinced the administration to launch an "illegal war against Iran," American soldiers are being killed and injured in the region.
"On top of all that," said Van Hollen, "Prime Minister Netanyahu has a warrant out for his arrest for committing war crimes. He should be nowhere close to the Oval Office of the president of the United States."
It should go without saying, yet must apparently be said again, that Benjamin Netanyahu is not the Jewish community.
The United States should not roll out the red carpet for a foreign leader who has systematically starved and slaughtered thousands of people, including children.
This simple principle is what led New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to declare that Benjamin Netanyahu is not welcome in the Big Apple and call on the federal government to honor the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister.
By publishing this speech, which is now the most popular video he has ever posted on social media, Mayor Mamdani did what no mayor before him dared: speak the truth about American complicity in the Israeli government's human rights abuses.
For decades, New York City's leaders have gone out of their way to embrace all things Israel. From Eric Adams to Rudy Giuliani and beyond, past mayors have praised Israeli leaders, traveled to Israel, encouraged the purchase of Israeli bonds, and supported policies designed to suppress criticism of the Israeli government, including unconstitutional anti-boycott orders.
Mayor Mamdani has made clear that he will not stay silent when a mass murderer of children plans to visit New York City. Most New Yorkers agree with him.
Rather than engage honestly with the substance of Mayor Mamdani's change in course, most Israel advocacy organizations responded to his speech by effectively claiming that criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu is somehow equivalent to criticism of Jewish people. The Anti-Defamation League and other prominent pro-Israel groups even tried to blame the mayor, without any evidence whatsoever, for an attack on an Asian man and Jewish man that occurred in the days after the speech.
The argument that criticizing Israel is inherently antisemitic—which has been used to silence college students, elected officials, and other critics of the Gaza genocide—is both dishonest and dangerous.
It should go without saying, yet must apparently be said again, that Benjamin Netanyahu is not the Jewish community.
Conflating Netanyahu with Jews around the world undermines the fight against real antisemitism. It also insults the many Jewish Americans who have vocally criticized Netanyahu's war crimes in Gaza and called for an end to US support for those crimes.
What the Israeli government's worst enablers have revealed through their hysterical response to Mayor Mamdani's speech is that they simply cannot tolerate any criticism whatsoever of the Israeli government, even criticism focused exclusively on Benjamin Netanyahu, and that they are willing to conflate the entire Jewish community with Netanyahu in a bid to protect Israel from legitimate criticism.
As for those who try to justify the antisemitism smear by claiming that Mayor Mamdani gives an inordinate amount of attention to Israel, this claim ignores three important points.
For one thing, Israel is actively committing its crimes with billions in American taxpayer dollars and weapons, which is why it warrants so much attention from the American people.
Second, the Israeli government's supporters are the ones who insisted that mayors of New York City embrace Israel's policies, defend Israel from criticism, and make Israel their first foreign visit. Mamdani has given Israel far less attention than Eric Adams, Michael Bloomberg, and Rudy Giuliani.
Third, national and local reporters keep asking Mamdani about Israel, sometimes the exact same questions about whether Israel has a right to exist. Don't blame Mamdani for answering the questions
Mayor Mamdani has made clear that he will not stay silent when a mass murderer of children plans to visit New York City. Most New Yorkers agree with him. So do many Americans; a recent poll showed 46% of Americans believe Netanyahu should be arrested if he comes to the United States. Another poll showed that Mamdani has a higher favorability rating among Jewish Americans than Netanyahu.
The claim that criticizing Israel's human rights abuses is antisemitic no longer works on the American public, and it is long past time for Israel's supporters to stop telling it.