On November 21, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Hamas military chief  Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri (aka Mohammed Deif), Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and  former Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant, all on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It’s unclear whether Deif remains alive.  Hamas’s official statement on the warrants was a call to “expand the scope of accountability to all criminal occupation leaders.”

The more interesting reaction comes from the Israeli regime, which has announced its “intention to appeal to the court along with a demand to delay implementation of the arrest warrants” … while simultaneously reiterating its pre-existing denial of the ICC’s jurisdiction over Israel, Israeli actions, or Israeli citizens.

Well, which is it going to be? Does the ICC have jurisdiction or doesn’t it? If it doesn’t have jurisdiction to issue the warrants, it doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of those warrants.

The Israeli jurisdiction claim is based on the fact that Israel is not a member state of the International Criminal Court.

But the state of Palestine IS a member state of the International Criminal Court, and the alleged actions for which the warrants were issued took place in Palestine, not Israel.

ICC jurisdiction comes in two flavors:

First, jurisdiction over citizens of member states who allegedly commit war crimes or crimes against humanity, no matter where those crimes are committed.

That’s the jurisdiction which applies to Mohammed Deif. His alleged crimes were committed in Israel, but since the state he resides in is under ICC jurisdiction, Deif is under ICC jurisdiction.

Second, jurisdiction over war crimes or crimes against humanity allegedly committed in ICC member states, regardless of who, from where, allegedly commits them.

That’s the jurisdiction which applies to Netanyahu and Gallant. The alleged crimes were committed in Palestine.  Netanyahu’s and Gallant’s Israeli citizenship doesn’t exempt them from ICC jurisdiction any more than me being from the United States would exempt me from prosecution in, or extradition to, Poland for a murder I stood accused of committing in Warsaw.

It’s that latter jurisdiction which Netanyahu and Gallant deny — but which they would necessarily have to recognize to enjoy standing to appeal the warrants.

Instead of making up their minds, they’re resorting to the usual Israeli regime policy of loudly demanding their own absolute exemption from, while crying everyone else’s absolute obligation to, “international law” and “rules-based order.”

Naturally, they’re backed up on that dodge by their friends in Washington, DC, who proclaim the same policy for both the US regime and its Middle East welfare client.

But those exceptionalist demands are clearly wearing out their welcome elsewhere. Netanyahu and Gallant probably shouldn’t plan near-future vacation trips to ICC member states.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY