Israel and Hamas: Possible International Criminal Court (ICC) Arrest Warrants

Israel and Hamas: Possible International Criminal Court (ICC) Arrest Warrants

INSIGHTi

Israel and Hamas: Possible International
Criminal Court (ICC) Arrest Warrants
May 23, 2024
On May 20, 2024, International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan filed applications for
warrants of arrest before a Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) of the ICC in the “Situation in the State of
Palestine.” He seeks to indict top leaders of Israel—including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—and
of the Palestinian Sunni Islamist movement Hamas (a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization),
asserting the ICC’s “jurisdiction over crimes committed by nationals of States Parties [Hamas officials]
and by the nationals of non-States Parties [Israeli officials] on the territory of a State Party [‘Palestine’].”
Foreign countries and international organizations have expressed varied reactions to the applications. The
ICC Prosecutor’s action has triggered strong opposition from U.S. and Israeli officials, with the Biden
Administration expressing openness to working with Congress on a “bipartisan basis” on “an appropriate
response.”
The ICC Prosecutor opened a formal investigation into the situation in “Palestine” on March 3, 2021,
weeks after a PTC determination that the ICC had jurisdiction over the West Bank (including East
Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip. In November 2023, following the outbreak of Israel-Hamas conflict, the
Prosecutor announced that the investigation “extends to the escalation of hostilities and violence since the
attacks that took place on 7 October 2023.”
ICC Crimes Alleged by the Prosecutor
The Prosecutor’s applications allege that Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-
Masri (aka Mohammed Deif), and Ismail Haniyeh have committed war crimes, including murder, taking
hostages, and cruel treatment, as well as crimes against humanity, including extermination, rape and other
sexual violence, and torture. Allegations leveled at Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense
Minister Yoav Gallant include the war crimes of starvation of civilians, murder and causing great
suffering, and intentional attacks on civilians, and the crimes against humanity of extermination, murder,
and persecution.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN12366
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
ICC Procedural Issues and Next Steps
The PTC will issue the requested arrest warrants if it determines there are “reasonable grounds” to believe
the crimes have occurred. There is no deadline for a determination. If warrants are issued, the following
might affect outcomes:
• The ICC might not be able to take custody of the accused individuals. While the Rome
Statute of the ICC requires states parties to detain and transfer wanted individuals to ICC
custody, states have at times failed to do so, despite the fact that the ICC does not
recognize immunity for such officials.
• The ICC cannot try individuals in absentia.
• Despite relevant previous PTC rulings, defendants might challenge ICC jurisdiction
based on the argument that “Palestine” does not qualify as a sovereign state capable of
accepting the ICC’s jurisdiction, and that nationals of non-states parties may not be tried
before the Court. (Israel is not a State Party to the Rome Statute and has not accepted ICC
jurisdiction.)
• Defendants could challenge the ICC’s exercise of jurisdiction based on the ICC principle
of complementarity, which precludes the ICC from conducting investigations and
prosecutions if an appropriate, competent national judicial system has or is undertaking
the same work.
Impact and Initial Reactions
The Prosecutor’s decision to pursue arrest warrants could have an impact on
• Israeli and Hamas actions regarding continued conflict, potential cease-fires and/or
hostage releases, humanitarian assistance delivery efforts, and post-conflict planning, and
• deliberations in various countries, international tribunals, or organizations regarding the
conflicting parties’ compliance with international law.
In Israel, 106 of 120 Knesset members opposed the Prosecutor’s decision. Prime Minister Netanyahu said
the decision denied Israel its “right of self-defense,” while insisting Israel complies with international law.
Israeli leaders pledged to fight the Prosecutor’s efforts and seek other countries’ nonenforcement of
potential ICC orders against Israeli officials.
After reports earlier that West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas (a
Hamas rival) was urging ICC action against Israel, and speculation grew that such action might be
imminent, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich reportedly decided to withhold tax revenue from the
PA that Israel collects on its behalf. As this revenue represents a sizable portion of the PA budget, the PA
has apparently reduced public sector salaries. With the withholding seemingly set to continue following
the Prosecutor’s action and some European countries’ recognition of Palestinian statehood, National
Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has argued that the withholding undermines Israeli interests because it
destabilizes the West Bank.
Hamas has expressed support for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders but condemned attempts to issue
warrants against its leaders, contending it has the right to “armed resistance” against “Israeli occupation.”

Congressional Research Service
3
U.S. Response and Options for Congress
On May 20, President Joe Biden called the Prosecutor’s action “outrageous” and said “there is no
equivalence” between Israel and Hamas. Secretary of State Antony Blinken further said:
Moreover, the United States has been clear since well before the current conflict that [the] ICC has
no jurisdiction over this matter…. In other situations, the Prosecutor deferred to national
investigations and worked with states to allow them time to investigate. The Prosecutor did not
afford the same opportunity to Israel, which has ongoing investigations into allegations against its
personnel…. Fundamentally, this decision does nothing to help, and could jeopardize, ongoing
efforts to reach a ceasefire agreement that would get hostages out and surge humanitarian assistance
in.
Members of Congress have voiced varying views on the matter. These differences might lead to some
Member initiatives supporting the ICC process and others opposing it. Speaker of the House Mike
Johnson stated, “Congress is reviewing all options, including sanctions, to punish the ICC and ensure its
leadership faces consequences if they proceed.”
Proposed legislation (H.R. 8282 and S. 224) would authorize sanctions—including blocking property and
revoking visas—on foreign persons who carry out or assist the ICC’s investigation and prosecution of
U.S. nationals or nationals of U.S. allies (such as Israel). The executive branch has taken action to
sanction ICC personnel in the past. In September 2020, the Trump Administration imposed sanctions
against ICC officials in connection with an investigation regarding Afghanistan. President Biden lifted
these sanctions in April 2021 while reiterating objections to ICC assertions of jurisdiction over U.S. and
allied personnel. If Israeli officials are eventually detained by the ICC, Congress has authorized the
President to “use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of” such officials.
Additionally, Congress could change or clarify annual appropriations provisions (in Section 7041(k)(2) of
P.L. 118-47) that appear to prohibit U.S. economic aid for the PA (which the executive branch has
distinguished from aid for the Palestinian people) and a Palestinian Liberation Organization office in the
United States if the Palestinians support ICC investigations against Israeli nationals. Congress may also
assess current and proposed U.S. support for (1) PA security efforts in the West Bank and (2) a possible
future PA role in Gaza.

Author Information

Matthew C. Weed
Jim Zanotti
Specialist in Foreign Policy Legislation
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United

Congressional Research Service
4
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN12366 · VERSION 1 · NEW