Accusing IDF Soldiers and Politicians
Jurisdiction
U.S. Sanctions ICC
Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant
The U.S. Effort to Restore Sanctions

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a criminal court that prosecutes individuals. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is a civil court that hears disputes between countries.

Accusing IDF Soldiers and Politicians

The Palestinians have for years tried to convince the International Criminal Court (ICC) to charge Israeli soldiers and politicians with war crimes. The approach to the ICC is part of the desperate effort by Palestinians to find some international body that will force Israel to capitulate to their demands. Nothing the ICC can do, however, will bring the Palestinians one iota closer to statehood. Nevertheless, they cheered the court’s decision on February 5, 2021, claiming jurisdiction in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.

The same day, the State Department issued a statement:

As we made clear when the Palestinians purported to join the Rome Statute in 2015, we do not believe the Palestinians qualify as a sovereign state and therefore are not qualified to obtain membership as a state or participate as a state in international organizations, entities, or conferences, including the ICC.

We have serious concerns about the ICC’s attempts to exercise its jurisdiction over Israeli personnel. The United States has always held that the court’s jurisdiction should be reserved for countries that consent to it or that are referred by the UN Security Council.

Similarly, Israel rejected the decision because no sovereign Palestinian state exists. Other countries, including Germany, Hungary, Australia, the Czech Republic, Austria, Brazil, Uganda, and Canada, also expressed opposition to an ICC probe of Israel. Israel has no right of appeal because it is not a court member.

On December 4, 2024, it was reported that the ICC’s arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant have heightened global legal risks for Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel, particularly those involved in Gaza operations. The IDF has recorded about 30 criminal proceedings against its members, with at least eight soldiers forced to leave countries such as Cyprus, Slovenia, and the Netherlands due to legal threats. While no blanket travel ban exists, the IDF now conducts risk assessments for soldiers traveling abroad, focusing on those who served in Gaza. Pro-Palestinian groups, using online footage shared by soldiers, are compiling “blacklists” to target IDF personnel internationally.

On January 8, 2024, in response to growing efforts to target Israeli soldiers abroad, IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi has mandated that the identities of all soldiers and officers involved in combat operations be concealed. This applies to personnel ranked Lieutenant Colonel and below. The decision comes amid increasing international legal threats, including the ICC arrest warrants against Israeli leaders, which have encouraged anti-Israel activists. Soldiers have been warned against sharing images or videos of themselves in combat, as these could be used in potential war crime investigations. Military lawyers will guide personnel on these new protocols; field photos will require special approval.

Israel has engaged legal experts worldwide to monitor legislation and provide representation to mitigate risks. An inter-ministerial team, including Mossad and Shin Bet representatives, assesses arrest and interrogation risks for IDF members in various countries. Although non-ICC member states like the U.S., China, and India are not bound to act on ICC warrants, local laws may still pose threats. Footage shared by IDF soldiers, some suggesting potential violations of international humanitarian law, has intensified legal challenges and harmed Israel’s global image. Israel pledges immediate legal support to soldiers facing arrest or harassment abroad.

In April 2025, the ICC reportedly ordered its prosecutor, Karim Khan, to stop publicizing applications for arrest warrants in the court’s Israel-Hamas war investigation. This confidential directive comes as Khan prepares new applications targeting Israeli figures for alleged war crimes, following already secured warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The new order restricts any mention of warrant filings in the case without judicial approval, signaling a broader judicial pushback against Khan’s high-profile approach. It presents added risks to Israeli figures who risk arrest without being aware of warrants issued against them.

Jurisdiction

The United States and Israel have consistently said they will not recognize the jurisdiction of the court over their citizens. In 2002, Israel and the United States signed an agreement that said that they would not extradite, transfer, or surrender any citizens of the other state to the Court or to a third country that may surrender them to the Court. In 2012, the Palestinians’ application to join the court was rejected. Three years later, Congress required the Secretary of State to certify that the PLO wasn’t trying to use the ICC against Israel. The Palestinians ignored the warning and reapplied for membership in 2015, and the ICC accepted the application of the non-existent state of “Palestine.”

The Palestinians subsequently filed several complaints against Israel and Israeli officials without suffering any negative consequences from the United States. The Palestinians’ action could have triggered the cut-off of $400 million in U.S. assistance according to a law allowing the termination of aid if they supported an ICC investigation of Israel. President Obama, however, used a waiver provided by the legislation to avoid penalizing the Palestinians.

U.S. Sanctions ICC

In June 2020, the Trump administration announced sanctions against the ICC and reiterated a longstanding policy that Americans are not subject to its jurisdiction. The principal motivation for the decision was anger over the court’s investigation of alleged U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan; however, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reportedly conferred in advance with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about Israel’s concerns about the ICC during a trip to Jerusalem.

In announcing the sanctions, Pompeo said the United States is “also gravely concerned about the threat the court poses to Israel. The ICC is already threatening Israel with an investigation of so-called war crimes committed by its forces and personnel in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. Given Israel’s robust civilian and military legal system and strong track record of investigating and prosecuting wrongdoing by military personnel, it’s clear the ICC is only putting Israel in its crosshairs for nakedly political purposes. It’s a mockery of justice.”

Pompeo acknowledged receiving letters from a bipartisan group of 69 senators and 262 House members urging him to call on the ICC to halt its “politically motivated” investigations of Israel and the United States. “That’s what the U.S. is dead set on doing, and with good reason,” Pompeo declared. “They’re a trusted and wonderful partner and a buttress of American security. If a rogue court can intimidate our friend or any other ally into abrogating its right to self-defense, that puts Americans at risk as well.”

Netanyahu applauded the U.S. decision, calling the ICC “corrupt,” “biased,” and “politicized.” He accused the court of fabricating “outlandish charges,” such as that “Jews living in their historic homeland constitutes a war crime.”

After a five-year preliminary examination, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said on December 20, 2019, “There is a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.” She suggested investigating crimes committed by both Israel and Hamas during Operation Protective Edge, those committed by Israel in response to the riots during the “Great March of Return,” and those committed by Israel through settling Israeli civilians in disputed territory..

Bensouda based her decision to move forward on her insistence that Palestine is a state and that the court has jurisdiction over crimes committed in territories controlled by Israel. She reiterated this view in April 2020.

Israeli Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit published a rebuttal to Bensouda’s initial claim, making the case that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over the case because “no sovereign Palestinian State is in existence” that could delegate to the court criminal jurisdiction over its territory and nationals.

Before Bensouda could proceed with an investigation, ICC Judges Péter Kovács of Hungary, Marc Perrin de Brichambaut of France, and Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou of Benin had to determine whether it has jurisdiction.

Seven states were invited to submit opinions. All seven asserted the “State of Palestine” does not presently satisfy the conditions to be considered a state because the Palestinian Authority does not control the territories. According to Alexander Loengarov, an official at the European Economic and Social Committee, “the ICC was established with the goal of not letting allegations of serious crimes go unscrutinized,” so the court may accept that “Palestine possesses sufficient characteristics of a state” and award itself jurisdiction to investigate alleged Israeli crimes “regardless of whether the alleged perpetrators are Israeli or Palestinian.”

As Alan Baker noted, the court should have no jurisdiction because “Israel is not party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that lays the architecture of the International Criminal Court and defines international crimes.” Baker added that the “integrity and credibility” of the ICC has been irreparably damaged. The irony, he said, is that “an independent juridical body devoted to preventing impunity enjoyed by the most serious and atrocious war criminals, by bringing them to justice, is now being politically manipulated against the one state that since the early 1950s has consistently advocated the establishment of such a body, the State of Israel.”

The judges from France and Benin accepted the premise that since the PA joined the Rome Statute, it should be treated as a state. Justice Kovács rejected their argument and said the majority’s opinion has “no legal basis in the Rome Statute, and even less so, in public international law.”

Judy Maltz and Netael Bandel noted that “Palestine is defined as an ICC member state that has the ability to grant the court jurisdiction to investigate crimes in its territory, but the ruling doesn’t mean the court recognized Palestine as meeting the criteria for statehood under international law.

The Court’s decision to claim jurisdiction does not automatically mean that Israelis will be investigated. The prosecutor was allowed to begin an investigation, but her term ended in June, and it was unclear if her successor would continue her work.

In addition, after announcing a formal investigation, Israel has 30 days to inform the prosecutor of its intent to conduct its own investigation into potential war crimes and crimes against humanity. This requires the approval of the prosecutor and the ICC.

At worst, the ICC could charge and potentially convict some Israelis of war crimes. It will take some time to identify suspects, however, and the standard for such prosecutions is high. The ICC has only prosecuted 30 cases since the court was created in 2002, winning only nine convictions. It is unlikely the court would have better luck finding fault with the democratically elected leaders of Israel or the soldiers of the IDF. Israel would fight any prosecution vigorously and, like the United States, refuse to recognize the court’s jurisdiction over its citizens.

As with other bodies, such as the Human Rights Council, the focus on Israel, a democracy with an independent judiciary that investigates accusations of abuse, represents a double standard. The ICC is not investigating blatant crimes committed by serial human rights abusers such as Turkey, China, and Russia. It has not, for example, charged Syria’s Bashar Assad for his use of chemical weapons against his citizens.

Warrants For Netanyahu and Gallant

The Palestinians should also be careful what they wish for because Israel could bring charges against the terrorists in “Palestine,” for whom the evidence of war crimes is overwhelming. Rather than standing at the head of an independent state, Mahmoud Abbas could find himself in the dock facing imprisonment as a war criminal for his responsibility in inciting violence.

Ignoring objections by the United States, Israel, and others, the ICC prosecutor confirmed the opening of an investigation into the Palestinian situation on March 3, 2021. Once again, the United States, Israel, and other countries criticized the decision.

Some 100 relatives of hostages taken by Hamas on October 7, 2023, traveled to the Hague on February 14, 2024, to submit charges of kidnapping, sexual violence, torture, and other crimes to the International Criminal Court.

On May 20, 2024, the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, announced his decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for their roles in the Israeli offensive against Hamas that began after the Hamas massacre of Israelis on October 7, 2023, as well as for Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh (the latter two were since killed in Israeli operations, complicating the legal proceedings).

Khan alleges that Netanyahu and Gallant are suspected of crimes, including the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, murder, intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population, and extermination. Contrary to these accusations, military experts have indicated that Israel has gone to unprecedented lengths to ensure the safety and welfare of uninvolved civilians in enemy territory during a military campaign. This includes minimizing collateral damage and providing a steady supply of humanitarian aid to conflict-affected areas. U.S. President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken strongly condemned Khan’s decision. Biden called it “outrageous,” asserting that there is “no equivalence” between Israel and Hamas. Blinken added that the ICC’s arrest decisions could jeopardize ceasefire efforts, hostage negotiations, and the delivery of humanitarian aid in Gaza.

In response, on September 20, 2024, Israel filed an official petition with the ICC, challenging potential arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. The Foreign Ministry claimed that Israel has a robust and independent legal system capable of self-investigating such allegations and questioned the ICC’s jurisdiction in the matter. Israel rejects the accusations of targeting civilians and using starvation as a war tactic, emphasizing that Hamas uses civilians as human shields and points to its efforts to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Ignoring Israeli objections, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant on November 21, 2024, based on Khan’s allegation that they were responsible “for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.” The court added, “There are reasonable grounds to believe that the lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, and specific medical supplies, created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, which resulted in the death of civilians, including children due to malnutrition and dehydration.”

This was the first time the court had taken such action against the leaders of a democratic country, the first charges of the “crime of starvation,” the first allegations of war crimes during a defensive war, and the first prosecution of a non-state party to the ICC based on the request of an entity not universally recognized as a state. The two men could be subject to arrest in more than 120 countries that accept the ICC’s jurisdiction, including most of Europe but not the United States.

Netanyahu issued a statement that “there is no war more just” than the one it was fighting against Hamas. Referring to the investigation of Khan for sexual harassment, Netanyahu said, “The decision was made by a corrupt chief prosecutor trying to save his skin from serious sexual harassment allegations.”

White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby said America “fundamentally rejects” the Court’s decision. “The United States has been clear that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over this matter.”

President Biden said, “The ICC issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous. Let me be clear once again: whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.”

On November 27, 2024, Netanyahu announced Israel’s decision to appeal the ICC’s arrest warrants against him and Gallant, submitting the appeal minutes before the deadline. Netanyahu’s office emphasized that Israel rejects the ICC’s jurisdiction and legitimacy. The appeal, while unable to suspend the warrants, challenges the factual and legal basis of the ICC’s findings and aims to highlight its alleged bias against Israel. Netanyahu also met with U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, who is promoting measures in Congress to counter the ICC and discourage cooperation with it.

Israel submitted two documents to the ICC Appeals Chamber arguing against the court’s jurisdiction and the arrest warrants. The first document contends that the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber dismissed Israel’s claim of lack of jurisdiction on procedural grounds without substantive review, violating sovereignty and the rule of law. Israel insists it has the right under Article 19(2) of the Rome Statute to challenge jurisdiction and demands a substantive evaluation. The second document disputes the ICC’s authority over “the situation in Palestine,” arguing that Palestine does not qualify as a state under international law, the Oslo Accords restrict Palestinian criminal jurisdiction over Israelis, and the ICC cannot act without Israel’s consent as it is not a Rome Statute signatory. Israel requests suspending the arrest warrants and reversing the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision.

The decision followed internal debates, with legal advisors supporting the appeal, citing flaws in the ICC’s decision. At the same time, some officials opposed it, arguing it implicitly recognizes the court’s authority and that Israel should rely on U.S. sanctions under President-elect Donald Trump to pressure the court. Netanyahu considered appointing an investigative judge, a new role in Israeli law, to independently examine the ICC’s allegations, potentially demonstrating Israel’s capacity to handle such cases domestically and invoking the ICC’s complementarity principle. However, this plan faces legal and practical hurdles. Confidence in the ICC’s appellate body is low in Israel, as it includes non-legal diplomats, further complicating the process.

However, on November 29, 2024, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan requested the rejection of Israel’s appeal against the arrest warrants, arguing that the appeal does not meet the criteria for direct appeal under the Rome Statute. Khan maintains that the contested decision is procedural and does not directly address the court’s jurisdiction. Thus, it is not subject to appeal under the statute. He emphasized that the Pre-Trial Chamber is the appropriate forum to handle this issue. Khan also opposed Israel’s request to suspend the arrest warrants, arguing that they are procedurally invalid.

On December 15, 2024, Israel officially filed an appeal against the ICC arrest warrants, arguing that the lower court and prosecutor acted prematurely. Israel, backed by the U.S., Germany, and others, claims the ICC failed to address its jurisdictional objections fully. It violated procedural requirements under Articles 18 and 19 of the Rome Statute, including not providing updated warnings or specific details about the allegations. The appeal aims to reverse or freeze the warrants by highlighting substantive and procedural flaws in the ICC process.

On January 31, 2025, the “Hague Group”, composed of representatives from Belize, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, Senegal, and South Africa, initiated a legal campaign against Israel. This campaign alleges that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territory, committing war crimes in Gaza, and not abiding by rulings from international courts. The group’s stated goals are to end the Israeli “occupation” of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza and ensure the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. The Hague Group has pledged to prevent the transfer of arms to Israel and the docking of vessels carrying military equipment to the country. The group accuses Israel of “genocidal actions in Gaza.”

The ICC also issued a warrant for Mohammed Deif even though he was believed to have been killed in an Israeli airstrike in July 2024. Hamas officially acknowledged Deif’s death only in January 2025. On February 26, 2025, the ICC revoked the arrest warrant for Deif following confirmation of his death. The court’s decision came after prosecutors provided “sufficient and reliable information” on Deif’s death, leading presiding judge Nicolas Guillou to declare the warrant null and terminate proceedings against him.

On April 3, 2025, Hungary became the first country to announce its withdrawal from the ICC due to ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan’s warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, which Hungary refused to honor. Netanyahu urged other democracies to follow Hungary’s lead and confirmed that more countries would leave the court.

In the same month, in a significant legal and diplomatic win, the ICC Appeals Chamber overturned a November 2024 ruling that had rejected Israel’s jurisdictional objections to the issuance of arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant for alleged war crimes. This marks Israel’s first victory at the ICC since 2012, after several setbacks in recent years. The Appeals Chamber found that the lower court erred by prematurely dismissing Israel’s jurisdictional challenge under Article 19(2) of the Rome Statute, sending the case back for further hearings. This move effectively freezes proceedings against Israel. While the arrest warrants technically remain in effect, the ruling may embolden ICC member states to disregard them until a final decision is made.

In May 2025, Israel officially filed another appeal against the ICC arrest warrants. The central claim is that the events of October 7 constitute a “new situation” that falls outside the scope of the previously opened Palestine case, which mainly focused on incidents in the West Bank. Therefore, the prosecutor should have first notified Israel and allowed it to investigate independently, in accordance with the principle of complementarity under international law and the Rome Statute. There is now a renewed opportunity as the case has returned to the pre-trial chamber. In any case, the successor prosecutor has already submitted a response to an earlier appeal, demanding that the case proceed.

Two months later, the ICC rejected Israel’s request to cancel the arrest warrants issued against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The warrants, issued in November 2024 over alleged war crimes in Gaza, were challenged by Israel, which argued the court lacked jurisdiction over Israeli citizens. In April, the appeals chamber agreed to reexamine Israel’s jurisdictional objection, prompting Israel also to request the cancellation of the warrants and a suspension of the investigation. However, the court ruled that ongoing jurisdictional appeals do not justify halting investigations or revoking arrest warrants. As a result, the warrants remain legally valid, and Netanyahu and Gallant risk arrest if they enter any ICC member state.

In August 2025, the families of three hostages—Avinatan Or, Eitan Mor, and Omri Miran—have filed a lawsuit with the Jerusalem District Court against Karim Khan, alleging that he aided Hamas and acted with improper motives, including allegedly to avoid complaints of sexual offenses attributed to him. The suit, filed through attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of the Shurat HaDin organization, accuses Khan of an eight-month delay before seeking arrest warrants for senior Hamas leaders, of tying that request to warrants against Israeli leaders, and of failing to issue warrants against additional Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders. According to the families, Khan created a false moral equivalence between Israel and the terrorists, gave terrorist organizations “a significant boost,” and effectively helped enable the continued holding of the hostages.

Israel asked the ICC to void the arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and to disqualify Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan in November 2025, arguing that sexual-assault allegations made against Khan by an aide in early 2024 may have compromised his impartiality. In a new filing, Israel claims Khan rushed to seek warrants for Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in May 2024, days after canceling a planned trip to Israel and Gaza, to shield himself from the accusations and to portray the complainant as trying to obstruct the ICC’s work. Khan denies misconduct and maintains the warrants were based on solid evidence; ICC judges approved them in November 2024. The case has deepened the ICC’s political crisis, with the U.S. imposing sanctions on Khan, European allies questioning whether they would enforce the warrants, and the UN now investigating the allegations, including testimony that Khan invoked the Palestine case while pressuring his accuser. Israel argues that even the appearance of compromised impartiality should disqualify him under the ICC’s own standards.

In December 2025, Israel condemned the ICC Appeals Chamber’s narrowly adopted decision denying Israel advance notice, arguing that it violates the principle of complementarity, particularly for a democratic state with an independent and effective judiciary. Jerusalem said the ruling reflects the ICC’s continued politicization, undermines the sovereign rights of non-party states, and ignores the court’s own obligations under the Rome Statute, portraying the decision as politics masquerading as international law.

The U.S. Effort to Restore Sanctions

As part of his omnibus day one executive order (E.O.) called “Initial Recissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” President Trump revoked President Joe Biden’s April 1, 2021, E.O. that terminated sanctions against the court. This was a largely symbolic act that had no immediate impact.

On January 28, 2025, a bill that would impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) was blocked by Democrats in the U.S. Senate. The bill was introduced in response to the ICC issuing arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials. Republicans needed 60 votes to break a Democratic filibuster but managed only 54. The bill, called the Illegitimate Court Counteraction (ICC) Act, would instruct President Trump to impose sanctions on anyone who has aided the ICC in investigating, arresting, detaining, or prosecuting U.S. citizens or citizens of U.S. allies not party to the ICC’s Rome Statute, which would include Israel. While some Democrats, like Senator Chuck Schumer, support imposing sanctions on the ICC, they felt the bill’s provisions were too broad. One Democrat, Senator John Fetterman, crossed party lines to vote in favor of the bill, stating that he supports Israel over the ICC.

On February 6, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) in response to its investigations targeting the U.S. and its allies, including Israel. The order enforces financial and visa sanctions on individuals and their families who assisted in ICC investigations involving U.S. citizens or allies.

In response, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar praised U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order. He accused the ICC of obsessively targeting Israel and its leaders. Sa’ar argued that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over Israel and the U.S. since neither country is a signatory to the Rome Statute. He emphasized that both nations are thriving democracies with militaries that adhere to international law. He condemned the ICC’s actions as immoral and legally baseless, asserting that the court undermines rather than upholds international law. He also praised Hungary’s stance on a “clear and moral stand on principles of justice and sovereignty” for supporting the U.S. action.

A week later, the U.S. Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan as part of broader measures targeting the court for investigating U.S. citizens or allies, following its decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. The sanctions include asset freezes, a ban on commercial dealings with U.S. entities, and a travel restriction, potentially impacting Khan’s family, mirroring measures Trump enacted in his first term. The order also penalizes anyone aiding Khan in circumventing the sanctions. This move is consistent with Trump’s broader policy of targeting ICC members involved in cases against the U.S. and its allies, a stance previously implemented and later reversed under the Biden administration. The ICC condemned the move, reaffirming its commitment to justice. Court officials in The Hague convened to assess the impact, while the United Nations emphasized that restrictions should align with the U.S.’s obligations under its headquarters agreement.

On August 20, 2025, the United States placed four individuals linked to the International Criminal Court on its special designated nationals sanctions list. Alongside the move, Washington issued a general license allowing the winding down of transactions involving those newly sanctioned persons.

On September 4, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced U.S. sanctions on three Palestinian NGOs—Al Haq, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights—for their involvement in International Criminal Court (ICC) efforts to prosecute Israeli nationals. Designated under Executive Order 14203, the move highlights Washington’s opposition to what Rubio called the ICC’s politicized overreach and disregard for sovereignty. He emphasized that neither the United States nor Israel is party to the Rome Statute and warned of “significant and tangible consequences” for entities complicit in the ICC’s actions.

In December 2025, the U.S. Treasury Department announced new sanctions related to ICC. As part of the move, OFAC added two ICC judges to the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List under Executive Order 14203, a rare and highly escalatory step that underscores Washington’s deepening confrontation with the court over what the United States views as politicized and illegitimate proceedings, particularly those targeting U.S. and Israeli officials. The designations freeze any U.S.-based assets of the judges and generally prohibit U.S. persons from engaging in transactions with them, while narrowly tailored licenses allow limited wind-down activity.

Sources: International Criminal Court.
John Reed, “Palestinians join ICC in politically charged move,” Financial Times, (April 1, 2015).
Marlise Simons, “Palestinians deliver accusations of Israeli war crimes to International Criminal Court,” New York Times, (June 25, 2015).
Raphael Ahren, “The Hague vs. Israel: Everything you need to know about the ICC Palestine probe,” Times of Israel, (December 23, 2019).
Alexander Loengarov, “State of Jurisdiction: The International Criminal Court and the ‘Situation in Palestine,’” Washington Institute, (April 24, 2020).
Raphael Ahren, “Chief prosecutor insists ICC has jurisdiction to probe war crimes in ‘Palestine,’” Times of Israel, (April 30, 2020).
“Secretary Michael R. Pompeo At a Press Availability with Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, Attorney General William Barr, and National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien,” U.S. Department of State, (June 11, 2020).
Barak Ravid, “International Criminal Court moves closer to investigation of Israel,” Axios,(June 12, 2020).
Noa Landau, “U.S. Decision to Sanction International Crime Court Was Coordinated With Israel, Source Says,” (Haaretz, June 12, 2020).
Barak Ravid, “Trump administration coordinated ICC sanctions with Israel,” Axios, (June 12, 2020).
Isabel Kershner, “I.C.C. Rules It Has Jurisdiction to Examine Possible Israel War Crimes,” New York Times, (February 5, 2021).
Alan Baker, “This flawed decision turns the ICC itself into just one more Israel-basher,” Times of Israel, (February 6, 2021).
Judy Maltz and Netael Bandel, “What Does the ICC Ruling Mean for Israel, the IDF and the Palestinians?” Haaretz, (February 6, 2021).
Lahav Harkov, “Germany, Hungary join states opposing ICC probe of Israel,” Jerusalem Post, (February 9, 2021).
“The International Criminal Court and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” BICOM, (February 10, 2021).
Jeremy Sharon, “Families of Israeli hostages to file war crimes complaint against Hamas in The Hague,” Times of Israel, (February 13, 2024).
Michael Williams, “Biden denounces ICC for ‘outrageous’ implication of equivalence between Israel and Hamas,” CNN, (May 20, 2024).
“Blinken says ICC arrest warrants could jeopardize cease-fire, hostage release efforts,” Reuters, (May 20, 2024).
“Israel files ICC petition challenging potential arrest warrants against PM, Gallant,” Times of Israel, (September 20, 2024).
Ron Kampeas, “International Criminal Court issues arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister,” JTA, (November 21, 2024).
“US ‘Fundamentally Rejects’ ICC Warrant For Israeli PM,” AFP, (November 21, 2024).
“Statement from President Joe Biden on Warrants Issued by the International Criminal Court,” The White House, (November 21, 2024).
Itamar Eichner, “Netanyahu notifies ICC of intention to appeal arrest warrants,” Ynet, (November 27, 2024).
Itamar Eichner, “Last-Minute Decision: Israel to Appeal Arrest Warrants at The Hague | Exclusive Report,” Ynet, (November 27, 2024). [Hebrew]
Itamar Eichner, “Israel’s Arguments in the Hague Appeal: Lack of Jurisdiction and Disregard for the Right to Prove Independent Investigation,” Ynet, (November 27, 2024). [Hebrew]
Itamar Eichner, “Hague Prosecutor Recommends Rejecting Appeal on Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant: ‘Does Not Meet Criteria,’” Ynet, (November 29, 2024). [Hebrew]
Yoav Zaitun, “The Hague effect: IDF combat soldiers at risk of arrests abroad,” Ynet, (December 4, 2024).
Yonah Jeremy Bob, “Israel appeals to overturn ICC arrest warrants,” Jerusalem Post, (December 15, 2024).
Yoav Zaitun, “Dramatic Decision in the IDF: The Identity of Soldiers and Officers Will Be Concealed - Due to Concerns They Will Be Investigated Abroad,” Ynet, (January 7, 2025) [Hebrew].
Tess Bridgeman and Rebecca Hamilton, “What Just Happened: With ICC Sanctions,” Just Security, (January 21, 2025).
“Senate Democrats block ICC sanctions bill,” Jewish Chronicle, (January 29, 2025).
Danielle Greyman-Kennard, “South Africa renews legal attacks on Israel as member of The Hague Group,” Jerusalem Post, (January 31, 2025).
“Trump to impose sanctions on International Criminal Court,” Reuters, (February 6, 2025).
@gidonsaar, (February 6, 2025). [Hebrew]
@gidonsaar, (February 7, 2025).
“White House confirms war crimes prosecutor first target of ICC sanctions,” Jerusalem Post, (February 11, 2025).
Dudi Kogan, “US sanctions ICC prosecutor who issued arrest warrant against Netanyahu,” Israel Hayom, (February 13, 2025).
“ICC Nixes Arrest Warrant For Slain Hamas Leader Deif,” Barron’s, (February 26, 2025).
“Netanyahu: More countries to join Hungary in leaving ICC over Israel prosecutions,” Jewish Insider, (April 3, 2025).
Yonah Jeremy Bob, “In boost to Israel, ICC Appeals Court reverses lower court ruling,” Jerusalem Post, (April 24, 2025).
Harry Davies, “ICC judges order that arrest warrant requests in Palestine case be kept secret,” Guardian, (May 2, 2025).
“Appeal of “Decision on Israel’s request for an order to the Prosecution to give an Article 18(1) notice” (ICC-01/18-375),” ICC, (May 26, 2025).
“ICC judges reject Israel’s request to withdraw Netanyahu arrest warrant,” Reuters, (July 16, 2025).
Elinor Shirkani Kofman, “Hostage families fight back: Sue ICC prosecutor for shielding terrorists,” Israel Hayom, (August 12, 2025).
Katharine Jackson, Ryan Patrick, “US issues fresh International Criminal Court-related sanctions,” Reuters, (August 20, 2025).
“Sanctioning Foreign NGOs Directly Engaged in ICC’s Illegitimate Targeting of Israel,” U.S. Department of State, (September 4, 2025).
Matthew Dalton, “Israel Asks ICC to Throw Out Netanyahu Warrant, Citing Allegations Against Prosecutor,” WSJ, (November 19, 2025).
@israelmfa, (December 15, 2025).
“Iran-related Designations; International Criminal Court-related Designations; Russia-related Designations Removals; Foreign Sanctions Evaders Determination Removal; Issuance of Iran-related and International Criminal Court-related General Licenses,” U.S. Department of Treasury, (December 18, 2025).

Israel and the International Criminal Court (ICC)