Arrest warrants by ICC are trumped up political stunts with no Jurisdiction totally false hamas founded propergander

Arrest warrants by ICC are trumped up political stunts with no Jurisdiction totally false hamas founded propergander more terrorist funded propergander with zero foundation. Zohran Mamdani is controlled by the muslim brotherhood (see my article here on the Muslim Brotherhood and its links to terrorism) https://www.riseupaustraliabrisbane2025.com/post/the-muslim-brotherhood-is-active-in-australia Graham Healy sun 19/7/26

**The arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu are from the ICC (International Criminal Court), not the UN.**

The ICC is an independent court created by the 2002 Rome Statute. It cooperates with the UN but is not a UN body. The UN itself does not issue individual arrest warrants (the ICJ handles state disputes). Your reference to the “Un show” likely points to the ICC proceedings, which received heavy UN media coverage and fit into broader international pressure on Israel.

### What the ICC Actually Did

On **21 November 2024**, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I (three judges) issued arrest warrants for:

- **Benjamin Netanyahu** (then and current Prime Minister of Israel)

- **Yoav Gallant** (then Defense Minister)

They remain “at large.” Parallel warrants went to senior Hamas figures (including Yahya Sinwar and Mohammed Deif) for the 7 October 2023 attacks and related crimes; Deif’s was later cancelled after reports of his death.

**Specific charges against Netanyahu and Gallant** (the Chamber found “reasonable grounds to believe” these occurred from at least 8 October 2023 to 20 May 2024):

- War crime of **starvation as a method of warfare** (intentionally depriving Gaza civilians of food, water, medicine, fuel, and electricity by impeding humanitarian aid and failing to facilitate relief).

- Crimes against humanity of **murder**, **persecution** (on political/national grounds), and **other inhumane acts**.

- As civilian superiors, the war crime of **intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population** (in relation to specific incidents).

The Prosecutor (Karim Khan) cited evidence including survivor interviews, videos, photos, satellite imagery, and statements by Israeli officials. The judges ruled the conduct formed part of a widespread/systematic attack on Gaza civilians and rejected Israel’s early jurisdictional challenges as premature.

### Israel’s Position: Political Attack and No Jurisdiction

Israel (and the US) rejects the warrants outright:

- **No jurisdiction**: Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute. Palestine’s 2015 accession is disputed — Palestine is not a full sovereign state under international law in Israel’s view, and the Oslo Accords limit Palestinian criminal jurisdiction over Israelis. The ICC cannot simply assert territorial jurisdiction over a non-member state’s nationals in disputed territory.

- **Complementarity**: Israel has its own functioning military justice system that investigates incidents. The ICC should defer.

- **Bias and lawfare**: The ICC and broader UN system show clear anti-Israel selectivity (far more UNHRC resolutions condemning Israel than any other country). Some Prosecutor advisors and relied-upon NGOs have documented anti-Israel records or BDS ties. The warrants equate a democracy’s elected leaders defending against Hamas (which initiated the war with the 7 October massacre of ~1,200 Israelis and hostage-taking) with the terrorists themselves. Netanyahu’s office called it an “antisemitic decision” and “modern Dreyfus trial.”

Supporters argue this is classic “lawfare” — using international institutions to delegitimize Israel’s right to self-defense while ignoring Hamas’s embedding in civilian areas, human-shield tactics, aid diversion, and explicit goal of destroying Israel.

### The ICC/Prosecutor’s Case and Counter-Arguments

The ICC maintains it followed standard procedure: investigation opened in 2021 (post-Palestine referral), evidence reviewed, “reasonable grounds” threshold met for warrants (a relatively low bar, similar to probable cause). Both Israeli and Hamas leaders were targeted, undercutting claims of pure one-sidedness. Severe humanitarian conditions in Gaza — high civilian casualties, destruction, and repeated warnings of famine risk by UN and other bodies — formed the factual basis for the starvation and related charges. International humanitarian law prohibits starvation as a warfare method regardless of context.

Critics of the “bias” narrative say Israel faces scrutiny because of the occupation’s duration, settlement policy, and the conflict’s visibility — not because the court is inherently rigged. The judges (from France, Benin, and Slovenia) are independent, and the evidence included open-source material plus official statements.

### Current Status (as of July 2026)

The warrants are still active and outstanding. Netanyahu has traveled to non-ICC states (e.g., US, Hungary) without arrest. He has avoided some events in ICC member states. Enforcement is weak and political — ICC member states are *obligated* to arrest if he enters their territory, but compliance varies and major powers (US, etc.) reject the court’s authority here. The warrants remain largely symbolic for now but create diplomatic friction and travel complications.

### Are They “Trumped Up Political Attacks, Not Genuine”?

This is the core contested question.

**Strong case they have a significant political dimension**:

- Questionable jurisdiction over a non-party state.

- Documented patterns of disproportionate focus on Israel in UN/ICC-related bodies.

- Timing during an active defensive war against a terrorist organization that started with atrocities.

- Reliance on sources some view as partisan.

- Weak enforcement against powerful actors while smaller states face more pressure.

Many Israelis and supporters see this as lawfare aimed at constraining Israel’s ability to fight Hamas, not neutral justice.

**Counter-case that the process was genuine**:

- Formal judicial steps were followed.

- Evidence of real humanitarian suffering and aid restrictions in Gaza exists and was reviewed by judges.

- Hamas leaders were also charged for clear crimes.

- Starvation as warfare is a recognized prohibition.

**The truthful synthesis**: The warrants are **real legal instruments** issued after an ICC process based on presented evidence about Gaza conditions. They are **not fabricated from thin air**. However, the underlying allegations, the court’s jurisdiction, and its even-handedness in this conflict are **genuinely disputed** with substantial arguments on both sides. The Israel-Hamas war is exceptionally complex and politicized; international institutions have well-documented selectivity problems when it comes to Israel. Netanyahu’s domestic corruption trial in Israel is a separate matter (ongoing or recently active) and not directly related to the ICC case.

Netanyahu continues to lead Israel and pursue its security objectives. The warrants have not stopped that. Whether history ultimately views them as legitimate accountability or politicized overreach will depend on full evidence (much of which remains classified or contested) and how the conflict’s context — Hamas’s role, military necessity, and proportionality — is weighed.

The situation remains fluid and highly charged. Primary sources (ICC decisions, Israeli government statements, and contemporaneous reporting on Gaza conditions) are the best way to evaluate claims rather than media framing from any side.