International Criminal Court’s tactics ‘smear’ the injustice of America’s allies

In the next few days, something unprecedented is going to be attempted.

A British prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague called Karim Khan is going to try to bring a war-crimes case against an American ally.

Specifically, Khan wants to bring individual cases against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and a head of the Israeli army, most likely the chief of the general staff. 

If this happens, it will throw kerosene onto the already flammable international situation.

And further ignite things here at home. 

All those expensively educated know-nothings currently hunting down Jews on American campuses will imagine they have even more license to do so.

It will encourage all the antisemites who have crawled out of the sewers in recent months.

And it will be a grotesque smear and slander against the state of Israel. 

Netanyahu is a democratically elected leader.

Gallant and the leadership of the IDF lead a citizens army.

Therefore, any indictments against them will constitute an indictment on the state of Israel itself and the Israeli public as a whole.

It would be a grotesque boundary-crossing by the ICC. 

Of course, Khan is ­attempting to do this having done no investigation and having gathered no information.

He will be taking this dangerous move for reasons of pure politics and ­prejudice. 

Political motives 

Before he takes this step, there are a couple of things that he — and the American public — should consider. 

The ICC holds itself out as being what it says it is. It presumes to be the world’s court.

It is not.

Not least because it is at least as open to corruption and politicization as any other court in the world.

As Khan may be about to show. 

Traditionally, this country has refused to accept the legitimacy of the “international” court.

And rightly so.

Back in 2002, the Bush administration saw the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (widely known as “The Hague Invasion Act”) into law.

It aimed to prevent US officials and military personnel being prosecuted by a foreign court to which the US is not a signatory. 

It was the right thing to do.

Back then there were already attempts to arrest serving American officials and former officials and drag them to The Hague.

An appalling far-left Spanish judge tried to get former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger arrested while in ­Europe.

Anti-American campaigners were also looking to get then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and any American soldiers they liked dragged to The Hague.

They failed.

The Bush administration stood up for American service personnel and rightly said no foreign court should stand as judge and jury over America’s leaders or military. 

Interestingly for the current case, the Hague Invasion Act also made clear that if any ally of the United States participated in an attempt to arrest an American or an American ally, then that country would itself be in the sights of the US.

It was the right thing to do. 

But in recent years the American tune has changed.

A number of Democrats and Republicans like Mitch McConnell have found the ICC a useful instrument against Vladimir Putin.

They have tried to ensure that Putin and his allies are someday made to pay someday for their illegal invasion of Ukraine. 

Well-intentioned though that may have been, Republicans and Democrats may soon realize what a mistake it was to even start to play footsie with the ICC. 

No chance to snare Vlad 

There never was any chance of getting Vladimir Putin to The Hague.

Does anyone imagine that the Russian dictator is simply going to offer himself up?

Do Khan and his friends have the power to walk into the Kremlin and arrest him?

Of course not.

What might have seemed a pointed, though pointless, piece of politicking may be just about to backfire. 

Because Khan and his friends look set to come for Israeli leaders first.

If they do, then mark this: having hounded a US ally first, they will come for American leaders and American military heroes next. 

In 2021, Khan replaced Fatou Bensouda of Gambia as prosecutor at the ICC.

In her post, Bensouda tried to prosecute American soldiers for “war crimes” in Afghanistan. 

The Trump administration rightly sanctioned Bensouda for daring to do such a thing.

But the current administration lifted those sanctions in 2021. 

Of course, this whole thing is a fantastic moral inversion. It is not the Israelis who are committing war crimes.

It was Hamas who committed war crimes — live on camera — on Oct. 7. 

Will Khan prosecute the leadership of Hamas?

Good luck to him if he tries.

It seems unlikely that the terrorist group will suddenly come out of their hostage-surrounded tunnels in southern Gaza or their luxury penthouses in Qatar and fly to The Hague. 

One thing you can say with confidence about Hamas is that they’re not big “laws of war” guys.

And good luck to anyone who tries a citizen’s arrest. 

Vladimir Putin will benefit from this, naturally. It would be a big win for him if he could point to the Israeli PM and say, “You see, the ICC tries to prosecute everyone.”

Such a move would also be a huge blow to all the internationalists who want to see an international court with some legitimacy. 

Khan’s move — if he goes ahead with it — would blow up this ­infant global project at its foundation, making Republicans and Democrats alike become its biggest enemies. 

And of course, such a disgraceful step would not stop the war in Gaza.

The Israeli war cabinet has made it clear they want nothing short of total victory.

That means the destruction of Hamas and the return of all remaining hostages.

If the ICC and others want to stop this war, they should focus on achieving that.

The fact they can do no such thing shows them up as the partisan eunuchs that they actually are. 

But if they try to make this move against the Israeli PM and others, Khan and the ICC won’t delegitimize Israel — as they hope.

The court will simply delegitimize itself.

And vindicate the view of patriotic Americans of both political parties that this country should have no part in the farce at The Hague.