From the New York Times, I'm Sabrina Tavernisi, and this is the daily. Earlier this week, the top prosecutor of the international criminal court requested arrest warrants for Israel's prime minister and its defense minister. The move shocked Israelis and set up a possible showdown between the world's top criminal court and Israel, together with its biggest ally, the United States. Today, my colleague, Jerusalem bureau chief Patrick Kingsley, explains. It's Thursday, May 23. So, Patrick, earlier this week, there was.

A pretty surprising announcement by the International Criminal Court in the Hague. It had to do with Israel and Hamas.

Tell us what happened.

Well, on Monday morning, we were all taken by surprise by an announcement from the chief prosecutor at the ICC, the International Criminal court, the top criminal court in the world. It tries individuals accused of war crimes. And the chief prosecutor announced that he was requesting arrest warrants for five individuals involved in the war between Israel and Hamas for crimes against humanity. Three of them were from Hamas. Yahya Sinwar, the head of Hamas within Gaza, the Hamas military commander, and the political leader of Hamas, who's based in Qatar. But maybe the biggest news in this announcement was that the chief prosecutor was seeking the arrest of two of Israel's top leaders, Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, and Joav Gallant, the defense minister. And this was a massive bombshell. These two men are leaders from a major us ally. They're in regular contact with the us government, and they were being implicitly equated with the three top leaders of an organization, Hamas, that many consider a terrorist organization. And this equation sent shockwaves through israeli society and indeed, around the world.

So this is absolutely remarkable, Patrick. I mean, I, for one, was quite surprised by seeing this. I wanna dig into it with you. So who is this prosecutor behind these requests for these warrants? And how did he reach this decision to go for them in the first place?

So, the prosecutor's name is Karim Khan, and he is a british lawyer, a british barrister. He is 54. He's led a very impressive career. He has spent years working on human rights cases, both defending people and also prosecuting in such cases. He was involved in tribunals related to the wars surrounding the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda. He investigated Islamic State crimes in Iraq. And in 2021, he is appointed the top prosecutor at the ICC.

And what are his responsibilities as top prosecutor?

Well, it's his job to travel the world and investigate allegations of human rights abuses, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and in the process, plays a key role in deciding who gets prosecuted at the International Criminal Court, the ICC. And the ICC prosecutor investigates and tries people who would not be pursued by the judicial system within their countries of origin. It steps in when it seems like the domestic authorities in any given country are not doing their job. And last year, he famously went after President Putin in Russia in connection with the war in Ukraine.

So at what point did this prosecutor, Karim Khan turn his attention to Israel in Gaza?

Well, he actually inherits an investigation from his predecessor that's looking at Israel's conduct and also that of Hamas during a previous war in 2014 between the two sides. But then that gets superseded on October 7 by the horrors that we saw that day committed by Hamas and then by the scale and damage caused by Israel's bombing campaign in its counterattack. And we begin to see not only revulsion and horror at what Hamas had done in early October, but also growing criticism and condemnation of what Israel and its air force did in its response. You'll remember that earlier this year, the International Court of Justice, a separate court, also in the Hague, began to address claims that Israel was and is committing a genocide in Gaza, a claim that Israel strongly denies.

Right, that was the case that South Africa brought. We did an episode about that.

Yes, exactly. So as the world's attention focuses on this new conflict, so does Karim Khans. Also today, the International Criminal Courts chief prosecutor, Karim Khan QC, has wrapped up.

A visit to Israel and the occupied West Bank.

Khan has visited the region to investigate.

If war crimes were committed.

We start to see him arrive in Israel, visiting some of the sites that Hamas attacked last year, talking to survivors, talking to leaders, reviewing security camera footage, and so on.

I have just come from the border of the Rafa crossing, and we could see Gaza. At least we could see cranes that were on the territory of Gaza.

He also visited the Rafa crossing between Egypt and Gaza. Talks to Palestinians at the Ministry of Justice in Ramallah. The chief prosecutor of the world's highest court. He goes to the israeli occupied West bank, to Ramallah, where the Palestinian Authority is based, building up evidence that led to this announcement on Monday.

Today, I am filing applications for warrants of arrest before pretrial chamber, one of the International Criminal Court, and he makes.

This very dramatic announcement in a video.

My office has diligently collected evidence and interviewed survivors and eyewitnesses at the scene of at least six major attack locations.

Flanked on each side by two of his deputies.

I have reasonable grounds to believe that three senior leaders of Hamas, Yahya Sinwa, Mohammed Daeef and Ishmael Hania, bear criminal responsibility for the following international crimes and.

The accusations that he makes against the three Hamas leaders focus on the violent actions that Hamas took on October 7.

Extermination as a crime against humanity, murder as a crime against humanity.

And he walked through a long list of charges stemming from the war crime, extraordinary violence during that attack, the taking.

Of hostages as a war crime, rape and other acts of sexual violence during captivity.

And he says there are reasonable grounds to believe that hostages taken from Israel have been subject to sexual violence, including rape, while being held in captivity. And he cites assessment of medical records, video and documentary evidence, as well as interviews with victims and survivors.

And I repeat and underline my call for the immediate release of all hostages taken from Israel and for their immediate safe return to their families.

So this prosecutor sees the atrocities on October 7, and then what followed with Hamas taking the hostages, abusing them as crimes against humanity. Thats what it amounted to, in his view.

Exactly.

And what about the charges against the Israelis?

These are slightly different.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Yoav Galant bear criminal responsibility for the following international crimes obviously, a.

Lot of the outcry and horror at the war in Gaza has centered around Israel's airstrikes that have killed tens of thousands of Gazans. But Karim Khan focuses not on the military actions of Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his defense minister, but on the.

Accusation of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.

Starvation the idea that Israel has allegedly sought to restrict and block aid deliveries, food supplies to Gaza, with the intent to starve the civilian population there, these.

Individuals, through a common plan, have systematically deprived the civilian population of Gaza of objects indispensable to human survival.

And that's primarily based on the fact that for the first two weeks of the war, until October 21 or so, Israel blocked all aid entry to Gaza after Joab Gallant, the defense minister, one of these two Israelis whose arrests, Mister Khan Sikhs, said that he was imposing a total siege on Gaza, no food, no fuel, no electricity. And while that total siege was eased towards the end of October, Khan also notes that there have been continuing restrictions on essential supplies like food and medicine.

Ever since that conduct took place, alongside attacks that killed civilians, the obstruction of aid delivery by humanitarian organizations, and attacks on aid workers that forced many of those same humanitarian organizations to either cease operations or limit their life saving efforts in Gaza.

The implication is that the famine that he says is present in some areas of Gaza and imminent in other areas, is in part the responsibility of Netanyahu.

And Galland that starvation has caused and continues to cause deaths, malnutrition, dehydration and profound suffering among the population. My office charges Netanyahu and Galant as co perpetrators and as superiors in the commission of these alleged crimes.

Why is the focus of these charges starvation? I mean, given that the airstrikes, as you say, were in many ways really the focus of this war and certainly the focus of the world's attention on this war, the civilian deaths from the military operation, why starvation?

Karim Khan does not explain why he focuses on starvation rather than Israel's military tactics, which he mentions only in passing. But legal experts have said that it's easier to prove that starvation was used as a method of warfare than it is to prove that there have been any specific crimes involved in any specific airstrikes. And that's because under the rules of war and international law, it's not necessarily illegal in and of itself to kill civilians during wartime. If a military assesses, with the help of military lawyers, that the likely civilian death toll caused by that strike is proportional to the value of the military target, then that in many cases will be in accordance with the rules of war. If a military can prove that sense of proportionality, then it's actually quite hard to prove that there was any crime committed in the process.

So in other words, military actions are often weighed quite carefully. In the case of, say, a modern military like Israel's or the United States, there are lawyers that look at these things. It's not necessarily so easy to prove that something was disproportionate and should be considered a crime.

Exactly. Whereas with a crime of starvation, legal experts say that it's potentially easier to prove that there was some wrongdoing there, because Yoav Galland, the israeli defense minister, went on record in a public statement, and he announced that there would be a total siege on the territory of Gaza. And that was followed by an action, the action of closing off Gaza's borders for the next two weeks, and no aid was allowed in during that time. There were restrictions on electricity, water, fuel, as well as food. And that's why legal experts think that Karim Khan has gone after Israel with the crime of starvation rather than focusing on their military operations.

But I suppose just thinking about our coverage, Patrick, and the conversations you and I have had, famine and starvation and a civilian population in extreme distress, trapped in a small piece of territory, is also not a small thing. Right. That is also something that makes sense that the court would be considering.

Absolutely. It's a huge thing. People don't have to be hit by an airstrike to be living through an absolutely catastrophic situation so these charges really.

Seem to spell bad news for Israel and for these two israeli leaders, Netanyahu and Gallant. And it's remarkable because these are men who, as you say, are some of America's closest allies. I mean, they're, you know, at the Pentagon, they're having meetings with President Biden, and now the chief prosecutor of the ICC is saying that they are war criminals.

Yes, it is a very dramatic moment in the view of some people, a turning point. And certainly we can say that it is one of the harshest rebukes of Israel's wartime conduct since October 7. But within Israel, there's been a very different reaction. And it's not all bad news for Benjamin Netanyahu.

We'll be right back.

My name is Abdi Lateef Dahir. I'm the East Africa correspondent at the New York Times. Speaking to someone in their own local language opens up a level of honesty and transparency that would not be present when I speak to somebody in English. When I come into someone's home and greet them in Somali or Swahili, you know, like habari or habari Zeno. It brings you into the room. I understand the culture you're coming from, and I'm speaking to you in the language that you understand that level of familiarity. I use that to really get deeper into what's going on. What I'm trying to do is help our readers understand what's happening here in East Africa and see how it plays a role in the bigger picture. New York Times subscribers keep our journalist reporting from across the map to help you understand the issues shaping our world. If you would like to subscribe, you could do that@nytimes.com. subscribe.

So, Patrick, what do Israelis make of this announcement?

Within Israel, the reaction has been very different. Whether its Netanyahus allies or his critics, there has been almost uniform outrage that the prosecutor for the ICC would make these accusations. And it means that at a time of rising domestic criticism of Prime Minister Netanyahu across the political spectrum, with only a very few exceptions, everyone has rallied behind Netanyahu and Gallant, despite the fact that Netanyahu is increasingly unpopular. And even within his own government, there have been growing criticism of his wartime strategy. For example, just two days before the prosecutor's announcement, one of the senior members of his own wartime cabinet, Benny Gantz, issued Netanyahu with an ultimatum, warning him that he would quit the government if he did not spell out a plan for a post war Gaza. Then suddenly, the announcement comes from Karim Khan that Ethni Ahu and Galland are under investigation. And Gantz is one of the first to come out with a condemnation of Karim Khan and a defense of the israeli government. That is the clearest example of how even critics of Netanyahu, who have fallen in line, circled the wagons and presented a united front.

This is really interesting. So this action by the prosecutor has kind of had the effect of actually closing divisions that were starting to appear peer in israeli society, effectively bringing Netanyahu's critics kind of back into his camp, or at least making it harder to criticize him.

Exactly. And Israelis in general feel that Israel has always been targeted unfairly, held to a higher standard than many other countries, and that this is, once again another example of that, another example of Israel being accused of things that other countries do but get away with. And there have been, broadly, three criticisms from the Israelis of the ICC prosecutor. First, the israeli claim is that the ICC prosecutor is making a horrible false equivalence between Hamas, the terrorist organization, and Israel, a democratic state. Hamas raided Israel and launched the bloodiest attack on Jews in a single day since the Holocaust. Israel, in the eyes of Israelis, is fighting a righteous response to protect their citizens and to win back the liberty of the hostages that were captured on October 7.

This guy is out to demonize Israel. Hes doing a hijab.

And Netanyahu himself articulated some of the clearest versions of this argument when he went on american television.

He's creating false symmetry, false facts, and he's doing a grave injustice to the international court.

And he called Khan's decision an effort to demonize Israel and to hold it to far higher standards than any other country. He said it would have been as if after 911.

That's like saying, after 911, well, I'm issuing arrest warrants for George Bush, but also for bin Laden.

Arrest warrants had been issued for both Osama bin Laden and George Bush.

Or after, in World War Two, well, I'm issuing arrest warrants for FDR, but also for Hitler. It's a hijab. It's not serious. He's out to defame Israel, and he's also pouring gasoline.

The second criticism from Israelis has been about processing the ICC was created about two decades ago by a treaty. More than 120 countries have signed that treaty, but Israel has not. And Israel contends that the prosecutor doesn't have the authority, therefore, to go after israeli political leaders. Israelis also say that Khan didn't spend enough time assessing whether Israel was itself investigating these allegations within its own judicial system. Remember that the ICC is a court of last resort. It's only supposed to intervene when a domestic judicial system is generally not making any effort to investigate an alleged crime. And Israelis are saying that Khan didn't spend enough time investigating Gallin Netanyahu. The ICC prosecutors have spent ten years investigating alleged crimes committed during a previous war between Israel and Hamas, but this decision has been issued within just a few months. And Israelis are saying that Khan jumped the gun in that sense.

So the Israelis are saying, look, we're trying to get to it, but you just didn't give us enough time.

Exactly. And they've even said that Khan's team was supposed to be coming this very week to continue that conversation and assess whether Israel was genuinely looking into these allegations by itself and that they misled Israel by pretending that they would be making that assessment when in fact, all along they were planning to request arrest warrants.

Interesting. So for israeli officials, they're seeing it.

As a kind of activist thing as.

Opposed to a neutral judicial decision.

That's their claim, at least the prosecutor's office says that they have tried to sincerely engage with Israel on this issue, but that it's become clear to them that Israel does not seriously investigate this kind of crime.

So you said there are three elements to this.

What's the last?

The third and last element is on the content of the claim itself. Israel flatly denies that it is responsible for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. It even denies that there is a famine or that the situation is on the point of a famine. It points out all the ways in which it has worked to get much more aid into Gaza since October, including opening more crossings, allowing the US to create a pier on the shoreline of Gaza. It's allowed some countries to airdrop aid. And certainly the amount of aid that has gone in in recent months has dwarfed the amount that was going in in October and November. And while it accepts that its soldiers have obstructed and at times even killed aid workers, it says that that obscures the fact that it coordinates every day in detail with aid groups to facilitate thousands of aid missions every month.

Isnt Israel's argument that these shipments could also include things that could be very useful for Hamas, the group that just killed 1200 of its citizens?

Exactly. No one's disputing, least of all Israel, that israeli officials are examining all the aid going into Gaza. The dispute is about whether that's necessary. Israel says it is. It says that if it didn't check, then some of these aid convoys might be smuggling in weapons or material that could be used to fight Israel, to kill israeli civilians, and that therefore, Israel has no choice but to examine some of these goods going in. Again, the counterargument is that Israel's checks are far more stringent than they need to be and end up preventing the entry of everyday items that pose no military threat.

Okay, so that's the israeli perspective.

How does the United States see the prosecutor's request here? I mean, the US, obviously, Israel's biggest ally.

Well, the american president, President Biden, condemned it in no uncertain terms. He said the prosecutor's decision was outrageous, and he condemned him for drawing an implicit equivalence between Hamas and the leaders of the state of Israel.

And why did Biden come out so strongly against the prosecutor? We know that humanitarian aid has been a major concern for this administration. So why would Biden be so opposed to something that really is calling out Israel for this aid?

First of all, because Israel is a major ally of the United States, and the United States wants to show support for its ally. Second of all, they fear that this kind of criticism, this kind of intervention, will actually make Israel less, rather than more likely to bring the war to a halt, because the feeling is that it will make Israel more defensive and in turn, batten down the hatches. The third reason is that the United States historically, has never been a particular fan of the international criminal court. We mentioned earlier that Israel did not sign the treaty that created the ICC. Well, the United States did not do that either. And that's in part because american leaders fear that having an international global court undermines american sovereignty. They think it's the role of the american judicial system to investigate american citizens. And there is a fear that with the United States so active militarily in many parts of the world, that membership of the court involvement in the court could pave the way for american soldiers being tried for acting on behalf of the United States. And that could somehow dent american foreign policy goals across the world.

Okay, so the United States doesn't really like this court. You know, has troops in a lot of places, doesn't want a court swooping in and prosecuting them when something goes wrong. But I guess the question then, in my mind, Patrick, is, does what this prosecutor is doing matter? I mean, America is not a signatory. Israel is not a signatory. So why is this important?

Well, for the time being, its meaning is more symbolic than anything else. First, Karim Khan has not issued an arrest warrant. He has requested an arrest warrant for these five people. And three judges will now spend weeks and possibly months deciding whether to uphold those requests. That process can be less than a month. In the case of Vladimir Putin, it was just shy of a month. President Bashir of Sudan was issued with a warrant. The process took roughly a year. When and if they do do that, however, there will be practical effects. If an arrest warrant is issued, it means that any country that's a member of the international criminal court, in theory, should arrest any of these individuals if they enter their territory. That includes more than 120 countries all over the world, much of Europe, Latin America, Africa, and so on. Yes, it's true that the United States and Israel are not signatories, and neither a Turkey or Qatar, two of the countries where Hamas officials spend much of their time when they're outside Gaza. So there will still be places for officials on either side of these accusations to travel to. But there are lots of other countries, like France, Italy, both places where Benjamin Netanyahu traveled in the past year, where, in theory, they will not be able to set foot.

So the negotiations over the war can still continue. But if Netanyahu travels to France or to Italy, he could be arrested, which is pretty wild.

Yes. At least that's the theory, that national authorities in any given country still have to make a choice about whether they want to follow through with it.

But would those countries perhaps not arrest him out of deference to the United States?

I think the expectation is that if we got into this scenario, then someone like Netanyahu simply just wouldn't travel to such a country. But the truth is we just don't really know. We are entering uncharted waters.

So this is really isolating Netanyahu in the world, should it go forward?

Yes, isolating Netanyahu and to some extent, Israel itself. And it has not just practical implications for the physical movement of Netanyahu and his defense minister, gallant, but it also compounds Israel's relationship with foreign allies. It complicates Israel's ability to arm itself. More countries may grow more unwilling to sell Israel arms, or at least they'll face growing pressure because of this decision not to do so. And it also could force the country to become ever more reliant on the United States as it becomes more of a pariah over its actions in Gaza.

Which, of course, puts the United States in an even trickier position with an ally whos been pretty hard to be friends with of late.

Right. And in truth, while the practical consequences of this move are still unknown, they do in general compound the sense that Israel is facing more and more diplomatic consequences for its actions. More than a decade ago, a former israeli prime minister warned that Israel would face what he called a diplomatic tsunami if its conflict with the Palestinians went unresolved, and its possible that years later were starting to finally see what he meant. Israel does still have its supporters, many of them, but we're also now seeing during this war a level of criticism that goes above and beyond the kind that we've grown used to seeing directed at Israel over the years. In addition to the warrant requests we've seen this week, we've obviously had an extraordinary wave of protests on american campuses and elsewhere in the world. And early this year, we had a watershed moment when the International Court of Justice began hearing accusations of genocide against Israel. And this week, several european countries recognized Palestine as a state.

Wow.

So if the tsunami hasn't yet arrived, we can at least say that the waves are getting stronger.

Patrick, thank you.

Thank you.

On Wednesday, the leaders of Spain, Norway and Ireland announced that they would recognize an independent palestinian state. The move was largely symbolic, but raised the concern that if neighboring countries followed their lead, Europe could become a counterweight to the american position that statehood for Palestinians should come only from a negotiated settlement with Israel. Well be right back. Here's what else you should know today. Nikki Haley, the former United nations ambassador who dropped her republican presidential bid in March, said on Wednesday that she would vote for Donald Trump but stopped short of officially endorsing him. Hailey was Trump's longest standing rival in the 2024 primary contest and had carved out an important lane for herself as the voice for voters looking for an alternative to the former president. Her decision on whether to endorse him could play a pivotal role in the race. Hailey has built a formidable network of high dollar donors and a solid base of college educated voters that Trump needs to win. And the city of Uvalde, Texas has reached a settlement with most of the families of children who were shot by a gunman at Robb Elementary School in 2022. To avert a lawsuit, the city promised to overhaul the citys police force, create a permanent memorial to the victims, and pay $2 million.

Todays episode was produced by Will Reed and Diana Wynn with help from Shannon Lin. It was edited by Liz Obalen with help from Michael Benoit, contains original music by Alicia Vayetub, Marianne Lozano, and Pat McCusker, and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk. Of wonderly. That's it for the daily I'm Sabrina Tavernisi. See you tomorrow.