After months of contentious debate in the global diplomatic arena, the International Criminal Court (ICC)—commonly referred to as “The Hague”—has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, charging both with war crimes. For member states of the ICC, which comprise the overwhelming majority of the global community, these two Israeli leaders are now fugitives from justice.

The global implications of this decision are significant. Only a small handful of nations reject the authority of the ICC, with China, Israel, and North Korea being the most notable. When the United States opts not to fulfill its obligations to the ICC—to arrest and extradite individuals under international warrants—it aligns itself with this group of outliers. Such a stance raises profound questions about America’s commitment to justice and the rule of law.

All of America’s closest allies, including Canada, the United Kingdom, and France, recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction and the importance of enforcing international legal norms. This holds particularly true in the prosecution of war crimes, which are the core charges in the ICC’s case against Netanyahu and Gallant. Within 48 hours of the warrants’ issuance, all but a handful of these nations, France among them—confirmed their intent to uphold their treaty obligations and arrest the Israeli leaders if they entered their jurisdictions. Notably, many of these countries are also among Israel’s most steadfast allies, underscoring America’s increasing isolation on this issue.

Binoy Kampmark writes, “On November 27, Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot had mooted the point on Franceinfo radio that France, while being ‘very committed to international justice and will apply international law based on its obligations to cooperate with the ICC,’ had to still consider the limits of the Court’s own statute, which ‘deals with questions of immunities for certain leaders.’ Giving himself room to exit a potential legal tangle, he merely left it up to “the judicial authorities to decide.’”

The U.S. response to the ICC warrants was both predictable and revealing. The Biden administration’s reaction was a muted dismissal, while more vociferous responses came from Republican lawmakers seeking to score political points. One senator even invoked the controversial Hague Invasion Act, a 2002 law officially named the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, which permits the use of military force to free Americans detained by the ICC. This legally dubious legislation passed under a Republican administration, shields U.S. personnel from ICC prosecution and authorizes the president to use “all means necessary and appropriate” to protect them.

Such a belligerent approach risks significant diplomatic fallout. The Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, binds its 124 signatories across six continents to enforce arrest warrants issued by the court. Any state failing to comply with these mandates risks violating international law. Should the United States attempt to influence or coerce ICC member states into ignoring the warrants, it would place those nations in a precarious legal position while depleting America’s political capital. With its global influence already under strain, the U.S. can scarcely afford to squander goodwill—particularly not in defense of Israeli leaders implicated in committing genocide.

The legal implications for the United States extend beyond treaty violations. Article 25 of the Rome Statute states that individuals or states aiding and abetting war crimes may be found culpable. Given America’s long-standing financial and military support for Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank, the U.S. faces an uncomfortable reality: its complicity in the very acts that prompted the ICC’s warrants is undeniable.

Historically, U.S. administrations have addressed such dilemmas by outright rejecting the ICC’s authority. Yet this tactic appears increasingly untenable. Recent global events have heightened calls for a functioning, impartial international criminal court, with polling showing unprecedented support among the global citizenry for holding even the most powerful nations accountable.

Even within the U.S., political shifts are becoming evident. Growing dissatisfaction with Washington’s unconditional support for Israel is taking root among lawmakers, particularly within the Democratic Party. A recent effort, led by Senator Bernie Sanders, sought to block the sale of tank shells, mortars, and missile kits to Israel in protest of its military operations in Gaza. While the resolution failed narrowly, the fact that 40% of Senate Democrats supported it signals a significant departure from past norms.

This growing unease reflects broader frustrations with the Netanyahu government. For years, Israel’s leadership has leveraged America’s financial and military backing while publicly rebuffing its ally on the global stage. Netanyahu’s perceived arrogance has strained even the most stalwart defenders of the U.S.-Israel relationship. For many Americans, the costs of supporting policies criticized as apartheid-like and expansionist have become increasingly difficult to justify. The ICC warrants, therefore, may offer a pivotal opportunity to redefine this fraught relationship.

Critically, America’s compliance with the ICC in this instance would not invoke the Hague Invasion Act. No American citizens would be directly impacted because Netanyahu and Gallant are foreign nationals. Even a modest gesture, such as publicly affirming that the U.S. will not shelter ICC fugitives, would send a powerful message and potentially recalibrate its relationship with Israel.

The ICC’s attempt to mitigate perceptions of bias was evident in its simultaneous issuance of an arrest warrant for a Hamas leader. While this action holds little direct relevance to the U.S.—which designates Hamas as a terrorist organization—it underscores the court’s effort to approach its mandate with even-handedness. Nonetheless, the primary focus for Washington remains the Netanyahu and Gallant warrants and the broader implications of supporting or opposing them.

For America, the ICC’s decision represents more than a legal or diplomatic dilemma—it is a moment of reckoning. The court’s actions could allow the United States to break from its past pattern of shielding Israel from accountability and align itself more closely with its allies and international law. By choosing to embrace this moment, the U.S. could not only help end a devastating and widely condemned conflict but also begin to repair the global resentment its policies have engendered. Whether the nation seizes this opportunity will ultimately determine its ability to uphold the principles it often espouses.