Reading the statement by Karim Khan, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in the Hague, calling to arrest top Hamas and Israeli leaders is physically dizzying. It is at once a terrible reliving of the cruel events of this war, and a forced confrontation with atrocities that “my” side (whichever you’re on) is committing. It is a soaring, noble effort to constrain them, but one that seems just as likely to fail.

If the court issues those warrants, three Hamas leaders, Yahya Sinwar, Muhammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, run the risk of being arrested in any of the 124 countries who are parties to the 1998 Rome Statute that established the ICC. Customary international law allows diplomatic immunity for top national leaders, but they shouldn’t count on it – there are legal precedents for the court overriding such immunity.

The ICC is one of the world’s most audacious experiments: Creating a universal standard of law to constrain the equally universal barbarism of war. The project has been dogged by accusations of the politicization of justice for years, and the court perennially struggles for legitimacy.

But calling to arrest both Hamas and Israeli leaders has tremendous significance for the parties involved – and possibly for the court’s own global standing.

That’s because Khan presents unrelenting allegations against both sides, not as artificial both-siderism, but out of commitment to the law. It is the first call to arrest leaders backed by major Western powers. And along the way, the text renders subtle judgment on some of the painful public debates on this issue.

For example, the statement, which starts with accusations against Hamas, cleanly dispenses with the bizarre public inquisition against the C-word. Hamas’ alleged war crimes “were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas.”

Issue closed: Of course there is a context, and it is no excuse for atrocities, full stop.

Specifying that there is an international armed conflict is also important. For the Court, Palestine is a state, recognized by the UN as a non-member observer state in 2012, which allowed Palestine to accede to the Rome Statute in 2015. It’s a good reminder that foreign involvement is not a violation of Israel’s sovereignty but a legitimate matter for the international community.

Denialists of sexual violence can crawl back into whatever dark moral void they came from. Like the exhaustive media, civil society, and UN investigations, Khan, too, found sufficient evidence to accuse Hamas of committing these crimes – which are probably ongoing against hostages.

The court called on Hamas to release the hostages immediately, as “a fundamental requirement of international humanitarian law.”

And the top charge among eight different accusations against Hamas was “extermination as a crime against humanity.” The whole list is a horrifying replay of October 7 itself: murder, hostage taking, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture.

Starting with Hamas might have reflected merely the chronology of the current war. But it could inject “Team Israel” readers with a sense of vindication – perhaps the court hoped for inoculation – for the charges against Israel.

These charges are devastating: starvation as a method of war, a war crime. Israel is accused of intentionally attacking a civilian population. And fifth on the list: “extermination and/or murder…as a crime against humanity,” followed by two additional crimes against humanity.

The court also bluntly observed that “Famine is present in some areas of Gaza and is imminent in other areas.” This is a reminder that Israeli denialism must vanish forever.

The prosecutor also made the unforgiving distinction between self-defense, war and war crimes:

“Israel, like all States, has a right to... defend its population. That right, however, does not absolve Israel... of its obligation to comply with international humanitarian law... intentionally causing death, starvation, great suffering, and serious injury to body or health of the civilian population – [is] criminal.”

Beyond the content, Khan noted that his office “worked painstakingly to separate claims from facts and to soberly present conclusions,” and he leaned on a panel of international law luminaries. Among them is the nonagenarian jurist Theodor Meron – the Israeli (in addition to other nationalities) who first warned the Israeli government back in 1967 that civilian settlements in occupied territory would violate international law – when they were still just an idea.

The Prosecutor’s earnest efforts will never be enough. Everywhere international courts rule on such cases, the side on the dock feels persecuted, victims feel their perpetrators got off too lightly, and everyone blames the court. But in this case, no one even waited for verdicts.

A dozen GOP Senators already issued Tony Soprano-like threats to the court weeks ago:

“Target Israel and we will target you... we will move to end all American support for the ICC, sanction your employees...bar you and your families from the United States. You have been warned.”

Among apoplectic Israeli leaders, the Nazi-accusations runneth over, as do their attacks on international justice altogether, from Smotrich to the president, Isaac Herzog.

The ICC might have lost Israel forever. But the court seeks and pursues justice as the Bible commands. If this doesn’t destroy it, the court may win a second chance from the rest of the world.

Dahlia Scheindlin