The Dictatorship
Democrats and Republicans offer hypocritical response to ICC’s Netanyahu arrest warrant
This is an adapted excerpt from the Nov. 23 episode of “Ayman.”
For the first time in history, the International Criminal Court issued landmark arrest warrants against a major ally of the United States. On Thursday, the ICC issued warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, along with Hamas military leader, Mohammed Deif. (Israel has said it killed Deif earlier this year.)
The world’s highest criminal court, which is made up of 124 countries — including all 27 members of the European Union — is now saying that if Netanyahu or Gallant set foot on the territory of a state party, that state party has an obligation to arrest them and transfer them to the Hague.
The jurisdiction of the ICC extends beyond member states and its word carries tremendous weight.
It’s worth noting that the U.S., despite playing a critical role in establishing and operating the United Nations War Crimes Commission, the World War II tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo, and more recent international tribunals, is not a signatory to the ICC. Neither is Israel.But the jurisdiction of the ICC extends beyond member states and its word carries tremendous weight. The language in Thursday’s ruling is devastating. The warrants state that Netanyahu and Gallant bear responsibility for “the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts,” as well as “the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.”
No one who has closely followed this war over the past 14 months would be surprised by these charges, especially that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. Multiple human rights organizations and aid groups have been sounding this alarm from the beginning.
But there’s more obvious proof that, as the ICC states, Israel “knowingly deprived the civilian population” of food, water, medicine and other medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity — they said they would.
Two days after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel that killed more than 1,200 people, then-Israel Defense Minister Gallant announced to the world a “complete siege” of the Gaza Strip that would allow no food, water, electricity or fuel to 2.3 million Gaza residents. That means Israel’s leaders essentially announced last October that they would do what the ICC just filed arrest warrants for them doing.
In a press release outlining its arrest warrantsthe ICC said there are “reasonable grounds” to believe Netanyahu and Gallant “intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity.”
As expected, Netanyahu denounced the court’s announcement and claimed that it was antisemitic. Former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth responded to that accusation on X, writing: “Netanyahu cheapens the concept of antisemitism to try to save himself. At a point when Jews around the world need to rally support against antisemitism, Netanyahu throws them under the bus by equating antisemitism with criticism of his own war crimes.”
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz wrote that “Netanyahu Brought the ICC Ruling on Himself and Now He’s Whining About Antisemitism.”
But how the international community has reacted is also critical in all this. The European Union’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said that all E.U. member states should respect the court’s decision and implement it. Nations including France, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Canada and South Africa all said they would meet their commitments under international law.But how did the United States — the country at the center of the rules-based international order that it helped build in its image, the country whose current president, after four years of Donald Trump turning away from that international order, pledged to put human rights at the center of U.S. foreign policy — react?
By slamming the court and calling its ruling “outrageous.” In a statement, President Joe Biden said the U.S. would “always stand with Israel against threats to its security.”
Threats to its security? Netanyahu and Gallant are being charged with using starvation as a weapon of war, not with defending itself. They’re being charged with doing what Gallant publicly announced they would do. Biden knows all about Israel restricting aid to Gaza; he built a $230 million pier off of Gaza’s coast because of it — a pier that collapsed faster than American credibility on the international stage.
The charges also include “crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.” One recent study from Oxfam found that more women and children were killed in Gaza by the Israeli military in one year than in any other conflict in decades, including Russia’s devastation of Ukraine.
Make no mistake, the hypocrisy and depravity here is bipartisan.
It’s worth remembering how Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken reacted when the ICC charged Vladimir Putin with war crimes in 2023. The president and the secretary of state welcomed those charges and urged the international community to comply with them.But make no mistake, the hypocrisy and depravity here is bipartisan. Last March, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, called the ICC arrest warrant for Putin “a giant step in the right direction for the international community.” But on Thursday, Graham called the ICC a “rogue and politically motivated organization.” And on Friday, he threatened to impose sanctions on any U.S. ally that enforces the warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant.
The hypocrisy even turned to hostility for fellow Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, of Arkansas. “The ICC is a kangaroo court and Karim Khan is a deranged fanatic,” Cotton wrote on X, referring to the ICC prosecutor. “Woe to him and anyone who tries to enforce these outlaw warrants. Let me give them all a friendly reminder: the American law on the ICC is known as The Hague Invasion Act for a reason. Think about it.”
Yes, think about that: A prominent Republican senator and ally of Trump threatening military action against the International Criminal Court in order to defend American-funded alleged war criminals.
In 2020, Biden campaigned on restoring America’s standing in the world and respecting international norms and his administration promised to champion human rights. The actions of this past week alone have put an exclamation point on his failure to do so. It’s also exposed American hypocrisy and its weakened influence in the world. And soon Biden will hand the keys to the White House to Trump, a man who has said he wants to end the Israel-Gaza war but makes no promises about human rights or international norms, and brings along a threat of more fire and fury.
Allison Detzel contributed.
The Dictatorship
Trump says Iran deal should include additional countries joining Abraham Accords
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military said Monday that it carried out “self-defense” strikes in southern Iran, including on missile launch sites and boats placing mines, even as President Donald Trump said on social media that negotiations with Tehran were “proceeding nicely.”
The strikes were done “to protect our troops from threats posed by Iranian forces,” but the military was “using restraint during the ongoing ceasefire,” Capt. Tim Hawkins, the spokesman for the U.S. military’s Central Command, said in a statement.
Further details were not immediately available, including more specifics on the threats from Iran and what this means for negotiations. There was no official response from Iran, which had sent its parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf to Qatar for negotiations over the possible deal with the U.S.
Qatar, which faced intense attacks from Iran during the war, holds billions of dollars in frozen Iranian funds.
In Iran, the news website Tabnak, believed to be close to former Revolutionary Guard chief Mohsen Rezaei, identified four dead Guard troops it said had been killed in American strikes on boats. Iranian state television separately reported blasts around Bandar Abbas, a city on the Strait of Hormuz home to a military port and a dual-use airport.
The strikes were the latest attacks to shake the weekslong ceasefire in the war. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of all crude oil and natural gas traded once passed, remains effectively in Iran’s chokehold, disrupting global energy markets.
Trump brings up recognition of Israel
Earlier, Trump said any agreement to end the Iran war should include a requirement for several additional countries, including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, to join the Abraham Accordsthe U.S.-brokered agreements from Trump’s first term aimed at normalizing relations with Israel.
The proposal came as the emerging Iran deal faced criticism from fellow Republicans who favor a harder line on Iran, and it could add new diplomatic complications to the negotiations.
Trump pointed to Saudi Arabia and Qatar as countries that should “immediately” sign on. Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates became the first countries to join in 2020, diplomatically recognizing Israel.
He wrote that “after all the work done by the United States to try and pull this very complex puzzle together, it should be mandatory that all of these Countries, at a minimum, simultaneously, sign onto the Abraham Accords.”
Trump has long hoped Saudi Arabia would join. Saudi Arabia in particular has for decades called on Israel to return to its 1967 borders and allow the formation of a Palestinian nation with east Jerusalem as its capital. Israel’s conduct in the war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip also has alienated Gulf Arab states and the wider Muslim world as well.
Pakistan remains key mediator
Recognition of a Palestinian state also remains key for Pakistan, which is among the countries that do not have diplomatic relations with Israel.
Islamabad-based analyst Syed Mohammad Ali said Pakistan’s position on Israel remains unchanged despite Trump’s latest proposal.
The president said he brought up the Abraham Accords plan with leaders during negotiations on Saturday. He said he would accept “one or two” countries declining to sign, but said most should be willing. Egypt and Jordan already formally recognize Israel and have long-standing peace treaties. Turkey first recognized Israel in 1949.
Masood Khan, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States, said it remains to be seen how workable the proposal might be for the countries on Trump’s list.
“The invocation of the Abraham Accords at this stage gives an altogether new dimension to the diplomatic and mediatory processes because this issue was not on the agenda,” he said, pointing to the domestic pressure Trump is facing to strike a favorable deal.
Still, Khan said, “the diplomatic track is still working, and I believe Pakistan is very much at the center of it, supported by regional countries.”
It remains unclear when or how any deal with Iran might be completed. Trump suggested even Iran could eventually sign on to the accords, if an agreement is reached.
The accords are a series of diplomatic, economic and security agreements created with U.S. influence during Trump’s first term, which also saw Sudan, Morocco, and, more recently, Kazakhstanjoin.
___
Ahmed reported from Islamabad. Associated Press writer Jon Gambrell in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, contributed to this report.
The Dictatorship
Rep. Menefee defeats longtime Rep. Green in Texas Democratic House runoff shaped by redistricting
Rep. Christian Menefee, D-Texas, defeated veteran Democratic Rep. Al Green in Tuesday’s runofffor Texas’ 18th Congressional District, according to the Associated Press.
Menefee, 37, prevailed in a high-profile incumbent versus incumbent showdown created by Republican-led redistricting that placed the two Democrats in the same heavily Democratic Houston-area district.
The runoff was forced after neither Green nor Menefee secured more than 50% of the vote in the March Democratic primary. Menefee’s victory ends Green’s more than two decades in Congress and signals a generational shift in Houston-area Democratic politics.
Menefee emerged as one of Texas Democrats’ rising stars before launching his congressional bid. He became Harris County attorney in 2021, making history as the youngest person and first Black person elected to the position.
As county attorney, Menefee gained attention for legal battles against Republican state officials and outspoken opposition to conservative policies advanced by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Menefee first won the congressional seat earlier this year in a special election held after the death of former Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, who briefly represented the district following the death of longtime Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee in 2024.
The race was largely viewed as a test of whether younger Democratic voters were ready to move on from longtime party figures.
Green, 78, represented the Houston-based 9th Congressional District for more than two decades. He built a national profile as one of Congress’ most outspoken liberals and an early advocate for impeaching President Donald Trump during his first presidential term. Before Congress, Green spent years as a Harris County justice of the peace and became a prominent figure in Houston civil rights and Democratic politics.
But Menefee capitalized on growing calls for generational change and strong support among younger demographics and newer Democratic activists in the Houston area.
The race exposed generational divides within Houston-area Democratic politics. Menefee performed strongly with younger voters and in parts of Harris County during the March primary, while Green maintained support among older Black voters and longtime Democratic constituencies.
Polling leading into the runoff suggested a highly competitive race, with Menefee appearing to gain momentumin the final weeks.
Menefee is expected to easily hold the safely Democratic seat in November.
The contest marked the latest chapter in a turbulent period for the district, which has seen multiple elections in less than a year following the deaths of Jackson Leeand her successor, Turner.
Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.
The Dictatorship
Trump wants to expand the Abraham Accords. It could sink a deal to end the Iran war.
ByDaniel R. DePetris
For President Trump, negotiating an end to the war with Iran has proven to be the most difficult endeavor of his second term. U.S. and Iranian officials continue to work to clinch an agreement that would trade a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz for an end to the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports and a suspension of the war over a 60-day time period, during which detailed talks on Tehran’s nuclear program could be hashed out.
While the overall concept of a framework agreement is soundthe details, including how much of Iran’s frozen assets will be unblocked and when they will be released, remain sources of contention. The U.S. defensive strikes against Iranian boats and missile batteries — in what the Trump administration has called retaliation for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ attempted mining of the strategic chokepoint — have only added to the complications.
Trump, however, is keen to make the entire diplomatic process even more laborious. He wants a more historic outcome: ending the conflict, severely constraining Iran’s nuclear capabilities and expanding the Abraham Accordshis first-term project that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states. In a May 25 Truth Social postTrump made those ambitions clear. After speaking with the leaders of the Gulf States, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan, Trump wrote, “It should be mandatory” for all these countries to sign on to an updated version of the accords.

When Trump brought up the idea during his conference call, an uncomfortable silencelingered in the air. Saudi Arabia reaffirmed its position that normalization with Israel was impossible until the Palestinians were offered an “irreversible pathway” to statehood. The Pakistanis were even more empathic in their resistanceto the proposal. Qatar, which was on the receiving end of an Israeli airstrike last September, rejected it as well.
Surely none of this should be a surprise to Trump. The Middle East of 2026 is a lot different than the Middle East of 2020, when the accords were consummated. Back then, a growing number of Gulf Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, were not actively exploring the prospect of normalization. Israel was viewed not only as an established power in its own right, but also a beacon of entrepreneurship and the epitome of a startup nation. Israel also shared a mutual adversary in Iran, whose regional proxies militias and nuclear program were a constant cause for concern.
The Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks against Israel, and Israel’s subsequent two-year military campaign in Gaza, changed those calculations virtually overnight.
The Middle East of 2026 is a lot different than the Middle East of 2020, when the accords were consummated.
Before Oct. 7, Israeli and Saudi officials were working through the United States, then led by the Biden administration, to establish formal relations with each other. Then-President Joe Biden was so enamored about a possible Israel-Saudi normalization pact that he was willing to offer Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman — the very man he called a pariah during the 2020 presidential campaign — the kinds of U.S. defense guarantees that past Saudi royals could only dream of.
Once the war in Gaza was underway, however, the Saudis changed their tune. The Saudi political and security establishment increasingly viewed formal relations with Israel as not only inappropriate at a time when Israeli bombs were killing hundreds of Palestinian civilians every week, but also potentially dangerous to the Saudis’ internal stability. They may very well have been right: the Saudi public was highly opposed to normalization, and the fact that Gaza was becoming a wasteland of despair and destitution appeared to dissuade the crown prince from being willing to manage the negative domestic politics associated with such a move. Plus, the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear program in June 2025, coupled with Hezbollah’s growing weakness in Lebanon, Bashar Assad’s collapse in Syria a year earlier and Riyadh’s decision to explore detente with Tehran meant the Saudi government no longer saw Iran the same way it did years earlier.
As long as Israel continues to occupy more than half of Gaza and a significant portion of southern Lebanon, it is highly likely Saudi Arabia will continue to brush Trump’s requests aside. And as long as the Saudis don’t move, it’s unlikely other states — be they Pakistan, Qatar or Kuwait — will move either.
Why, then, is Trump harping on the Abraham Accords?

The first motivation is political. As talks toward a framework with Iran continue, Trump wants to cover his bases on the homefront and ensure the hawkish wing of his party is satisfied. Despite Trump’s stronghold over the Republican Party, there is a vocal faction that considers any agreement short of full Iranian surrender as the epitome of Neville Chamberlain-esque appeasement. Senior Republican lawmakers were aghast over the weekend when nuggets of the framework deal were presented in the press, with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Ted Cruz of Texas and Roger Wicker of Mississippi all coming out to pan it.
In an ideal world, Trump wouldn’t listen to any of them. These are the same people, after all, who lobbied Trump to authorize a military campaign against Iran in the expectation that the regime would either collapse entirely or respond to the pressure by suing for peace on Washington’s terms. Those terms, presumably, would include a total ban on Iranian enrichment, the removal of Tehran’s stockpile of enriched uranium and a 180-degree change in Iran’s foreign policy. This was naive at best, yet Trump bought the argument and was poorly served by doing so.
Even so, Trump wants unanimous support from his party for any agreement he strikes — and appears to have concluded it will take some honey to get there. By tying the Abraham Accords to an Iran framework, the thinking goes, the administration will be able to attract lawmakers, like the Lindsey Grahams of the worldwho would otherwise be disgusted by the idea of conceding anything to the Iranians.
The other motivation is about legacy. The last thing Trump wants is to sign an agreement with Iran that is perceived to be boring or noninnovative.
Currently, that’s precisely what’s occurring.
As long as Israel continues to occupy more than half of Gaza and a significant portion of southern Lebanon, it is highly likely Saudi Arabia will continue to brush Trump’s requests aside.
The U.S. and Iran are seeking to return the region to the pre-February status quo, when 150 or so vessels transited the Strait of Hormuz every day, the U.S. Navy didn’t have to expend limited resources on enforcing a blockade and the two sides could get back to the business of negotiating a final-status arrangement on Tehran’s nuclear program without missiles flying between them. That’s probably the best Trump can do, at this point, because the alternative, which would entail bringing the nuclear question into the framework, risks jeopardizing the entire diplomatic effort.
Still, if the preliminary deal currently on offer simply rewinds the clock by three months and gets us to the same position we were in before the war started, how exactly could Trump sell this as a groundbreaking win? The straightforward answer is that he can’t. Use the time to pad the Abraham Accords, though, and he would have a stronger foundation to celebrate.
In the end, all of this might be irrelevant. Even if the war in Iran concludes, Trump will be hard pressed to transform the Middle East into one big, happy family.
Daniel R. DePetris
Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist at the Chicago Tribune.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words





