The article continues that he asks for the EU to activate an existing blocking regulation (Regulation (EC) No 2271/96), which prevents third countries like the USA from enforcing sanctions in the EU. Activating it would make American companies following US sanction in Europe liable for damages.

I think that is the most important point in the article.

The ICC could be considered to have jurisdiction over Gaza though. Although obviously that is debatable.

It is not debatable. Palestine is a recognized member so according to the law they have jurisdiction. If these laws have any usefulness if no one will follow it is debatable though.

Since the territorial boundaries of the State of Palestine are, too say the least, disputed, the territorial boundaries of ICC jurisdiction derived from its jurisdiction over acts on the territory of a state party where the state party in question is the State of Palestine is actually a tricky question.

Being confident doesn't equal being right.

I'm aghast as to what people seem to think they have authority on simply because they're using the internet.

There is a real world out there and it is quite different from online echo chambers, to say the least.

Palestine is party to it and Gaza is part of Palestine

And yet Palestine didn't arrest Yahya Sinwar with accordance to ICC arrest warrant for “extermination, murder, taking of hostages, rape and sexual assault in detention”. De jure and De facto are very different things.

If the sanctioned Israeli politicians and military commanders think those warrants are baseless, why don't they appear before the courts to defend themselves?

This isn't really about the ICC judges. It is about the failure of the major Western countries who are part of the ICC to come to the defence of the judges who they have appointed to make those decisions, and the control Israeli politicians exercise over the White House, ie the US President himself.

Americans don't seem to understand how the moral character of their politicians and their political system is relentlessly degraded by the so called Israel lobby, or they don't care, or have resigned themselves to it.

Sanctions of those kind or usually applied to corporate entities, state entitities or militant political groups aka "proscribed terrorist organizations". They are not intended to applied to individuals carrying out their legitimate duties in organizations approved or even created by America's own allies under principles America subscribes to, even if they are reluctant to submit themselves to those organizations.

And yet on account of Israel, the US applies these sanctions to judges carrying out the duties lawfully, and somehow they don't see how whimsical, capricious, petty and infantile such decisions are and the poor light they present the US in.

> Americans don't seem to understand how the moral character of their politicians and their political system is relentlessly degraded by the so called Israel lobby, or they don't care, or have resigned themselves to it.

I mean, it’s causing a small rift in the GOP. Time will tell if that escalates any though. I stand firm in my believe that nothing ever happens though.

It is also causing a rift between "Leftists" who distinguish themselves from "Liberals" i.e. Democrats. Apparently there are many who didn't vote for Harris because she did not sufficiently distance from Israel and condemn the genocide.

Interestingly in both cases, it seems to be an age divide at least somewhat.

> If the sanctioned Israeli politicians and military commanders think those warrants are baseless, why don't they appear before the courts to defend themselves?

Because they aren't under their jurisdiction? Because they might believe the court is biased against them?

> Americans don't seem to understand how the moral character of their politicians and their political system is relentlessly degraded by the so called Israel lobby, or they don't care, or have resigned themselves to it.

> And yet on account of Israel, the US applies these sanctions to judges carrying out the duties lawfully, and somehow they don't see how whimsical, capricious, petty and infantile such decisions are and the poor light they present the US in.

You seems to be confused this is done not for Israel's sake but for USA - they don't want the precedent of non-ICC member's government being judged in ICC to protect themselves.

> He's being sanctioned as a result by the USA

As a result of what ? What’s the trigger cause of the US sanctions ?

ICC can’t issue warrants against non ICC countries?

Retribution for acting out of line with those who have this sanction power.

Of course they can. Good luck trying to serve and execute that warrant though.

And non ICC countries are squarely within their rights to retailiate. Most minor former colonies of the EU countries can't, but the US, China, Russia can.

As a result of Executive Order 14203, titled “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14203