The author does an admirable job of calling out several fallacies made by critics (including Democrats and Republicans) of the ICC's recent indictments of leaders of both Israel and Hamas. However, he also commits some fallacies of his own.

The author calls out some faulty arguments that have been made by various critics of the ICC indictments: ​

Already the ICC has come under fire for this announcement, with critics firing a barrage of remarkably similarly [sic] attacks as if some kind of memo had gone out: the ICC has no jurisdiction here; this is the handiwork of a rogue, possibly antisemitic, and highly political prosecutor; it created a false "equivalence" between Israeli officials and Hamas, by seeking warrants for the latter at the same time yesterday.

Not one of these holds any water.

The author points out that the the ICC has jurisdiction over Palestine (if not Israel) in view of its governing statute, which may be interpreted to give it jurisdiction over some of what Israel does within Palestinian territory. The author then shows that the prosecutor is being subjected to unfounded ad hominem attacks, and that the accusation of false equivalence is in fact a straw man:

The idea that indicting Israel and Hamas at the same time is a statement of "equivalence" is as nonsensical as saying that if officers arrest a serial killer as well as someone responsible for a hit-and-run on the same day, the police are making a statement that those crimes are fundamentally the same. In fact, it's the opposite: by targeting both Israel and Hamas, the ICC is proving that it's committed to taking an evenhanded application of international law.

While all of this is helpful, the author does use a few fallacies himself.

1. tu quoque • The text criticizes Republicans for their hypocrisy in supporting the ICC when it indicted Putin but opposing it when it indicted Israel.

It's broadly taken as a given around the world that the response from Republicans -- including those who just a year ago applauded Khan for issuing an arrest warrant for Putin and waxed poetic about the ICC's importance then -- would be unhinged.

This ignores the possibility that their change in stance may be due to genuine concerns about the ICC's fairness or jurisdiction, rather than simply partisan bias.It also ignores that even if the Republicans are being hypocritical, that does not automatically mean the indictment is justified.

2. cherry picking and loaded language • In presenting the critics of the ICC as hypocritical, the author cherry-picks information that supports that interpretation:

As many have already pointed out, we didn't hear any of this legal hairsplitting in the Western world last year when the ICC waded into the Ukraine war, where neither the aggressor nor the victim had ever signed onto the 2002 treaty.

The author chooses his words carefully, saying "signed onto the 2002 treaty," so that his statement is literally true. But what he fails to mention is that the treaty allows that non-signatory countries may "by declaration lodged with the Registrar, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court," which in fact Ukraine has done.

The arguer furthermore uses loaded language to press this cherry-picked point, speaking of a "brazenly hypocritical, wrathful response to the ICC" that is "unhinged" and constitutes "hairspliting," which belittles the issue. Jurisdiction is actually a very serious and important matter in courts around the world.