Israel says the ICC’s chief prosecutor may have rushed the application for arrest warrants while facing sexual assault charges, casting doubt on his impartiality. The UN investigates, while the Court goes through the most serious crisis in its history.
Israel has formally asked the International Criminal Court to block the arrest warrant issued against the prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and to remove the chief prosecutor Karim Khan from the dossier, arguing that his conduct may have been influenced by the accusations of sexual violence against him that emerged in the same weeks in which he made the request for his arrest. In the document filed on Wednesday, the Jewish State claims that Khan’s decision, dating back to May 2024, may have been influenced by the pressure generated by the accusations made by one of his collaborators a few days earlier. According to the reconstruction cited by an investigation by Wall Street Journalthe then-prosecutor could have expedited the warrant process to draw attention away from the allegations or discourage the woman from prosecuting. Israel also speculates that Khan subsequently tried to present those same charges as an attempt to sabotage the Court’s work and, specifically, the investigation into Israeli behavior in the Gaza conflict.
Khan was expected to Jerusalem and in the Strip the week of May 27, 2024 for a series of talks related to the investigation into the conduct of Israeli forces. But the visit was suddenly canceled on May 19. Twenty-four hours later, the prosecutor announced plans to seek arrest warrants against Netanyahu and the then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallantaccusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity. According to the Israeli text, this timing would indicate a “hasty presentation” of the requests, presumably dictated by the need to react to the emerging scandal.
Khan has always denied any charges, maintaining that the warrant requests were based on solid evidentiary evidence. The judges of the Court then validated the warrants in November 2024. The prosecutor’s lawyers had no immediate comment, while he framed the accusations as part of a broader attempt to undermine the credibility of the ICC, an institution that over the years has clashed several times with great powers such as United States And Russia, both not adhering to the Rome Statute. Not even Israel it is part of the treaty.
The Israeli move comes in a context that has already exposed the Court to a political storm unprecedented in its 23 years of activity. The Trump administration had imposed sanctions on Khan and other officials in response to the arrest warrants, while several European governments, historically among the firmest supporters of the Court, have expressed doubts about the possible execution of the measures if Netanyahu were to travel to their countries. A situation that has called into question the very authority of the institution.
Meanwhile, the United Nations are pursuing an internal investigation into sexual assault allegations made against Khan, with a report expected in the coming months. According to what was revealed by Wall Street Journalthe prosecutor reportedly mentioned the investigation into Netanyahu and Gallant directly to his accuser, urging her to recant. In a recording now acquired by UN investigators, Khan allegedly argued that his accusations risked slowing down “justice for victims who are about to get results”, explicitly citing “Palestinian mandates”.
The woman, in the testimony given to United Nations investigators, states that Khan forced her to have sexual relations several times in his home in The Hague and during business trips. It is precisely this element – the Israeli dossier recalls – that triggers the main legal issue: the Rome Statute in fact provides that the simple doubt about the impartiality of a prosecutor constitutes sufficient reason to exclude him from a proceeding. It is not an abstract principle. Just a month ago, ICC judges removed Khan from the case involving the former Philippine president Rodrigo Dutertehanded over to the Court in 2024 on charges of being responsible for thousands of extrajudicial executions in his “war on drugs”. The motivation: Khanhad previously represented some victims in the early stages of the investigation, undermining the appearance of neutrality. Duterte denies any responsibility. Israel he maintains that the same criterion must also be applied in the proceedings concerning him: “The possible partiality of the Prosecutor does not depend on the truthfulness or falsity of the accusations of sexual violence”, states the memorial. “What matters is whether his apparent impartiality can reasonably be questioned.” A position destined to reignite the diplomatic conflict around the Court, at a time when its credibility is already under pressure like never before.
