With Karim Khan’s dismissal, the elimination of the war crimes court is near-complete
By Jonathan Cook | July 30, 2026
The most important question we should be asking after Karim Khan’s dismissal last week as chief prosecutor of the ICC – the international war crimes court in The Hague – is not whether he is guilty of “sexual misconduct” against another staff member, identified as “Sarah”.
That can only be decided through a legal process – one, let us note, that has already taken place. A fact-finding body carried out a lengthy investigation of Sarah’s allegations over more than a year; its thousands of pages of evidence were then evaluated in detail by three senior judges.
Though you would not know it from the media coverage, they concluded that there was no evidence to suggest any kind of misconduct by Khan, sexual or otherwise.
Strangely, that determination was largely confirmed by an extraordinarily deferential “exclusive” CNN interview with Sarah, aired earlier this month.
She declined to give any meaningful details of what Khan had allegedly subjected her to, and celebrity interviewer Christiane Amanpour delicately avoided pressing her for any clarification.
No matter. The purpose of the CNN interview was never about excavating facts. It was designed to offer face-saving cover as an entirely political body called the Assembly of States Parties, comprising diplomatic representatives of the 125 states signed up to the ICC, entirely ignored the legal findings and dismissed Khan.
Paradoxically, it was the Assembly of States Parties that appointed the judges who had concluded that there was no evidence of misconduct or breach of duty by Khan. That inconvenient judgment was simply reversed, despite the Assembly members being in no position to weigh the evidence themselves.
We should not forget that many of these states have an investment in weakening the only international court that can bring their own senior officials to trial for war crimes.
In May 2024 – shortly before Sarah made her allegations – the ICC demonstrated that it was finally ready to prosecute western leaders for war crimes, not just those from the Global South or from the West’s official enemies, such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
Khan issued an arrest warrant for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant. Both are accused of crimes against humanity for starving the people of Gaza through a prolonged blockade of food, water and power.
Were Netanyahu ever to face trial – and found guilty, as he almost certainly would be – a lot of other leaders would have good reason to fear they might be found culpable next, not least for their complicity in Israel’s mass slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza.
The question that needs answering now is not whether Khan is guilty of misconduct – that has been decided at a political level, not a legal one. No, we need an answer to an equally political, and far more troubling, question.
“Cui bono?” Or “Who benefits?”
The evidence is hiding in plain sight. The evidence is revealed both in the deeply politicised process that led to Khan’s downfall, and in what that process means for the future of the court.
Covert war
Khan is not the first ICC chief prosecutor to face extreme pressures – and, as with Khan, those pressures surfaced at the very moment Khan’s predecessor tried to take on Israel over its war crimes.
Fatou Bensouda faced a “covert war” waged against her by Israel for the best part of a decade, according to an investigation by the Guardian in May 2024, just as Khan issued his arrest warrant for Netanyahu.
The Guardian’s report, published nearly three years after Bensouda had completed her nine-year term at the ICC, revealed that, during that time, she had faced threats to herself and her family, the monitoring of her communications, and an intimidating visit to her home.
More recently, Bensouda has confirmed these accounts in an interview with Al Jazeera. Bensouda notes that she repeatedly reported Israel’s campaign of intimidation to the Dutch authorities, but they did nothing to investigate the threats or protect her.
She also says certain “authorities” – she does not name them – warned her that she was going too far in investigating Israeli crimes and that “you could be harmed or you could be killed, or family members could be harmed in some way.”
The campaign of threats – instigated by Yossi Cohen, then the director of Israel’s spy agency, Mossad – intensified as Bensouda considered whether to open a formal investigation into Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories.
Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people, we should remember, predate – by decades – Hamas’ attack on 7 October 2023. In fact, though no one is supposed to mention it, Israel’s sustained crimes of occupation are the self-evident cause of that Hamas attack.
An Israeli source told the Guardian that “the Mossad’s objective was to compromise the prosecutor or enlist her as someone who would cooperate with Israel’s demands”– that is, scrap the ICC’s investigation into Israeli crimes. Another source admitted that Cohen was acting on Netanyahu’s instructions.
During one contact, Cohen reportedly issued a Mafia-style threat to Bensouda: “You don’t want to be getting into things that could compromise your security or that of your family.”
The Guardian reported that the Mossad “took a keen interest in Bensouda’s family members and obtained transcripts of secret recordings of her husband, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the situation. Israeli officials then attempted to use the material to discredit the prosecutor”.
The paper also noted that there were fears among senior ICC officials that “Israel had cultivated sources within the court’s prosecution division” – the division Khan would inherit from Bensouda.
Cohen was described as “stalking” Bensouda, and personally “ambushed” her in a hotel room in New York in 2018. Afterwards he repeatedly phoned her, in a threatening manner that was said to have escalated over time. When Bensouda asked Cohen how he had obtained her phone number, he reportedly replied: “Did you forget what I do for a living?”
According to the Guardian :
On one occasion, Cohen is said to have shown Bensouda copies of photographs of her husband, which were taken covertly when the couple were visiting London. On another, according to sources, Cohen suggested to the prosecutor that a decision to open a full investigation would be detrimental to her career.
Between 2019 and 2020, the Mossad had been actively seeking compromising information on the prosecutor and took an interest in her family members.
The spy agency obtained a cache of material, including transcripts of an apparent sting operation against her husband.
Israel used the materials to mount a “smear campaign” against her, but one that ultimately proved unsuccessful.
Concerted backlash
When Khan took up the role of ICC chief prosecutor in June 2021, he proved reluctant to pick up where Bensouda had left off on the Palestine case. Presumably, he was only too aware of the retaliation from Israel against her.
Bensouda had announced in December 2019 that she had grounds to open a full criminal investigation into allegations of war crimes in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
However, in the face of a concerted backlash from western states, she delayed opening the investigation. She first sought a ruling from a pre-trial chamber of ICC judges – presumably in the hope it would serve as some kind of insurance policy – on whether the court had jurisdiction over the occupied Palestinian territories.
By February 2021 the judges confirmed what was already self-evident. The court did have such jurisdiction because Palestine had been signed up to the court since 2015.
Bensouda stepped down a few months later.
The door was now open for Khan to prosecute Israeli officials for war crimes. However, the new chief prosecutor gave every appearance – perhaps understandably – of preferring to sit on his hands.
It was not just Israel that had been fearsomely opposed to its officials being tried for war crimes. Washington was equally incensed at the prospect – sometimes, it seemed, more so than over the possibility that US officials might also face arrest warrants for crimes committed by the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Between 2019 and 2020, during Trump’s first presidency, the US imposed severe visa restrictions and financial sanctions on Bensouda. Mike Pompeo, then US secretary of state, linked the sanctions to the Palestine case: “It’s clear the ICC is only putting Israel in [its] crosshairs for nakedly political purposes.”
Khan might well have avoided pursuing Israel indefinitely had it not been for the events that followed 7 October 2023.
Israel’s mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, its devastation of the enclave’s homes and infrastructure, and its starvation of the entire population were actions so criminally abhorrent that UN agencies, major human rights groups and Holocaust scholars were soon all in agreement that they amounted to genocide.
In May 2024, Khan announced arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, as well as three Hamas leaders subsequently killed by Israel.
Tsunami of threats
Shortly before Khan made that announcement, 12 senior US Senators had sent a threatening letter to the ICC: “Target Israel and we will target you.” The letter ended: “You have been warned.”
Describing Israeli and US sovereignty as inseparable, the senators reminded Khan that Washington had demonstrated “the lengths to which we will go to protect [our] sovereignty.”
A 2002 law, popularly known as “The Hague Invasion Act”, authorises the US president “to use all means necessary and appropriate” to bring about the release US persons and any allies imprisoned or detained by the ICC. Those allies, it goes without saying, include Israeli leaders.
Such threats, it should be noted, are a violation of Article 70 of the Rome Statute.
Following the issuing of the arrest warrants, there followed a tsunami of similar threats – and presumably more that have yet to become public – against Khan and the ICC.
A British-Israeli lawyer within the ICC – one known to have ties to Netanyahu’s legal adviser – warned Khan “they will destroy you and they will destroy the court” if the warrants were not rescinded. He urged Khan to “climb down the tree” and drop the case.
The UK’s foreign secretary of the time, David Cameron, phoned Khan to tell him Britain would defund the court and withdraw from the Rome Statute that founded the ICC if Khan did not back down.
Cameron warned Khan that he was “on the brink of making a huge mistake” and urged him to “take a step back and consider things”. He added that applying for arrest warrants for Israeli officials was tantamount to “dropping a hydrogen bomb”.
Meanwhile, Trump issued an executive order imposing aggressive financial sanctions against Khan and other ICC officials, including several of its judges.
Khan himself received warnings that Israel’s Mossad was continuing its operations in The Hague, where the ICC is located, to monitor and compromise the court’s investigators as they compiled evidence on Israel – just as it had done earlier under Bensouda.
Khan publicly stated that retaliatory threats and intimidation were explicitly targeting members of his own family.
Untouchable criminals
What conclusions should we draw from all of this?
Quite aside from the matter of whether Sarah’s allegations of “sexual misconduct” are true or not, it is clear that Israel and the US have been digging for dirt – and apparently ready to fabricate such dirt – on any chief prosecutor who tries to hold them to account for their crimes.
Both have indicated that they are ready to manipulate legal and political processes to ensure the outcome they desire: that they remain untouchable.
We have a template for how this plays out. Julian Assange, founder of the whistle-blowing site Wikileaks, published details in 2010 of US and British war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Almost immediately he found himself entangled in accusations of sexual misdemeanours – in his case in Sweden – that were similarly amplified by an uncritical western media.
Assange faced years in various forms of confinement while the US and UK pressured Sweden to keep alive an investigation against him Swedish prosecutors at least twice sought to drop for lack of credible evidence.
In fact, the US and UK never wanted the evidence tested – they were quite happy with a permanent, unresolved “investigation” – precisely because they knew it would have been unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny.
The point was simply to generate constant headlines about “rape”, turning Assange into a pariah, justifying his effective disappearance from public life, severely weakening Wikileaks as a whistleblowing platform, deflecting attention from the all-too-real crimes committed by the US and Britain, and paving the way to a political show trial to extradite him to the US on entirely confected “espionage” charges.
This has been repeated in the case of Khan and the ICC. In Khan’s case, the evidence was tested and found inadequate. So the legal process has been replaced by a flagrantly political one.
Khan has been turned into a legal pariah, even stripped of his right to work as a lawyer in the UK by the British Bar Association.
The ICC has been further weakened, just as Israel and the US have expressly stated they wanted it to be. Marco Rubio, Trump’s secretary of state, has recently launched an official campaign to dismantle the ICC “brick by brick”.
He says: “Now they [the ICC] are going to see the consequences”. Consequences of what? Of seeking to enforce international law against a key US client state.
Meanwhile, accountability for the all-too-real crimes being committed by Israel in Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank – and actively supported by western states like the US, Germany and Britain – recedes yet further into the background
As each brick protecting the ICC is dismantled, a brick is added to the wall of protection around Netanyahu and Israel’s genocidal war machine.
Israel, meanwhile, is barely concealing that it has been masterminding the effort to destroy the ICC.
According to Guy Azriel, the diplomatic correspondent for i24 News, Israeli foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar “oversaw a dedicated task force and employed intensive diplomatic efforts aimed at securing Khan’s removal from office”.
Hillel Neuer, director of the Israel apologist group United Nations Watch, cheered what he called “our campaign to remove” Khan, and warned Francesca Albanese, the UN’s legal expert on the occupied Palestinian territories, “you’re next”.
Like Khan, Albanese has been searching for practical, legal ways – not just rhetoric – to hold Israel and its western allies to account for the crimes in Gaza.
Predatory states
The ICC claims its work will not be affected by Khan’s removal and that the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant will still be pursued under new stewardship. That seems doubtful.
Israel and the US are cranking up the intimidation of the ICC, which has no tools – beyond the support of members states – to enforce its rulings or protect itself from the hostility of a rogue superpower.
Currently the court appears paralysed, allowing Israel to muddy the waters with interminable, and vexatious, appeals against the arrest warrants.
Any lawyer who takes up the post of ICC chief prosecutor will be only too aware of the fate that befell Khan and the campaign of intimidation against Bensouda as soon as each tried to enforce accountability on Israel and its western patrons.
It will take a very brave individual indeed to renew that task. Khan’s successor will understand that, in any further confrontation with Israel and Washington, the US will not hesitate to crush the ICC and, with it, remove the only effective restraint on criminality by powerful states.
More likely, however, the Assembly of States Parties – the political body that ousted Khan – will privately require from his successor reassurances that the new chief prosecutor reliably defer to the principle of Israeli and western impunity. Only someone less willing to ruffle feathers stands any chance of being appointed.
That was the clearest of messages sent by the Assembly when a majority of member states voted to be rid of Khan. The short-lived experiment in creating a mechanism for enforcing international law is over. We are back to the law of the jungle.
Hundred of thousands of people around the world – more likely millions – will now find themselves even more exposed to the criminal actions of predatory states. Unlike Khan’s accuser, they are unlikely to ever get their day in court.
Chad announces withdrawal from International Criminal Court Treaty
MEMO | July 28, 2026
Chad announced on Monday that it is withdrawing from the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court (ICC), saying it has formally notified the United Nations of its decision.
In a statement, Chad’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the ICC had become “a politicised and biased tool” against countries in the Global South, particularly in Africa, and argued that the court lacked balance and effectiveness in addressing cases from different regions.
The ministry said the court’s focus on African cases prompted the government to reassess its membership in the Rome Statute.
According to the statement, the decision followed what the government described as a comprehensive review of the ICC’s performance since its establishment in 2002. While criticizing the court’s effectiveness, Chad said it remained committed to promoting justice and protecting human rights through national and regional institutions.
Under Article 127 of the Rome Statute, a state’s withdrawal takes effect one year after formal notification is received by the United Nations. The treaty also provides that withdrawal does not exempt a state from obligations arising before the withdrawal becomes effective, including cooperation with investigations and proceedings already underway.
Chad’s announcement follows similar moves by several other countries. According to the Chadian government, Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso submitted notices of withdrawal earlier this month, while Venezuela has also announced plans to begin the withdrawal process, citing concerns over what it describes as bias within the court.
The announcement also comes amid developments within the ICC itself. Member states recently voted to remove Prosecutor Karim Khan from office following allegations of misconduct. The allegations have received international attention, and the proceedings have taken place under the court’s internal governance procedures.
West African states begin withdrawal from ICC
MEMO | July 3, 2026
Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger have officially begun a one-year process to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC), the court has announced.
The three West African countries previously said they would leave the ICC, describing it as “a tool of new colonial oppression,” according to Reuters.
The presidency of the ICC’s governing body confirmed that Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger had submitted formal notices of withdrawal, triggering a one-year process to leave the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the court.
In a statement, the presidency said the move could weaken global efforts to end impunity and undermine the pursuit of justice. It urged the three countries to remain committed to the Rome Statute.
The statement also stressed that withdrawal does not release a state from any obligations arising during its membership of the Rome Statute.
Ex-Mossad chief threatened ICC prosecutor over Israel war crimes probe
Press TV – May 26, 2026
Former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Fatou Bom Bensouda, says former head of the Israeli spy agency Mossad, Yosef Meir Cohen, had threatened her over her investigation into Israeli war crimes against Palestinians.
Bensouda, who served as the ICC’s chief prosecutor from 2012 to 2021, revealed on Tuesday that Cohen pressured her to abandon a war crimes investigation targeting leaders of the occupying regime.
She stated that between 2017 and 2021, Cohen met with her twice, once in Munich and once in New York City, where he explicitly demanded that she halt the probe.
According to Bensouda, Cohen subjected her to “threats and pressure,” which also extended to members of her family.
She added that she did not receive sufficient support from ICC member states to withstand Israel’s pressure. The situation later escalated, she said, to include indirect threats against her family, including the tracking of her husband and the collection of information about him in an attempt to influence her decisions.
Bensouda reported the Israeli threats to Dutch authorities but said she did not receive adequate protection.
She stressed that the ICC must continue its work despite pressure from the United States and Israel, insisting that justice should not be shaped by political interests.
On November 21, 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former war minister Yoav Gallant over war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against Palestinians during the regime’s genocide in Gaza, which began on October 7, 2023.
On February 6, 2025, the administration of US President Donald Trump sanctioned several ICC officials over the court’s investigations into war crimes committed by US forces in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2021, as well as war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza since October 2023.
US Threatens ICC With Sanctions Over Future Investigations – Report
Sputnik – 10.12.2025
The Trump administration has threatened the International Criminal Court (ICC) with potential sanctions if it does not amend its founding documents to exclude President Donald Trump and his top officials from future investigations, Reuters reported on Wednesday, citing an administration official.
In addition to its pledge not to target the US, the Trump administration also demands that the ICC halt existing investigations into Israel and American military actions in Afghanistan, the report said.
In return for these concessions, the Trump administration is prepared to forgo additional sanctions on court officials and refrain from sanctioning the court itself, according to the report.
Washington has conveyed its demands to ICC members and directly to the court, which has 125 members, the report added.
The United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC in 2002 with powers to prosecute heads of state.
In recent years, the ICC has issued arrest warrants for several world leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. These decisions have been criticized. Some states, such as Hungary, decided to withdraw from the ICC.
On February 6, Trump signed the executive order on sanctions against the ICC for its actions against Washington and its allies, including Israel. The order states that the US will take significant measures against those “responsible for the ICC’s transgressions.” Some of the measures include the blocking of property and assets, as well as the suspension of entry into the US for ICC staff and their family members.
Israeli-linked lawyer told ICC chief prosecutor: Drop Gaza case or be ‘destroyed’
MEMO | July 16, 2025
“They will destroy you and they will destroy the court,” an Israeli ICC lawyer connected to Benjamin Netanyahu warned Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan while urging him to drop the war crimes probe against the Israeli Prime Minister and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
The warning was delivered during a private meeting in The Hague on 1 May by Nicholas Kaufman, a British-Israeli lawyer who currently defends former Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte at the ICC. According to an internal note seen by Middle East Eye, Kaufman told Khan he had spoken to Netanyahu’s legal adviser and had been “authorised” to propose a confidential solution to help the prosecutor “climb down the tree”, meaning to back away from the case discreetly.
Kaufman advised Khan to reclassify the case files as confidential so that Israel could respond to the allegations in private, rather than through public proceedings. But he also issued a warning: if Khan were to pursue further charges, such as for far-right Israeli ministers, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, “all options would be off the table.” He then added, “They will destroy you and they will destroy the court.”
Khan and his wife, who was present at the meeting, both understood the words as a direct threat. Kaufman later denied issuing any threat and claimed he was acting on his own initiative, not on behalf of the Israeli government.
The case at the heart of this controversy concerns the ICC’s investigation into war crimes committed during Israel’s ongoing military assault on Gaza. On 20 May 2024, Khan formally applied for arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant for alleged crimes including the starvation of civilians and the targeting of protected populations. Six months later the court issued arrest warrants for the Israeli leaders.
This attempt at intimidation is not an isolated incident. It follows a pattern of pressure, threats and political interference aimed at protecting Israel from international accountability. In February, the US imposed personal sanctions on Khan, revoking his visa and freezing his assets. His family was also barred from entering the US. In June, four ICC judges who approved the arrest warrants were similarly sanctioned.
Shortly after the 1 May meeting with Kaufman, allegations of sexual misconduct were leaked to the media against Khan. While the ICC initially closed its investigation due to the lack of cooperation by the complainant, the allegations re-emerged in the press through anonymous sources, prompting a new probe. Khan has denied all allegations. Although the proximity of events has prompted speculation, there is said to be no evidence to suggest a connection between the allegations against Khan and his meeting with Kaufman.
These efforts mirror tactics used against Khan’s predecessor. Fatou Bensouda, the former ICC chief prosecutor, has publicly revealed that she too faced threats and surveillance when she began investigating Israeli war crimes. In an interview with The Guardian, she described “thug-style tactics” that included hacking, harassment of her family and threats that she would “pay the price” for her work.
Israel’s allies in the West have also played a key role in undermining the court’s independence. Then British Foreign Secretary David Cameron reportedly warned Khan in April 2024 that issuing arrest warrants against Israeli officials would be “like dropping a hydrogen bomb.” Around the same time, US Senator Lindsey Graham threatened ICC staff with further sanctions if they moved forward.
The ICC is not the only international body under fire. Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, has also been targeted. In July, the US imposed sanctions against her, citing her “direct engagement” with the ICC’s investigation into Israeli war crimes.
Albanese has faced sustained smear campaigns and death threats—part of what observers describe as a broader effort to silence those demanding accountability for Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Rights groups and UN experts have condemned the sanctions as an attack on the independence of international human rights mechanisms and a chilling warning to other officials who might support the ICC’s work.
Can international institutions be reformed?
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 30, 2025
It appears that Israel and Iran have postponed World War III and, for now, seem to adhere to the ceasefire negotiated by Donald Trump (likely with the help of other countries). But even if the “12-Day War” has stopped and missiles are no longer flying back and forth, doubts remain about the fate of Iran’s nuclear program.
The U.S. government insists that Iran’s nuclear program no longer exists, while Iran maintains that its nuclear program is still operational. All signs indicate that the Iranians are correct and that the U.S. is once again constructing a purely simulated parallel reality for the sake of narrative power projection.
But the main issue is not this—it is, in fact, something few have mentioned, as recently noted by Sergey Lavrov: the role of Rafael Grossi and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The IAEA was founded in 1957 as an “autonomous” agency—though linked to the UN—with the goal of monitoring nations’ use of nuclear energy to promote peaceful applications and prevent the construction of nuclear weapons. In this capacity, IAEA teams visit nuclear power plants, research centers, and other facilities related to national nuclear programs to conduct safety checks and oversee enrichment levels.
However, it is important to note that despite its claims of “autonomy,” the IAEA was established at the insistence of the U.S., shortly after the abandonment of the post-WWII “utopian” idea of keeping nuclear weapons under the exclusive control of the UN. The institution has always been closer to the interests of the Western Bloc than to those of the Eastern Bloc or the Non-Aligned Movement.
That said, in the past, the IAEA did challenge U.S. claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, under the leadership of Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei.
But even during ElBaradei’s tenure, there were signs of a shift toward Western alignment. In writings from that period, ElBaradei advocated for a revival of the utopian, globalist vision of nuclear energy monopolized by a “multinational” agency—much like the various Western agencies controlled or influenced by the U.S. ElBaradei himself became a collaborator with the U.S. after his term ended, participating in the color revolution orchestrated in Egypt against Hosni Mubarak.
It was only during Yukiya Amano’s leadership that the IAEA’s collaboration with the U.S. became evident, thanks to WikiLeaks revelations. According to documents obtained by Julian Assange, in a meeting between Amano and U.S. diplomats, Amano explicitly stated that he was aligned with the U.S. regarding staffing decisions and the stance to be taken on Iran’s nuclear program. This, of course, meant that Amano filled the IAEA with U.S. collaborators. He was later accused by IAEA staff themselves of having a pro-Western bias.
This context helps explain the behavior of Rafael Grossi, Amano’s successor.
Fast-forward to June: Grossi prepared a report accusing Iran of failing to meet its obligations to the IAEA and scheduled a board meeting for the same day Trump’s 60-day ultimatum on negotiations with Iran expired. According to CNN, the U.S. contacted several board members to persuade them to vote in favor of Grossi’s resolution. The purpose was to lend an institutional veneer of legitimacy to Israel’s attacks against Iran.
Grossi’s report was entirely based on information provided by Mossad, which alleged the existence of previously unknown nuclear facilities containing traces of enriched uranium.
All evidence suggests that Grossi was aware of the imminent attack and collaborated in creating a pretext to justify Israel’s actions. This is further corroborated by the fact that Grossi has never once turned his attention to Israel’s nuclear program, which remains entirely opaque, free from any international inspections.
In light of these revelations, it is alarming that, as Grossi told the Financial Times earlier this year, he intends to run for UN Secretary-General. Given his track record, it is plausible that he will have U.S. backing, which would greatly aid his candidacy.
Cases like this are not isolated. We have seen how the International Criminal Court (ICC) moved to accuse Vladimir Putin and Russia of “kidnapping” Ukrainian children. The World Health Organization (WHO), meanwhile, attempted to override national sovereignty during the pandemic. The IMF is routinely used to deindustrialize Third World countries.
The list could go on.
The key issue, however, is this: Given the current state of international institutions, can they be reformed?
Or will we need to abandon them—as Iran did with the IAEA—and build new ones from scratch?
Trump sanctions ICC
RT | February 6, 2025
US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) for investigating the US and its allies. Last November the Hague-based court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, in a move that angered US officials.
Trump’s executive order will enforce financial and visa-related sanctions on individuals and families who support ICC investigations into US citizens or allied nations.
The ICC has been preparing for a “swift assault” from the new US administration, the Guardian reported last month, citing sources within the organization. The measures could affect the ICC’s access to banking and payment systems, IT infrastructure, and insurance providers, the publication said. It could also “paralyze” the court’s work and pose “an existential threat” to its functioning.
Earlier this month, the US House of Representatives voted to impose sanctions that would cancel US visas and place financial restrictions on any ICC officials prosecuting US “allies.”
The US adopted the American Service-Members’ Protection Act in 2002 – nicknamed “The Hague Invasion Act.” The legislation was designed to protect American military personnel, as well as elected and appointed officials, from prosecution by international legal bodies which Washington has not recognized.
The act authorizes the US president to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel” detained or imprisoned on behalf of the ICC, since the US is not a party to the Rome Statute regulating its activities. The authorization implies potential military action, leading to the act’s informal name.
The ICC’s attempt to investigate alleged American war crimes in Afghanistan in 2020 resulted in the US placing sanctions on then prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.
The court has accused Netanyahu and Gallant of using starvation as a method of warfare in Gaza, as well as deliberately depriving the enclave’s civilian population of essential supplies such as food, water, and medicine without any “obvious military necessity.” Washington says the ICC lacks jurisdiction over Israel, since it is also not a signatory to the Rome Statute.
Last year, however, the US praised Karim Khan, the same ICC prosecutor who requested arrest warrants against Israeli leaders, when he brought charges against Russian President Vladimir Putin. Moscow is not a party to the agreement establishing the court.
The Games of the ICC
By Christopher Black – New Eastern Outlook – November 26, 2024
On November 21, the prosecutor of the ICC announced that a three-judge panel has finally made a decision on his May 2024 application for an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.
A warrant for his arrest and that of his former Defence Minister, Gallant, has been issued. If an indictment has been drawn up, which should precede an arrest warrant, we are not told and none appears on the ICC website.
Many are celebrating the arrest warrant against Netanyahu and Gallant. But, while there is no doubt that they deserve to be held to account by the Palestinians and the world for the crimes they have and continue to commit in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, they are not charged with the crime of genocide, even though they are charged with inflicting mass starvation on the people of Gaza, nor the supreme war crimes of aggression for their continued illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and the brutal suppression of the Palestinian resistance to that occupation. Nor are they charged for their aggression against the sovereign nations of Lebanon, Syria and Iran, which crimes they openly brag about and which are recognised by the entire world, but not, it seems, by the prosecutor or judges of the ICC.
Further, as people calm down in their cheering, they must realise that the ICC has also issued arrest warrants for a leader of Hamas, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri whose alleged war crimes are nothing more than echoes of Israeli propaganda about the Palestinian armed resistance to the brutal occupation of Palestinian lands and the brutal oppression by the occupation forces of the Palestinian people.
Where is the charge of Genocide?
Netanyahu and Gallant are charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity for mass starvation and targeting the civilian population with aerial attacks, and mass attacks by Israeli armoured and other forces.
The ICC press release states,
“Each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.”
“The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.”
But these charges also amount to acts of genocide, so why are they not charged with genocide? And why has no indictment been issued? Only the prosecutor and the judges can explain, and they do not.
But aside from pointing out the obvious compromise made by the ICC, to placate its critics about its inaction over Israeli crimes by laying charges yet not laying the most serious charge, the one that should be laid, we have this phrase underlined above which needs to be considered, the phrase, “jointly with others.”
Israel’s Partners in Crime Untouched
Who are the “others”? The ICC coyly refuses to say, hoping no one will ask the question. But the answer is clear: the USA, the EU, UK, France, Canada and the rest, who all give military aid and support to Israeli to carry out these crimes and have made themselves co-belligerents in this murderous war against the peoples of the Middle East, and are its partners in crime. The leaders of those nations must also be charged and warrants issued for their arrest. They are equally culpable under international law. But they are not charged. So that, in his defence, Netanyahu, if he is ever brought before this tribunal, can argue the defence of selective prosecution, that is, he can ask, “why am I charged but not the co-conspirators, the co-actors who supported and encouraged my crimes. It is not just to charge me if they are not going to be charged.”
He would be right to use that defence, and perhaps the prosecutor has arranged it so that Netanyahu and Gallant now have that defence available to them.
Political Purpose of the Warrants
But we know that Netanyahu will never be arrested and face a trial at this so-called world court. The Americans immediately came to his defence and denounced the action of the ICC. They have to because if Netanyahu is ever before the judges of the ICC, they fear the facts about their role in the crimes against the Palestinians and the others will be revealed in all their detail and depravity. The British, the French, and the Canadians will have their dirty crimes exposed as well. None of the allies of Israel want Netanyahu arrested and tried. So he will not be. The ICC knows this.
So why was the warrant finally issued after so long a delay, after so much political interference was exerted by Britain, the US, the French and others to prevent the ICC from issuing charges?
We can only speculate, as we are not privy to the phone calls between Mr. Khan and the various governments involved in these crimes, and how it was all arranged, but it was a political decision of a political prosecutor of a political tribunal.
One reason can be to improve the image of the ICC, to make it look like it is doing something, while, in effect, nothing is done to change the situation for the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the Iranians, and the Syrians. It will placate some who support the Palestinians, who think the ICC is a real court, and perhaps it is hoped that this will reduce the street protests across Europe and elsewhere. No need now the ICC will say, we have acted, and you can go home now.
The ICC attempts to justify its charges against Russia
But there is another reason, and that is to trick people into thinking the ICC is some real arbiter of international justice and therefore the arrest warrants the ICC issued against President Putin and others are valid and should be acted upon.
The ICC has issued warrants of arrest of a series of Russian officials over the past few months; we suppose to keep the pot boiling, each as absurd as the one before it.
On 17 March 2023, the ICC issued warrants for Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, and Ms Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, Commissioner for Children’s Rights in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation. Based on the Prosecution’s applications of 22 February 2023, Pre-Trial Chamber II considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that each suspect bears responsibility for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation, in prejudice of Ukrainian children.
The absurdity of these charges and warrants, based solely on Kiev propaganda about Russia’s attempts to save the lives of children, is manifest. It is also clear that they did not charge President Putin with aggression because there has been none, and so they decided to use the most emotive charge possible to inflame public opinion against Russia. In other words, the ICC became an active tool of NATO in its war against Russia.
On 5 March 2024, the ICC issued warrants of arrest for Sergei Ivanovich Kobylash, a Lieutenant General in the Russian Armed Forces who at the relevant time was the Commander of the Long-Range Aviation of the Aerospace Force, and Viktor Nikolayevich Sokolov, an Admiral in the Russian Navy, who at the relevant time was the Commander of the Black Sea Fleet for the war crime of directing attacks at civilian objects, the war crime of causing excessive incidental harm to civilians or damage to civilian objects, and the crime against humanity of inhumane acts. None of these allegations are based on any facts or any investigation and meant to be propaganda.
On 24 June 2024, the ICC issued warrants of arrest Sergei Shoigu and Valery Gerasimov, in the context of the situation in Ukraine for alleged international crimes committed from at least 10 October 2022 until at least 9 March 2023 for the same reasons, war propaganda, to justify the continuance of the war against Russia.
Ukraine leadership given immunity from prosecution for its crimes
The ICC has not charged anyone in the illegitimate government of Ukraine for any of its crimes against the civilian population of Ukraine in the Donbass oblasts from 2014 to today, nor for its gratuitous attacks on the civilian population of Russia. It has been given immunity from prosecution.
The only legitimate prosecutors are the Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians and Syrians for Israeli crimes committed against them.
So, all those celebrating and cheering the warrants issued against Netanyahu and Gallant should think carefully about what they are doing. Yes, those two are war criminals. Yes, they should be held accountable, but to the Palestinians and the Lebanese, the Syrians and Iranians. They are the ones who should be issuing warrants for their arrest, who should make them stand trial before the tribunals of those nations, as well as the leaders of the USA and the other nations who are parties to the Israeli crimes not this political farce called the ICC which is not a world court, which is not an independent judicial body capable of rendering justice, but a political tool of the West, used by the West for its own political and strategic reasons and objectives. The world is tired of the games of the ICC. The people of the world want real justice.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events.
ICC a tool of ‘Western hybrid war’ – Moscow
RT | June 25, 2024
Moscow has denounced the Hague-based International Criminal Court’s (ICC) decision to issue arrest warrants for two top Russian defense officials, branding the institution a mere tool of the West’s “hybrid war” efforts.
The ICC on Tuesday issued arrest warrants for ex-Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and the current chief of the General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, accusing the two of committing “alleged international crimes” amid the Ukrainian conflict.
Russia’s Security Council has denounced as “void” the court’s move, pointing out that its jurisdiction does not extend to Russia.
“The decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC against the Secretary of the Russian Security Council Sergei Shoigu is void. This is just hot air, since the jurisdiction of the ICC does not extend to Russia, and [the decision] was made as part of the West’s hybrid war against our country,” the council said.
The two top military officials are accused by the ICC of committing “alleged international crimes,” namely “directing attacks at civilian objects,” as well as “causing excessive incidental harm to civilians” amid the Ukraine conflict. The charges stem from Russia’s campaign of strikes against Ukrainian energy infrastructure, which Moscow regards as dual-purpose strategic installations rather than purely civilian facilities.
Earlier this year, the ICC also targeted two top Russian military commanders, Lieutenant-General Sergey Kobylash of the Long-Range Aviation fleet and Admiral Viktor Sokolov of the Black Sea fleet. The charges against those commanders also resulted from the campaign of air strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure.
The Hague-based institution has taken multiple steps against Russia amid the Ukraine conflict, most notably by issuing an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin last spring. The president is accused of “unlawful deportation” of Ukrainian children to Russia.
Moscow, like many other countries, including the US, does not recognize the authority of the ICC and its actions hold no legal power in Russia.
Featured Video
Seyed M. Marandi: Morocco Invades Spain?
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Truth Lost, Truth Found
A Review of “Finding Treblinka” by Caroline Sturdy Colls
By David Skrbina • Unz Review • July 30, 2026
Long ago, there was a small place in the Polish countryside where, it was said, up to 1 million human beings met their demise over the course of some 10 months. This small place, comprising only around 50 acres of land, was located about 1.5 miles from the small village of Treblinka (population circa 300). At this remote location, a handful of Germans built a facility in 1942—a transit camp, they called it—intended to temporarily house people undesirable to the German state, to disinfest them of dangerous disease-bearing pests, and then to ship them onward to various locations distant from that state; some of these people died in the camp, some would later be put to forced labor, and others would be simply released in far-flung regions. Sadly, due to the tremendous military struggle of that time and to the eventual defeat of the German state, nearly all of these people were lost to the Western world, never to be heard from again.
As a result of these unfortunate events, the Treblinka Durchgangslager became known to the world as the Treblinka “death camp”—a place where as many as 1 million people (nearly all Jews) were said to have been killed by engine exhaust in specially-designed “gas chambers.” This action, it was said, was a direct consequence of an alleged German policy to kill every Jew in Europe. Thus, this small encampment became a central aspect of the (Jewish-designated) “Holocaust” in which, it is said, some 6 million Jews perished at the hands of the evil Germans.
It is a remarkable story. But is it true? … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Claims of Iran agreeing to reopen Hormuz Strait are false: Report
- Ditch the Chemicals: 14 Herbal Oils Offering 50-87.5% UV Protection (SPF)
- The folk recipe that outperformed the leading pharmaceutical cough syrup in a randomized trial
- Seyed M. Marandi: Morocco Invades Spain?
- Big Tech On The Path To Net Zero — 2026 Edition
- Singapore police open probe over Palestinian flag displayed at Massive Attack concert
- Saudi Arabia’s militarization of Red Sea will not safeguard shipping in waterway: Yemen
- Yemen vs. Saudi Arabia: A Strategy of Strangulation and Asymmetric Response
- Germany scrambles to evade Nicaragua’s landmark Gaza genocide case at ICJ
- Iceland’s forthcoming referendum on EU membership
- If Americans Knew
- As Gazans suffer, Israel says No to ceasefire package – Daily Update
- The Satanic Hazing Rituals of the IDF
- Israel Is Paying Millions to Train AI Chatbots How to Talk About Gaza. It’s Working.
- Right now, it’s all about what “Netanyahu wants” – Daily Update
- The Killing of Awdah Hathaleen: Beyond a Settler Crime
- Republican Voters are Turning against the Iran War
- Haley Stevens Is an Enemy of International Law
- Were the first Zionists Christian? A review.
- Ben Gvir’s crocodiles are the latest weapon in Israel’s animal warfare on Palestinians
- CIA Assessment Details Israel’s Race to Make the U.S.-Israel Alliance Irreversible
- No Tricks Zone
- Analysis: Robert Koch Institute’s Heat Death Model Is “A Joke”… Deaths “Assumed” To Be Due To Heat
- New Research Finds Increasing CO2 Induces Cooling In The Lower Atmosphere Over The Arctic
- Germany’s Industrial Suicide… Grid Agency Prepares Secret Power Rationing Plans Amid Electric Power Bottlenecks
- ECMWF Models Throwing Cold Water On Extreme Germany Heat Wave Forecast Next Week
- Greenland’s Ice Sheet Was Supposed To Be Rapidly Melting Away. It Hasn’t Been.
- Global Temperature Trend Has Cooled Over The Past 6500 Years, Scientists Have Found
- Wind Energy Means Going Back To The Middle Ages, Says German Professor Horst-Joachim Lüdecke
- New Study: A 40-Fold Increase In Earth’s Main Greenhouse Gas Contributes To Cooling The Ocean
- New Study Highlights The ‘Dominant Role’ Of Aerosol/Cloud Interactions In Shaping Climate
- Munich’s First-Ever Green Party Mayor Declares First Ever City Water Use Restrictions… Fines Up to 50,000 €!
Aletho News 