The ICC ethics crisis behind Bibi’s arrest warrant

On 5 September, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a video excoriating International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan, claiming that Khan sought arrest warrants against him and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant specifically in order to deflect from a sexual harassment scandal.

The astounding developments at the ICC leading up to Khan’s application for the warrants certainly support Bibi’s interpretation of events. In early May 2024, Khan and his staff engaged in intensive efforts with United States (US) and Israeli officials to arrange a delegation of ICC officials to travel to Israel to discuss the Gaza conflict, humanitarian aid, and what steps Israel was undertaking to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by its troops.

Despite grave US scepticism towards the court, the Biden administration, which was in power at the time, wanted to act as intermediary between Israel and the court. It feared that any rash moves by the prosecutor targeting Israel was not only dangerous, it could also jeopardise US assistance to the court in its proceedings against Putin and other Russian officials for the war in Ukraine.

The US has long opposed ICC proceedings against Israel on principle. First, Israel, like the US, is not a member of the court and therefore the ICC has no jurisdiction over either country short of a Security Council resolution authorising it. Second, the ICC improperly decided to characterise the Palestinian Authority as a “state”, even though it isn’t, in order to extend its jurisdiction over Israeli officials in clear violation of the ICC’s governing Rome Statute. Third, potential ICC interference in the Gaza War could not only directly undermine US efforts to obtain the release of the hostages and a ceasefire with Hamas, but also irreparably damage the US-led Middle East peace process.

Khan, however, chose to flout these concerns. Going behind the backs of American and Israeli officials, Khan ordered his staff to cancel their planned trip to Israel. At the same time, he appeared on CNN announcing to Christiane Amanpour that he had applied for arrest warrants against Bibi and Gallant. The move was a complete shock that not only angered Israeli officials, but also then-US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and many US senators who publicly stated that they felt betrayed by Khan.

It doesn’t make sense that Khan, normally thought to be extremely shrewd and highly politically savvy, would have blatantly deceived the US and jeopardised the future and credibility of the court in order to seek arrest warrants prematurely. A personal sex scandal, one that could destroy the prosecutor’s career, marriage, and future ambitions, however, would appear to be the very sort of thing that could cause Khan to act in highly reckless ways.

In October 2024, reports began surfacing that in early May, at the same time he was negotiating with the Americans and the Israelis but unknown to the wider public, Khan was being investigated internally by the court. He had been accused of engaging in egregious sexual harassment against a colleague – later details appeared to describe conduct akin to rape. As details of the allegations emerged, rising outcry forced the president of the assembly of ICC member states to seek an external investigation.

Strangely, the president selected the United Nations’ Office of Internal Oversight Service (OIOS) to carry out the inquiry. This choice raised significant concerns as to whether the investigation was genuine. Khan’s wife worked for the OIOS as a senior investigator for several years, and another senior OIOS official had worked directly for Khan in his previous position at the UN

Moreover, instead of immediately taking a leave of absence while the investigation was pending or stepping down altogether, Khan obstinately remained in his position and offensively blamed the events as being orchestrated by the Mossad. Yet, the emerging details in the case showed that Khan’s accuser was herself a Muslim, and had hesitated to step forward specifically because she didn’t want to jeopardise the Gaza investigation. Only in May 2025, shortly after the Wall Street Journal published an in-depth article regarding the May 2024 events, including extensive and graphic details about the nature of the harassment, the internal turmoil at the court, and how Khan placed enormous pressure on his deputies to rush through the warrants, did Khan finally decide to take leave.

It’s notable that events related to the ICC’s Venezuela investigation have further called Khan’s ethics into question. In late April 2024, Khan issued a glowing press release complete with happy photos following an official visit to Venezuela, where he concluded a co-operation agreement with the country’s ruling dictator, Nicolás Maduro. The visit and amicable tone stood in stark contrast to Khan’s treatment of Israel during that same time. It turns out that Khan’s sister-in-law was a member of Venezuela’s legal team at the ICC. Noting this blatant conflict of interest, in November 2024, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) filed a petition demanding that Khan recuse himself from the case, but he refused. In August 2025, an appellate chamber, agreeing with the NGO, ordered Khan to step down, and on 18 August, Khan tendered his withdrawal. Khan, however, rather than accepting the decision graciously, used these events to cast aspersions on the NGO which sought his recusal, and to imply a link to Israel.

Given that the connection between the warrants and the sexual harassment charges have been apparent for many months, one wonders why Bibi issued this video now. Life at the ICC has become increasingly difficult. The court’s moves against Israel have caused division among its member states, with several openly refusing to co-operate in any moves against Israeli officials. Trump is a vociferous opponent of the court, and sees its efforts against Israel to signal similar moves against US officials and service personnel. Accordingly, he has placed sanctions on Khan and his deputy prosecutor as well as several ICC judges. He has also sanctioned certain NGOs that have been active in the case targeting Israel. In April 2025, an appellate chamber sided with Israel, saying the lower chamber was wrong to have refused to consider the question of jurisdiction prior to confirming the arrest warrants, and has thrown back the case for further deliberation. The sexual harassment investigation continues, and the Venezuelan proceedings cast a further shadow on Khan.

Whatever the answer, it’s clear that the intrigue about Khan and the ICC is far from over.

• Anne Herzberg is legal advisor to NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research organisation.