By: Andrew Carlson- Jewish Voice News

Israel escalated its confrontation with the International Criminal Court this week, filing a sweeping legal challenge that seeks not only to quash the arrest warrant issued for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but also to disqualify ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan from handling the case altogether. As reported on Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), the filing asserts that Khan’s decision to pursue the May 2024 warrant was compromised by contemporaneous sexual assault allegations lodged against him—allegations that Israel argues may have directly influenced the timing, substance, and urgency of his prosecutorial actions.

The extraordinary filing, published Wednesday, marks one of the most consequential efforts yet by a sovereign government to undermine the legitimacy of an active ICC investigation. It also thrusts the Court—already navigating the most fraught crisis of its 23-year history—into an even deeper ethical and political quagmire.

According to the WSJ report, Karim Khan planned to travel to Israel and Gaza during the week of May 27, 2024, as part of his investigation into Israeli conduct during the Gaza war. But on May 19—just one week before his scheduled trip—Khan abruptly canceled his visit. The next day, he announced he was seeking arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu and then–Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Israel’s filing argues that this sequence of events was not coincidental.

Drawing heavily on WSJ’s May revelations, Israeli attorneys claim that Khan was facing emerging sexual assault allegations from a former aide during the same period. The filing suggests that he may have rushed the warrant request in order to preempt, distract from, or shield himself against the allegations. Israel asserts that Khan might have sought to portray any challenge to his leadership as part of an attempt to derail the ICC’s Israel investigation—thus positioning himself as a defender of Palestinian victims while discouraging his accuser from coming forward.

“The prosecutor’s decision to hurriedly submit arrest warrant applications in May 2024 might have been influenced by a desire to suppress, divert or protect himself,” the filing states.

Khan has categorically denied all misconduct, calling the allegations part of a broader campaign to discredit the ICC—an institution that has often clashed with major global powers, including the United States and Russia. But the WSJ report has significantly complicated his defense: The paper uncovered evidence that Khan invoked his investigation of Netanyahu and Gallant while urging his accuser to retract her allegations. In one recorded conversation now under review by U.N. investigators, Khan reportedly told the woman that her claims could derail meaningful progress for “victims” in the Israel investigation.

The U.N. is now conducting a formal inquiry into the allegations, with a final report expected in the coming months.

Israel’s filing emphasizes that the Rome Statute—the ICC’s founding treaty—does not require proof that a prosecutor committed wrongdoing in order to disqualify him. Instead, the standard is whether doubts about the prosecutor’s impartiality would be reasonable.

This distinction is the centerpiece of Israel’s legal argument.

“The doubts concerning the Prosecutor’s impartiality do not depend in any way on the truth or falsity of the sexual misconduct allegations,” the filing states. “What matters is whether the appearance of the Prosecutor’s impartiality… could be reasonably doubted.”

Israel cites a recent precedent: just last month, ICC judges disqualified Khan from pursuing the case of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. In that instance, the judges determined that Khan’s prior representation of victims—before his appointment as prosecutor—created an unacceptable appearance of bias.

Israel argues that if such grounds warranted disqualification in Duterte’s case, then the far more complex, politically charged allegations surrounding the Netanyahu warrant should compel the same conclusion.

The disqualification request arrives at a time when the ICC is already facing unprecedented global pushback.

According to the information provided in the WSJ report, the Trump administration has imposed sanctions on Karim Khan and several other ICC officials in response to the warrants issued in November 2024. Trump’s administration has argued that the ICC is unlawfully asserting jurisdiction over a non-member state—the United States—through its pursuit of Israeli officials, a position rooted in Israel’s own non-membership in the Court.

Meanwhile, European nations—traditionally among the ICC’s strongest supporters—are now deeply divided. Some governments have publicly questioned whether they would enforce an arrest warrant against Netanyahu were he to visit their territory, a heretofore unthinkable scenario that underscores the Court’s fracturing credibility.

The combination of geopolitical resistance, internal ethics scandals, and escalating jurisdictional disputes has pushed the ICC into what the WSJ report described as the most serious legitimacy crisis in its history.

Israel’s legal maneuver reflects a broader strategy: to delegitimize the ICC’s process in order to invalidate its conclusions.

By arguing that Khan pursued the case prematurely and under personal duress, Israel seeks to reframe the warrant not as the product of a sober investigation but as an ethically compromised action taken by a prosecutor under the shadow of serious accusations.

Israel further alleges that Khan sought to manipulate the narrative by framing the sexual assault allegations as part of a conspiracy to derail the ICC’s Israel investigation. The WSJ report detailed communications in which Khan seemed to warn his accuser that pressing her claims could harm Palestinian “victims” whose cases were “on the cusp of progress.”

Such statements, Israel argues, reveal two fatal flaws: Khan tethered his personal reputation to the success of the Israel investigation, rendering him incapable of impartiality.  He weaponized the investigation’s political sensitivity to pressure a subordinate, raising profound ethical concerns.

If true, these claims could undermine the very foundation of the ICC’s prosecutorial independence.

Khan maintains that the allegations are fabrications designed to obstruct the ICC’s work—particularly its investigations involving powerful states that refuse to join the Court. WSJ has repeatedly noted the tension between the ICC and global powers, including the U.S., Russia, Israel, and China, all of which have refused membership due to concerns about sovereignty and political weaponization.

Khan argues that the allegations aim to sabotage accountability mechanisms for conflicts where civilian casualties are high and evidence of war crimes is contested.

His defenders say that the timing of the accusations—surfacing at the very moment the ICC was preparing politically sensitive legal actions—suggests deliberate sabotage.

But Israel counters that the timing cuts the other way: if the allegations reached Khan before he issued the warrant request, they may have deeply affected his judgment.

The ICC has faced controversies before. But as the WSJ report noted, none have carried the same geopolitical weight as the Netanyahu warrant. The Court is attempting to hold leaders of a close U.S. ally accountable at a moment when global divisions over the Gaza conflict are already fueling diplomatic ruptures across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.

If the ICC mishandled the investigation—whether due to bias, negligence, or personal scandal—the consequences could undermine international justice mechanisms for decades.

Khan’s decision to issue arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant was already controversial. The sexual assault allegations now threaten to delegitimize not only that specific case but the Court’s entire institutional credibility.

Israel’s petition forces the ICC to confront a question it has long avoided: Can a prosecutor under active ethical investigation legitimately oversee cases involving world leaders?

The Rome Statute’s impartiality requirements provide Israel with powerful legal ammunition. The recent Duterte ruling amplifies the pressure.

If the Court disqualifies Khan from the Netanyahu case, it will validate Israel’s argument and inflict a severe blow on the prosecutor’s authority. If it refuses, the Court may deepen suspicions that its decision-making is influenced by political ideology rather than legal consistency.

Meanwhile, the outcome of the U.N. investigation into the accusations against Khan—informed by the testimonies and recordings reported extensively in The Wall Street Journal—could prove decisive.

The ICC was founded to free the world from impunity. But the allegations against Karim Khan—combined with the geopolitical firestorm surrounding the Israel–Hamas war—have exposed cracks in the Court’s own foundations.

Israel’s filing, built largely on the reporting of The Wall Street Journal, does not merely challenge a warrant. It challenges the integrity of the prosecutor who issued it and the credibility of the institution that approved it.

The stakes are larger than Netanyahu, larger even than the Gaza conflict. They speak to the fate of a global court that must decide whether it can credibly demand accountability from world leaders while facing profound questions about its own.

Whether the ICC can withstand this crisis of confidence—or whether it will emerge diminished, divided, or destabilized—may depend on what happens next inside its own chambers.