Israel has suffered a significant legal and political defeat in its efforts to block international accountability for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during its assault on Gaza. Judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) have rejected Israel’s attempt to halt the court’s investigation, clearing the way for prosecutions that have already led to arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
The ruling comes amid mounting evidence of an extraordinary campaign of political intimidation against the ICC—one that implicates the United States and, controversially, the British government itself.
Arrest Warrants and a Legal Turning Point
In May 2024, ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan KC applied for arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, citing war crimes and crimes against humanity, with a particular focus on the deliberate starvation of Gaza’s civilian population. In November, the court formally issued those warrants, placing a binding legal obligation on ICC member states—including the UK, France, and other European nations—to arrest the two Israeli leaders should they enter their jurisdiction.
Despite intense diplomatic pressure, the court proceeded. That pressure included direct threats from senior US politicians. Ahead of the warrants, Republican lawmakers sent a letter to the ICC warning ominously: “You have been warned.” Under Donald Trump’s administration, Washington escalated its response by imposing sanctions on the ICC prosecutor and several judges.
Sanctioning the Judges of International Justice
Among those sanctioned was French judge Nicolas Guillou, a member of the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber that approved the arrest warrants. Writing recently, Guillou described how he was effectively erased from the global financial system: hotel bookings cancelled, bank cards rendered unusable, and access to routine services blocked.
He was placed on a US sanctions list of more than 15,000 names—alongside drug traffickers, al-Qaeda affiliates, and Vladimir Putin. The stated justification was that the judges had engaged in “illegitimate and baseless actions” against the United States or its “close ally Israel.”
The sanctions extended beyond the ICC. Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, has described similar treatment. She has spoken publicly about being unable to hold a credit card, losing access to health insurance reimbursements, and having hotel bookings—made on her behalf by the European Parliament—cancelled without explanation.
The effect, Albanese said, was to make her a “non-person” in the global economy, a deliberate attempt to silence scrutiny of Israel’s conduct in Gaza.
Israel’s Failed Legal Challenge
Israel, which does not recognise the ICC’s jurisdiction, sought to terminate the investigation entirely. That effort has now failed.
In a decision reported by Al Jazeera, ICC appeals judges rejected Israel’s attempt to overturn a lower court ruling authorising the investigation into crimes committed in Gaza following the Hamas-led attacks of 7 October 2023. The decision allows the prosecutor’s work to continue and upholds the legal basis for the arrest warrants issued in November.
Israel’s government has repeatedly claimed the court lacks authority because Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute. That argument has been dismissed by legal experts. Palestine is a recognised ICC member state, meaning the court has jurisdiction over crimes committed on Palestinian territory—regardless of the nationality of the alleged perpetrators. This jurisdiction has already been applied equally, including to Palestinian armed groups, as demonstrated by the now-withdrawn warrant against Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif, who was later killed by Israel.
The Antisemitism Deflection
Israeli officials have framed the ICC proceedings as an attempt to “criminalise the Jewish state.” Critics argue this conflates legitimate accountability for alleged crimes with antisemitism—a real and serious form of racism—thereby hollowing out the term and shielding state violence from scrutiny.
Numerous Jewish scholars, activists, and Holocaust experts have rejected Israel’s claims. Leading genocide scholars, including Israeli and Jewish academics, have publicly described Israel’s actions in Gaza as meeting the legal definition of genocide. Jewish opposition to the war has been widespread internationally, further undermining claims that the prosecutions are driven by hostility to Jewish identity.
“The ICC Was Made for Africa”
The backlash has exposed long-standing assumptions about international justice. US Senator Lindsey Graham reportedly told Prosecutor Khan that the ICC was “made for Africa and thugs like Putin,” not for Western allies. The remark reflected a view—now openly challenged—that international law should apply selectively.
What triggered the uproar was not the existence of the ICC, but the fact that its reach extended to Israel, a state long treated as legally untouchable by Western powers.
Britain’s Alleged Threats to the Court
The most explosive revelations concern the UK government itself.
In June 2024, Middle East Eye reported that Britain privately threatened to defund and withdraw from the ICC if arrest warrants were issued for Israeli leaders. According to the report, then-Foreign Secretary David Cameron made the threat during a heated phone call with Prosecutor Khan in April.
Cameron allegedly warned that pursuing Netanyahu and Gallant would be like “dropping a hydrogen bomb,” claiming it would have profound political consequences in Britain and within the Conservative Party. He reportedly argued that prosecuting Israel for actions in Gaza was fundamentally different from prosecuting Russia over Ukraine.
Khan responded publicly at the time, insisting that “all attempts to impede, intimidate or improperly influence” the court must cease.
Evidence Mounts
The allegations have since gained further weight. The Guardian reported that Khan formally raised the matter in a legal submission defending his decision to prosecute Netanyahu, citing threats from a member state—identified by other reporting as the UK.
Separately, Declassified UK revealed that the Foreign Office’s most senior legal adviser had urged Cameron to meet Khan to demonstrate Britain’s support for the ICC. He received that advice just days before the alleged phone call threatening defunding.
Heavily redacted emails obtained through Freedom of Information requests confirm that Khan’s office was arranging a meeting with Cameron in mid-April 2024—suggesting the foreign secretary was fully aware of Britain’s legal obligations as a founding ICC member when the threats were made.
A Breach of International Law?
The implications are serious. The Rome Statute explicitly guarantees the independence of ICC judges and prosecutors and requires member states to cooperate fully with investigations. The UK has incorporated these obligations into domestic law through the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and is bound by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to uphold them in good faith.
While no criminal consequences are likely for Cameron, legal experts argue that the reported threats represent an attempt by the British government to unlawfully interfere with an international judicial process to protect Israel from accountability.
Justice Resisted, Not Defeated
Israel’s effort to derail the ICC investigation has failed. The court has held firm despite sanctions, threats, and diplomatic pressure unprecedented in its history. Further charges and additional arrest warrants are widely expected, although the court has now ordered that any future actions remain confidential due to the intensity of external interference.
At the same time, the episode has exposed the fragility of the so-called “rules-based international order.” Western governments that claim to defend international law appear willing to undermine it when legal accountability threatens a close ally.
For critics, the message is stark: the struggle over Gaza is no longer only about war crimes in one territory, but about whether international justice itself can survive confrontation with Western power.
Israel’s attempt to stop justice has been defeated. The attempt by Western governments to protect Israel by sabotaging international law now stands exposed.