Donald Trump is reportedly considering imposing sanctions on a British lawyer linked to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The court has faced intense international criticism for its decision to issue warrants for Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, Israel’s former defense minister.
Mike Waltz, Trump’s incoming national security adviser, dismissed the ICC’s credibility and pledged a strong reaction to its “anti-Semitic bias” when the new administration begins on January 20. Among those potentially targeted by sanctions is Karim Khan KC, the ICC’s chief prosecutor. The Hague-based court has accused Netanyahu and Gallant of using “starvation as a method of warfare” and committing “murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.”
Germany has already indicated that it would not arrest Netanyahu due to its historical ties to Israel and its Nazi-era past. Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban similarly vowed to defy the ICC’s order, instead inviting Netanyahu for a state visit. Meanwhile, Britain has declared its respect for the ICC but has not clarified whether it would enforce the arrest warrant if Netanyahu visited.
On Friday, Tzipi Hotovely, Israel’s ambassador to the UK, urged nations to reject the ICC’s ruling, calling it “farcical.” Writing in The Telegraph, Hotovely accused the court of aligning itself with Hamas, the militant group responsible for the October 7 attacks on Israel. She argued, “We’ve reached an astonishing new low when an international court… has found common cause with a terrorist organisation.” Hotovely added that the ICC’s actions undermine the ability of democratic nations to protect their citizens and described the warrant as “the death knell of the ICC.”
The US, like Israel, does not recognize the ICC’s authority. Senior Republican figures have echoed calls for sanctions against ICC officials. During his first term, Trump sanctioned Fatou Bensouda, a former ICC prosecutor, over an investigation into alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan. These sanctions, including a travel ban, were lifted by President Joe Biden in 2021. However, Trump is expected to reinstate similar measures in response to the ICC’s treatment of Israel.
Critics of the ICC point to the political nature of its investigations, with some highlighting the recent charges as evidence of its bias. Michael McCaul, chairman of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, condemned the ICC’s decision, labeling it an “anti-Israel witch hunt.” He urged the Senate to impose sanctions on ICC officials to protect American service members and allies. Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator, proposed additional legislation to penalize nations that enforce the ICC’s arrest warrants, warning of “firm resistance” from the United States.
The ICC’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, is also under investigation for alleged sexual misconduct outside his role at the court, which he denies. The allegations have drawn further scrutiny to the court amid its politically sensitive cases. Khan previously opened the investigation into Israel’s military actions in Gaza, which resulted in the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant.
In Europe, responses to the ICC’s decision are divided. While Germany and Hungary have refused to comply with the arrest orders, countries such as Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands have stated they would enforce them if Netanyahu or Gallant entered their territories. France expressed support for the ICC but did not confirm whether it would arrest Netanyahu. Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign policy chief, emphasized that all 27 EU member states are obligated to enforce ICC arrest warrants.
The controversy has also sparked debate in the UK. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper declined to comment on whether Netanyahu would be detained if he traveled to Britain, citing the need to follow proper legal processes. However, Downing Street signaled that the UK would comply with its international obligations. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government confirmed that dialogue with Netanyahu would continue despite the ICC’s ruling, emphasizing the importance of easing tensions in the Middle East.
Republican senator Jim Risch criticized the ICC’s approach, stating that while he initially supported its investigation into Russian war crimes in Ukraine, its actions against Israel have eroded his trust in the institution. Risch called for sanctions on ICC officials and suggested a broader reevaluation of US involvement in ICC investigations, including those related to Russia.
Sanctions against Karim Khan and other ICC officials could have significant repercussions. If imposed, such measures might restrict Khan’s ability to access banking facilities in the UK, potentially straining relations between Britain and the United States. The ICC has described the warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant as a first in its history, targeting leaders from a Western-backed democracy.
Amid the backlash, Israel continues to rally support against the ICC. Hotovely’s statement reiterated Israel’s gratitude to allied nations like the US for rejecting the court’s actions. She wrote, “The ICC has shown that every democratic leader… may become a target of the court,” urging other nations to reject what she termed a “farcical decision.”
Meanwhile, Trump allies are preparing to escalate their opposition to the ICC. Mike Pompeo, who served as secretary of state during Trump’s first term, previously denounced the court as “a thoroughly broken and corrupted institution.” Similar sentiments are expected to shape Trump’s foreign policy if he reenters office, with a focus on countering what Republicans perceive as the ICC’s overreach.
The ICC’s investigation has also reignited discussions about its broader mandate. Critics argue that its focus on Israel demonstrates a failure to prioritize global accountability. Advocates for the court, however, contend that its role in pursuing justice for war crimes remains essential, even in politically contentious cases.
The fallout from the ICC’s actions could also impact international relations. While Netanyahu’s allies, including Hungary and Germany, have pledged to defy the arrest orders, others, such as Ireland and Italy, are taking a more proactive stance in supporting the court’s decisions. This divide among member states reflects ongoing tensions over the ICC’s authority and the role of international law in addressing conflicts.
As Trump prepares to take office, his administration’s stance on the ICC is expected to shape US foreign policy significantly. The potential withdrawal of US support for ICC-led investigations, including those involving Russian war crimes, underscores the complexities of balancing international justice with national interests.
In the UK, the debate over Netanyahu’s potential arrest highlights broader questions about the nation’s obligations under international law. Downing Street’s assertion that the UK will comply with its legal obligations signals a cautious approach to the controversy, while opposition voices question the government’s handling of the situation.
The ICC’s decision to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant represents a pivotal moment for the court and its member states. Whether the international community can navigate the challenges posed by these developments remains to be seen, but the case has already exposed deep divisions over the role of global institutions in addressing accountability for alleged war crimes.
Ultimately, the ICC’s actions and the subsequent backlash illustrate the ongoing tensions between sovereignty and international justice. As the controversy unfolds, the decisions of leaders like Trump, Sunak, and Borrell will likely shape the future of the court and its ability to pursue its mandate.
About the Author
