博客

In a watershed moment marking the first such action in the 24-year history of the International Criminal Court (ICC), a majority of member states voted Friday during a special session at United Nations headquarters in New York to oust sitting chief prosecutor Karim Khan from office over allegations of professional misconduct. The dismissal takes immediate effect, with elections to select a new chief prosecutor slated to follow in the coming period.

Secret ballot results released by diplomatic sources show that 82 of the court’s 125 member states supported the motion to remove Khan, easily clearing the 63-vote absolute majority threshold required for the decision. Thirteen member states voted against dismissal, while 15 opted to abstain from the vote.

The allegations against Khan center on claims of a sexual relationship with a junior staff member in his office, which the complainant has described as non-consensual. The disciplinary process was initiated after the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP)—the ICC’s governing executive body—concluded that evidence proved “beyond reasonable doubt” that Khan had engaged in the relationship, arguing that the inherent power imbalance between a sitting chief prosecutor and a subordinate staff member made such a relationship inherently inappropriate regardless of context.

Khan has repeatedly and forcefully denied that any sexual relationship occurred, while the complainant reaffirmed her allegations of non-consensual conduct in her first public interview on the case with CNN last week. Ahead of the vote, Khan had already stated that if removed, he would immediately appeal the decision to the International Labour Organization’s administrative tribunal, the body with jurisdiction over employment-related appeals for ICC personnel.

The historic vote has unfolded against a charged geopolitical backdrop, with heavy scrutiny over claims that the entire disciplinary process has been politicized. The removal comes just months after Khan’s office moved to request arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas leaders over alleged war crimes committed in the ongoing Gaza conflict, a step that triggered fierce pushback from major powers including the United States. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently issued extraordinary threats to “dismantle the ICC brick by brick, if necessary,” and the U.S. has already imposed sanctions on most of the court’s senior judges and prosecutors, including Khan, over the court’s war crimes investigations into actions in Palestine and Afghanistan.

Widespread criticism has also been leveled at how the ASP Bureau managed the investigation into the allegations. A panel of independent ICC judges appointed to review the evidence unanimously concluded that no misconduct had been proven, but the ASP Bureau chose to disregard this binding legal opinion. More than 180 Palestinian civil society and human rights organizations signed an open letter last week arguing that the disciplinary process had been “reduced to a political referendum following the national interests of individual States Parties.”

A timeline of the allegations shows the alleged non-consensual conduct began in March 2023 and continued for nearly a year, with incidents reported on overseas missions and at the ICC’s headquarters in The Hague. The allegations were first brought to Khan’s attention by his own senior staff on May 2, 2024. The ICC’s internal oversight body launched an inquiry the following week, but closed it days later after the complainant refused to cooperate with internal investigators. Eighteen days after the allegations first emerged, Khan’s office formally submitted the request for arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders, leading some media outlets to suggest he moved forward with the request to shore up political support amid the scandal. However, an investigation by Middle East Eye later confirmed that the decision to pursue the warrants had been finalized six weeks before the allegations against Khan were ever made public, and the application was submitted only after the first internal inquiry had concluded.

The allegations reemerged in global media and on social media in October 2024, prompting a second internal inquiry that again closed when the complainant declined to cooperate. The ASP then commissioned an external investigation led by the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which spent more than a year compiling evidence and presented a 150-page report plus 5,000 pages of supporting evidence to the independent judicial panel in December 2024. After nearly three months of review, the panel issued its unanimous March 2025 ruling that the evidence presented by UN investigators did not meet the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard to establish misconduct or a breach of professional duty.

Despite this independent ruling, a majority of ASP Bureau members voted to disregard the panel’s findings weeks later, advancing the motion to find Khan guilty of serious misconduct and suspend him from office. In another break with established protocol, the ASP Bureau altered the voting rules for the full member state session, changing the process from a two-stage vote—one on whether misconduct occurred, a second on whether removal was warranted—to a single up-or-down vote on a motion that combined both the finding of serious misconduct and the order for dismissal. This change lowered the threshold for removal, drawing further allegations of procedural manipulation.

A British barrister, Khan was elected as the ICC’s third chief prosecutor in February 2021, taking office two decades after the court was founded in 2002. During his tenure, he pursued high-profile investigations and arrest warrant requests against a number of global leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, Myanmar’s ruling junta leadership, and Taliban officials in Afghanistan, in addition to the Israeli and Hamas leaders targeted in the Gaza warrants.

Luxembourg’s financial regulator will not extend its approval of Israel Bonds for sale across the European Union when the current authorization expires on 31 August, the country’s finance minister Gilles Roth has confirmed.

In an interview with domestic broadcaster RTL, Roth clarified that the non-renewal decision was reached two months ago, in May, exclusively by the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF), Luxembourg’s independent financial watchdog. Rejecting criticism of the regulator’s process, Roth emphasized that the CSSF operated strictly in line with EU regulatory standards, framing the outcome as a compliance matter rather than a response to political pressure from campaign groups.

This official narrative, however, clashes with the timeline of mounting advocacy against the bond program. May marked the peak of coordinated legal and political campaigning targeting Israel Bonds’ presence in Luxembourg, and the final decision aligns exactly with the core demand that activists have pushed for months. The confirmation also comes just weeks after a high-profile 21 July statement from Amnesty International warning that all EU member states, including Luxembourg, risk complicity in Israel’s ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza if they continue to permit the bonds’ sale.

Unless another EU member state steps forward to assume regulatory hosting for the program, Israel Bonds will no longer be available for purchase by investors across the entire bloc. Unlike standard sovereign debt issued directly by the Israeli government, these retail bonds are distributed through the U.S.-based Development Corporation for Israel (DCI), marketed under the slogan “Stand with Israel. Israel is at War.” They are sold primarily to retail investors, religious institutions, and local public funds, often leveraging global Jewish diaspora networks and appeals to political solidarity with Israel.

Official DCI data shows the program has raised $7.7 billion for the Israeli government since October 2023, a period marked by Israel’s military operations in Gaza, Lebanon, and cross-border strikes on Iran. All proceeds flow as unrestricted general revenue into Israel’s state treasury, at a time when the country’s military spending has surged from roughly 20% to more than 30% of total government expenditure. Between 2022 and 2024, Israel’s military budget has grown from 4.2% to 8.3% of gross domestic product, pushing the country’s annual deficit to nearly 7% of GDP.

Luxembourg’s role as the EU’s regulatory host for the program only emerged last year after a similar campaign forced Ireland to end its own approval. For years before Brexit, the United Kingdom served as the bloc’s regulatory gateway for Israel Bonds, a role that transferred to Ireland after the UK’s departure from the EU. Sustained pressure from Irish parliamentarians and civil society groups, which linked bond sales to financing Israeli military operations in Gaza, pushed Irish Central Bank governor Gabriel Makhlouf to confirm in September 2023 that Ireland would not renew its authorization. On the very same day, the CSSF approved a new 12-month prospectus for the bonds without consulting Luxembourg’s Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, a move that placed the program under Luxembourg’s oversight for the past year. From that point forward, the Luxembourg government repeatedly maintained that it had no authority over the matter, stating consistently that the CSSF was the sole competent decision-making body.

Pressure on Luxembourg reached a fever pitch in May 2024, when Amnesty International Luxembourg and the Committee for a Just Peace in the Middle East hosted a capital conference bringing together legal experts, economists, parliamentarians, and international law specialists to examine the legal and financial risks of hosting the program. The conference released a detailed legal report concluding that Luxembourg’s approval of the bonds violated the country’s obligations under the UN Genocide Convention and the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion on the occupied Palestinian territories. The report also raised investor protection concerns, noting that DCI’s marketing material obscures significant financial and legal risks associated with the bonds: despite Israel’s ongoing war and large fiscal deficit, the bonds offer yields of less than 4%, far below the market rate investors typically demand for high-risk wartime sovereign debt.

Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, told the conference that “the sale of these bonds is illegal under international law because it goes directly to funding the genocide. It is morally and legally wrong to sell these bonds.” Dr. Shahd Hammouri of Law for Palestine, a co-author of the legal report, added that the CSSF had the discretionary authority under EU prospectus regulation to reject approval when the program poses systemic risks to public interest and peace, and failed to exercise that power. Irish Senator Alice-Mary Higgins, who led advocacy that forced the program out of Ireland, clarified the stakes of Luxembourg’s non-renewal: “There is no other placement: unless we agree to transfer it as the home state, and another country agrees to take it, Israel cannot sell its bonds within the EU.”

Under EU rules, Israel now has the right to seek a new regulatory host among the bloc’s 27 member states. The Stop Israel Bonds campaign, which has coordinated cross-border advocacy across Ireland, Luxembourg, and the wider EU, has already announced its next goal: preventing the program from being transferred to Germany or any other willing EU government.

Political economist Shir Hever, who spoke at the May conference, told Middle East Eye the Luxembourg decision could mark a major turning point for Israeli financing of its military operations. “Israel finances its wars with debt,” he explained. “Bonds raise money which keep the war machine marching at the cost of a growing debt.” Hever argued that sustained pressure from the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and global civil society groups drove the outcome. “If no EU member states step in after Luxembourg, it could force Israel to default on some of its debt, and at the very least will crash the value of the bonds,” he said. “Anyone who was stupid enough to buy the bonds will lose some or all of their investment. It could mean a tipping point for Israel’s economy as well. A state in default cannot import weapons and ammunition.”

Amnesty International has echoed this call, urging former host Ireland to reject any future transfer request and pressing all other EU member states to refuse to approve a new prospectus. “It is a political choice to allow these bonds to be sold in Europe,” Steve Cockburn, Amnesty’s regional director for Europe, said in the organization’s July statement. “One of the most obvious and effective ways to end Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip is to stop financing it. By continuing to facilitate the sale of these bonds, EU member states risk complicity in Israel’s international crimes against Palestinians.”

Middle East Eye has reached out to the CSSF and Luxembourg’s Ministry of Finance for additional comment on the terms and timeline of the non-renewal decision.

In a significant escalation of international pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, London’s mayor Sadiq Khan has publicly labeled Netanyahu a perpetrator of genocide in Gaza and pledged to lobby the UK government to arrest the Israeli leader if he sets foot on British soil. Khan’s comments mark the second high-profile statement from a major Western city mayor in as many days, following similar remarks from New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani that have ignited global debate over accountability for alleged war crimes in the Palestinian enclave.

The controversy began earlier this week when Mamdani released a viral two-minute video address that has accumulated nearly 100 million views online. In the clip, Mamdani labeled Netanyahu a war criminal and called on the U.S. federal government to enforce the International Criminal Court’s existing arrest warrant against the Israeli prime minister during his planned September trip to New York for the United Nations General Assembly. Mamdani argued Netanyahu is the architect of what he called a horrific genocide against the Palestinian people, noting the Israeli leader has been linked to the deaths of over 73,000 people in Gaza, the maiming of tens of thousands of children, and the killings of international aid workers and journalists. He added that Netanyahu has launched military actions in six separate countries since 2023. Acknowledging that New York’s city government lacks independent legal authority to execute the ICC warrant, Mamdani urged Washington to enforce the court’s order.

Days later, UK outlet Channel 4 News asked Khan whether he would follow Mamdani’s lead. In his response, Khan acknowledged that the London mayoralty holds different legal powers than the office of New York’s mayor, but made clear he shared Mamdani’s core assessment of the situation in Gaza. “I do believe a genocide is being committed in Gaza. I think Netanyahu is responsible,” Khan said. The London mayor added that as an alleged perpetrator of genocide, Netanyahu has broken international law, and that accountability requires the Israeli leader to be brought to justice.

When pressed to clarify whether he would lobby newly appointed UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s government to enforce the ICC’s arrest warrant should Netanyahu visit London, Khan confirmed his commitment to action. “If there is any evidence of him coming to London, I’ll be lobbying the prime minister to make sure the law is enforced,” he said. Khan also noted that, for the time being, there are no indications Netanyahu plans to travel to the British capital, adding: “People who commit genocide are not welcome in London.”

The demands for enforcement follow an historic ICC ruling from November 2024, when the court issued arrest warrants for both Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity stemming from Israeli military actions in Gaza launched in October 2023. The warrants marked an unprecedented step in the court’s 24-year history: it was the first time the ICC had issued arrest warrants for senior officials from a Western-allied nation.

Under the terms of the Rome Statute, the international agreement that established the ICC, all 125 signatory nations – including every European Union member state and the United Kingdom – hold a binding legal obligation to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant and turn them over to the court for prosecution. The ICC, however, lacks its own independent enforcement mechanism, and the court cannot conduct a trial in absentia. Neither the United States nor Israel are signatories to the Rome Statute, which has allowed both governments to reject the court’s authority. As a signatory, the United Kingdom is legally required to fulfill the court’s extradition request if Netanyahu enters UK territory.

Khan’s comments were first reported and shared on social media by independent outlet Middle East Eye, which specializes in coverage of the Middle East and North Africa region.

Billionaire tech tycoon and influential far-right figure Elon Musk has reignited widespread backlash with incendiary comments about Muslim immigration to the United Kingdom, claiming that current demographic trends will lead to an imminent ‘reckoning’ that many observers interpret as a thinly veiled prediction of civil war.

Musk made the remarks during an interview with The Economist’s editor-in-chief Zanny Minton Beddoes, who pressed him on widespread accusations that he holds anti-Muslim views. When asked directly about the label, Musk defended his position by arguing he opposes immigration of people holding what he calls ‘antithetical views’ to Western societal norms. ‘I’m against rape and murder, I’m against the imposition of rules and laws that are contrary to what we’ve come to accept in the West. I think it’s a crying shame that the traditional media don’t recognise this,’ Musk stated.

Beddoes then pushed Musk on his past comments that framed civil war in the UK as ‘inevitable’, prompting Musk to double down, claiming the outcome is baked into ‘the current trend’ of immigration. The interviewer immediately pushed back against Musk’s unsubstantiated claims, fact-checking his narrative directly: ‘That is nonsense. The numbers also disprove what you say. London is a much safer city than any city in the US,’ Beddoes said. ‘You have painted Europe and the UK as overrun with terrifying Muslim immigrants, there’s rape on every corner, there’s civilisational destruction.’

In response, Musk acknowledged it had been several years since his last visit to the UK, before incorrectly claiming he had never made the extreme claims Beddoes outlined. This is far from the first time Musk has stoked anti-immigrant and Islamophobic sentiment in the UK, however. Through his ownership of social media platform X (formerly Twitter), Musk has repeatedly amplified far-right political groups and individual figures in the country, including the far-right campaign group Restore Britain and British anti-Muslim activist Tommy Robinson, born Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. Experts and observers link this amplification to rising anti-migrant hostility across the UK.

Just last month, anti-refugee riots targeting non-white communities erupted in Belfast and Southampton, unrest that was directly sparked after Musk shared viral footage of a violent knife attack and called for mass public protests. For months, Musk has fixated on unsubstantiated claims about rising violence and sexual assault in the UK and broader Europe, falsely tying these trends to growing non-white and Muslim populations, claims that contradict official crime data from across the continent.

The controversial billionaire is no stranger to scandal himself, with multiple public accusations of sexual misconduct and abuse. In one high-profile case, SpaceX paid a $250,000 settlement to a female employee who alleged Musk exposed himself to her during a private flight. Musk has dismissed reporting of the incident as a ‘politically motivated hit piece’, claiming there is ‘a lot more to this story’ that has not been reported. Separately, eight former SpaceX employees filed a lawsuit against the company and Musk in 2024, alleging Musk personally ordered their firing after they publicly called out the company’s culture of tolerating repeated workplace sexual harassment.

Musk’s businesses have also faced regulatory scrutiny across Europe in recent months. Earlier this year, X faced potential criminal prosecution and a regional ban after investigators found that the platform’s Grok AI tool was being used to generate non-consensual deepfake sexual imagery and child sexual abuse material. Musk initially claimed he had no knowledge of the harmful content, even going so far as to mock users who raised complaints about the issue. While the company has stated it has strengthened content safeguards, multiple reports confirm Grok still continues to generate prohibited sexual deepfake content months after the scandal broke.