⚖️ 🇬🇧 SCANDAL: The British Government Threatened to Defund the International Criminal Court, and Even Leave It, If They Charged Benjamin Netanyahu with War Crimes.

Inside ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan’s revelations about backroom threats to derail warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant

Dec 12, 2025

Britain just got caught threatening to defund the International Criminal Court and even walk away from the treaty that created it — all because the prosecutor dared move toward an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu over Gaza. The same government that lectures the world about “the rule of law” tried to strong-arm the very court that prosecutes genocide and war crimes. And the United States, as usual, was right there behind the scenes applying its own pressure.

Before we break this open, I want to ask you, plainly, to become a member today. I keep this reporting free for the world — for readers in Gaza, for students in public schools, for elders on fixed incomes, for families living in deep poverty — because a smaller circle of people who can afford it decide to carry some of the cost. If you’re one of those people, I’m asking you from the heart to click here to become a member or click here to join as a monthly, annual, or founding member. Your support keeps this work free for them, and even for you when you can’t afford to pay.

Now let me tell you what Britain and America were doing in the shadows.

Britain’s Threat, in Black and White

The Guardian’s diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour just reported on a formal submission to the court by Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. In that document, Khan describes a call on 23 April 2024 with a senior British official. On that call, the official warned that if the ICC moved ahead with arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then–defence minister Yoav Gallant, the UK might cut its funding to the court and even leave the Rome Statute — the treaty that created the ICC in the first place.

The official argued that arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant would be “disproportionate.” Khan doesn’t name the person, but reports have suggested it may have been the then–foreign secretary, David Cameron. Whoever it was, this wasn’t a rogue intern. This was Britain’s political establishment trying to protect a man accused of overseeing genocide in Gaza by threatening the court meant to prosecute exactly those kinds of crimes.

Understand what that means: Britain was prepared to try to blow a hole in the global system of accountability rather than let it touch Israel’s leadership.

What the ICC and the Rome Statute Actually Are

Let me explain this in simple terms.

The International Criminal Court in The Hague exists to prosecute individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity when national courts are unable or unwilling to act. It is supposed to be the court of last resort for the worst crimes on earth.

The Rome Statute is the treaty that created that court. When a country like Britain signs and ratifies the Rome Statute, it is saying to the world: we believe even powerful leaders should face justice if they commit atrocities, and we’re willing to be part of that system.

So when Britain turns around and tells the prosecutor, “If you pursue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, we might defund this court and leave the treaty,” they are basically admitting that they never believed in equal justice. They believed in a court for Africans, enemies, and the global South — not for Western-backed leaders.

It’s like watching a referee tear off the uniform and say, “I only wear this when I’m calling fouls on the other team. If you blow the whistle on my star player, I’m burning the rulebook.”

American Muscle Behind the Scenes

Khan’s submission doesn’t stop with Britain. He describes pressure from the United States as well.

He says that in April 2024, a US official warned him there would be “disastrous consequences” if he issued warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. Think about that language. Not disagreement. Not a legal argument. “Disastrous consequences.”

Then on 1 May, he says US senator Lindsey Graham told him that if he applied those warrants, Hamas might as well go ahead and shoot Israeli hostages. The message was clear: if you do your job and apply the law to Israel, we will blame you for whatever happens next. We will make you the villain.

So here is the picture that emerges. The prosecutor of the world’s top criminal court is weighing evidence of possible genocide and war crimes in Gaza. He moves toward treating Israeli leaders as he would any other leaders. And when he does, Britain threatens to pull money and leave the treaty, the US warns of “disastrous consequences,” and senior politicians try to guilt-trip him out of acting.

That is not “support for the rule of law.” That is coordinated political intimidation.

When Pressure Doesn’t Work: Smear the Prosecutor

Khan also lays out the timeline of sexual misconduct allegations that have been used to try to discredit him.

He says he first learned of those allegations on 2 May 2024. On 6 May, he says he was told that someone — without the alleged victim’s consent — had filed a complaint with the ICC’s internal oversight body. The woman involved reportedly said she did not want to pursue the complaint. The issue went nowhere for months.

Then, in October, an anonymous account on X suddenly began raising those same allegations in public, at the exact time when pressure over Gaza and the warrants was peaking.

Khan’s point is not that he is above criticism. It’s that the plan to pursue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant came before the allegations, and that attempts to push him out of the case are now leaning on conjecture and selective media reports instead of solid evidence.

He says he assembled a panel of independent experts on international law, carefully assessed whether the ICC had jurisdiction, and decided a case should be brought not just against Netanyahu and Gallant, but also against three Hamas officials. He even says he insisted on sending a stronger 22-page response to Israel’s attempt to dismiss the warrants after reading an initial draft he thought was too tame.

You don’t have to canonize Karim Khan to see what is happening here. A prosecutor tried to treat Israeli officials the same way the ICC has treated African and Balkan leaders for years. The response was not “let the law work.” It was threats, pressure, and character assassination.

The “Rules-Based Order” Takes Off Its Mask

For years, Britain and the United States have sold the world a story about a “rules-based international order.” They have praised the ICC when it targeted warlords, dictators, and presidents from weaker countries. They have stood at podiums and declared that nobody should be above the law.

But the minute the law begins to reach toward Tel Aviv, London, and Washington, the mask slips.

Here is what these threats really say:

International law is for you, not for us.
Courts are for your leaders, not for our allies.
Justice is a tool we use downward, never upward.

That is the heart of the hypocrisy. And it matters deeply for Gaza.

Palestinians are not just asking the world to feel sorry for them. They are asking the world to apply its own laws — the Geneva Conventions, the Genocide Convention, the Rome Statute — to the people who have bombed their homes, starved their children, and driven them into tents.

If the moment any court tries to do that, Britain threatens to pull the plug and the US growls about “disastrous consequences,” then the so-called “rules-based order” is nothing but branding. It is a slogan, not a reality.

What This Means for Gaza — and for Us

Family, I want us to see this clearly.

While babies in Gaza are freezing in flooded tents and starving behind siege lines, the governments that claim to defend human rights are not just ignoring international law. They are actively bullying the one court that is trying to apply it.

The lesson is brutal: if you are poor, Black, Arab, or from the global South, the ICC is allowed to come for your leaders. If your leaders are backed by London and Washington, the court itself may be threatened instead.

We cannot pretend this is anything other than what it is. It is complicity. It is obstruction. It is an attack on the very idea that the powerful can be held accountable.

And yet, even in this ugly story, there is a small, important truth: the reason Britain and the US are leaning on the court is because they know the law is not on their side. They know that if the ICC is allowed to follow the evidence in Gaza without political interference, the outcome will be damning. Their fear is its own kind of confession.

If you care about Gaza, if you care about Black life, if you care about any people facing state violence, then you have to care about this too. Because these are the same governments that will turn around tomorrow and lecture Africa, or the Caribbean, or Latin America about “corruption” and “impunity,” after trying to kneecap the one global court that might touch their friends.

If this piece helped you understand what is happening behind the scenes — if it gave you words for conversations with your friends, your spiritual community, or your coworkers — I’m asking you to stand with me so we can keep doing this work.

I want to keep every one of these articles free for the world, but that only works if some of you decide that fearless, independent journalism is worth supporting. If you’re able, please click here to become a member or click here to join as a monthly, annual, or founding member right now.