# Karim Khan vote nears as Netanyahu warrants stand firm > The oversight committee of the International Criminal Court made its call in late June: prosecutor Karim Khan had, according to a document - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Note - Published: 2026-07-06 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/le-vote-sur-karim-khan-approche-les-mandats-netanyahu-restent-en-vigueur ## Introduction: a prosecutor on the edge of removal ### An explosive decision from the oversight body The oversight committee of the **International Criminal Court** made its call in late June: prosecutor **Karim Khan** had, according to a document revealed by **Reuters** on **June 24, 2026**, an **inappropriate sexual relationship** with a subordinate, and should be removed from office for **serious misconduct**. The report states the relationship began in **March 2023** and worsened over time, including non-consensual contact in several locations, among them his **office** and his **private residence**. **Karim Khan** firmly denies the allegations. The decisive vote by the **Assembly of States Parties** of the **ICC** is set for **July 24, 2026** in **New York**, a date his supporters call politically motivated, arriving after he sought, in **2024**, **arrest warrants** against **Israeli** officials. *I'll ask this bluntly: troubling coincidence, or justice simply running its course? Both readings deserve to be raised, and neither should be dismissed on principle alone. That's exactly why the transparency of this July 24 vote will be watched so closely.* ## The Netanyahu and Gallant warrants aren't moving ### A judicial validation that outlives Khan Here's the crucial point the **ICC** confirmed in early July: the **arrest warrants** issued against **Israeli** prime minister **Benjamin Netanyahu** and former defense minister **Yoav Gallant** will remain fully in force, whatever happens to **Karim Khan** personally. Those warrants were validated by **independent judges** of the Court, a process separate from the prosecutor who initially requested them. This legal distinction matters: it's a reminder that the **ICC** functions as a collegial institution, where a prosecutor's request must be approved by a panel of judges before it produces binding effects. Khan's eventual fall, on its own, cannot retroactively invalidate a procedure already validated in law. *This is the single most important point in this entire story, and it bears repeating: whatever happens to Karim Khan personally, the warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant hold because judges, not one man, validated them. International justice should never rest on a single person.* ## Washington rejects the Court's jurisdiction ### The DOJ shuts the door on July 2 The **US Department of Justice** formally rejected, on **July 2, 2026**, any jurisdiction of the **International Criminal Court** over **American** nationals, according to reporting by **Anadolu Agency**. This stance, far from new, fits a long-standing hostility from **Washington** toward an institution the **United States** has never ratified under its founding treaty, the **Rome Statute**. This American posture had already resulted in **sanctions** against eleven **ICC** judges and prosecutors, including **Karim Khan** himself, a direct response to the warrants targeting **Israeli** officials as well as a separate investigation into **American** military actions in **Afghanistan**. *I'll say it plainly: sanctioning international judges to punish them for doing their jobs is a dangerous line to cross. You can contest a court's ruling, but you should never punish the people who hand it down. That principle should hold for every court, everywhere.* ## The tight calendar toward July 24 ### A vote set since mid-June The timing of this vote is anything but improvised: as early as **June 18, 2026**, according to **Reuters**, the **Assembly of States Parties** had already set **July 24** as the date to decide whether to keep or remove **Karim Khan**. That announcement came just days before the detailed report on the relationship deemed inappropriate with his subordinate was made public. Between those two dates, diplomats from **ICC member states** have had several weeks to stake out positions, in a climate where every public statement is scrutinized for clues about the likely outcome of the **New York** vote. *A month between announcing a vote and holding it isn't much time for a decision of this institutional gravity. I would have preferred a longer runway, one that leaves room for a calm debate rather than a rush that only feeds suspicions of political calculation.* ## Khan's supporters cry political target ### A geopolitical reading that's hard to dismiss Several of **Karim Khan**'s supporters, quoted by **Reuters**, argue the prosecutor became a **political target** precisely because he dared to go after leaders of a country allied with the **United States**. That reading, while it does nothing to clear him of the personal accusations against him, points to a very real structural tension between international judicial independence and the diplomatic pressure of great powers. This tension isn't unique to this case: it runs through the entire history of the **International Criminal Court** since its founding, surfacing every time it has dared to pursue nationals or allies of Western powers as well as non-Western ones. *I refuse to settle this dilemma out of pure partisan sympathy. Khan having legitimate grounds to cry political targeting doesn't erase the seriousness of the personal accusations against him. Both realities can coexist, and that's exactly what makes this story so uncomfortable.* ## What the record still can't confirm ### No final public report to date It has to be said with the same rigor we demand of the institutions themselves: as of **July 6, 2026**, no final and fully public report has yet definitively settled the question of **Karim Khan**'s guilt. The document revealed by **Reuters** is a decision by the oversight committee, not yet a final judgment from the **Assembly of States Parties** itself. This nuance matters to avoid any shortcut: the **July 24** vote remains the decisive step, and nothing guarantees its exact outcome at this stage, despite the damning tone of the report already made public by several international media outlets. *On this particular story, I'm choosing caution over excitement. The report is serious, the facts reported are grave, but until the July 24 vote actually happens, I refuse to get ahead of a conclusion that even the institution itself hasn't formally reached yet.* ## A test for the credibility of international justice ### An institution that must prove its consistency This case puts the **International Criminal Court** in front of a rare consistency test: can it prove it applies the same rigorous standards to its own prosecutor as it does to the foreign leaders it prosecutes? The answer to that question, decided on **July 24**, will weigh heavily on the institution's future credibility, well beyond **Karim Khan**'s personal fate alone. At the same time, the strength of the **warrants** against **Netanyahu** and **Gallant**, independent of what happens to **Khan**, shows the Court's judicial architecture can survive the personal turbulence of its officials, a potentially reassuring signal for anyone who believes in international justice untethered from individual egos. *I'll close with a firm conviction: demanding transparency here isn't a luxury, it's an absolute necessity. If the ICC wants to stay credible in the eyes of the regimes it prosecutes, it has to be beyond reproach with its own leadership, no exceptions and no delays.* ## Israel's position on this judicial chapter ### A constant rejection of the Court's jurisdiction The **Israeli** government has always contested the very legitimacy of the **International Criminal Court** to try its leaders, arguing that **Israel** never ratified the **Rome Statute** and that the territorial jurisdiction the Court invokes rests on a contested interpretation of international law. That position, shared by **Washington**, creates a common diplomatic front between the two allies against the institution based in **The Hague**. This **American-Israeli** convergence partly explains the intensity of the sanctions imposed on **ICC** magistrates, a response that goes beyond the strictly legal to become part of a broader political standoff over judicial sovereignty versus multilateral institutions. *I understand the sovereigntist logic invoked by Israel and the United States, but it should never serve as a shield to smother a legitimate judicial inquiry. National sovereignty and international accountability aren't necessarily incompatible, and claiming otherwise oversimplifies a genuinely complex legal debate.* ## Conclusion: a date in New York on July 24 ### Two outcomes, one principle to preserve Whether **Karim Khan** is ultimately removed or kept in office on **July 24**, the central principle of this case must remain intact: the **arrest warrants** against **Benjamin Netanyahu** and **Yoav Gallant**, validated by **independent judges**, cannot be undone by the personal turbulence surrounding the prosecutor who first sought them. This case, sitting at the crossroads of international justice, diplomatic power plays, and grave personal accusations, will keep fueling tension between **Washington** and the **ICC** long after the **July 24, 2026** verdict. The transparency demanded here isn't about one man alone: it's about the very credibility of international criminal justice. ### A precedent that outlasts the Khan case alone Beyond **Karim Khan**'s personal fate, this case will set a lasting precedent for how the **international community** handles personal accusations against officials at the highest levels of global justice. How the **Assembly of States Parties** manages this **July 24** vote will shape, for years to come, the trust placed in the **ICC** by member states and by the states that openly contest it, starting with the **United States** and **Israel**. This precedent will also weigh on other cases underway in **The Hague**, notably those touching the conflict involving **Russia** in **Ukraine**, where the Court's institutional credibility remains a major stake for anyone hoping to see **Vladimir Putin** one day answer for his actions before a recognized international tribunal. *That's why this case matters far beyond the fate of one man: if the ICC ever wants to be taken seriously by Moscow, it first has to prove, on July 24, that it can judge itself with the same rigor it demands of everyone else.* **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - Reuters — ICC bureau says Khan should be fired for inappropriate sexual relationship, June 24, 2026 - Anadolu Agency — US rejects International Criminal Court jurisdiction over Americans, July 2, 2026 ### Secondary sources - Reuters — ICC sets July 24 vote on whether to remove chief prosecutor Karim Khan, June 18, 2026 - The Wall Street Journal — ICC sets July vote on removing chief prosecutor Karim Khan - Middle East Eye — ICC member states to vote on Karim Khan probe in New York on 24 July - SADA News — Coverage of the ICC Karim Khan case --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/le-vote-sur-karim-khan-approche-les-mandats-netanyahu-restent-en-vigueur