International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan's removal following roughly two years of controversy over claimed sexual misconduct and harassment marks a major development.

The effects include positive outcomes, negative ones, and an overall complicated situation. Within groups supporting Israel, two main perspectives exist on the ICC, both seeing it as prejudiced against Jerusalem.

The initial perspective holds that the ICC should not operate at all, viewing it as a flawed body where efforts to undermine it are justified.

This group feels encouraged now and sees Khan's departure as positive confirmation of their criticisms: the court shows bias against Israel and the United States, operates in an unrealistic manner when dealing with asymmetric conflicts involving terrorists, and contains inconsistent actors.

The key point is that Khan leveled unfair war crimes accusations at Israel while facing his own misconduct claims.

Two Approaches for Israel in Dealing with the ICC

This group also argues that the full case against Israel depended on Khan shielding his alleged actions, so they anticipate the matter fading with his exit.

The alternative group treats the ICC as an unavoidable institution that Israel must address through engagement, even if confrontational, as the most practical though limited option.

Under this outlook, challenging Khan and the ICC over claims of using the Israel focus to mask his issues serves only as a backup tactic.

The core effort stays focused on disputing the actual allegations directly.

These points divide into several lines of argument.

One challenges the ICC's authority since the UN Security Council has not granted Palestine full member status and the Oslo Accords bar external involvement in the long-standing conflict.

Another asserts that the ICC should refrain because Israel maintains its own functioning legal framework, currently handling around 100 criminal inquiries and more than 3,000 disciplinary reviews of soldiers for possible breaches.

These points postponed ICC action on Israel from 2009 until 2021 and held off warrants until 2024.

Hope remains that these points can block formal charges or trials, with even greater expectation that conviction under the strict criminal standard would prove difficult.

This second group prepares to pursue these arguments, recognizing that global audiences often lack detailed knowledge and tend to view the ICC as a credible authority.

Both sides agree that Khan accelerated his final moves on Israel partly to deflect from the misconduct investigation against him, gaining extra time before full exposure.

Khan had planned to meet Israeli officials to review counterarguments but canceled abruptly, opting instead for a CNN appearance resembling a political move rather than submitting standard legal filings.

Both groups also dismiss Khan's claim that the misconduct allegations were fabricated by Israel to remove him.

The accuser is a Malaysian woman who supports action against Israel and initially sought to limit the claims until leaks occurred.

Israel likely amplified attention once the issues surfaced, but Khan bears responsibility for the situation.

The camps differ on whether removing Khan earlier in May would have stopped the ICC pursuit of Israel.

The first likely believes it would have ended, while the second expects continuation.

Debate persists on the better strategy, yet information gathered by The Jerusalem Post from ICC and Israeli legal contacts at the time showed that war crimes charges or warrants would have proceeded regardless.

Events since Khan's mid-May 2025 leave confirm this.

When the ICC Prosecution responded to Israel on May 21, 2025, after Khan's suspension, deputy Shameen Khan signed the documents with minimal internal discussion.

Disagreement among staff would have prompted reversal at that stage.

The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber also backed the warrants in a split decision, reducing reliance on Khan personally.

Shameen Khan's background from Fiji, a nation with significant human rights concerns, adds complexity, as she faced removal from the High Court amid political disputes before later UN and ICC roles.

This history raises questions about her grasp of Israel's situation compared to Palestinian issues.

Israel Remains Subject to ICC Examination

Her choice to advance the warrants demonstrates that Khan's absence and dismissal have not ended the scrutiny.

One remaining option to pause the warrants involves creating an independent state inquiry headed by a former judge, as suggested by former deputy attorney-general Roy Schondorf on May 4, 2024.

Schondorf, who defended Israel on these matters for over a decade, recommended following the Turkel Commission approach used successfully after the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict to counter similar probes.

That commission, led by former Supreme Court justice Jacob Turkel, reviewed Israel's investigation processes and led to reforms for greater speed and openness.

Many in Israel's legal circles supported the idea, but it was not adopted.

Calls for faster and fuller publication of probe outcomes, as done previously, have also faced delays from government elements.

The ICC has already harmed Israel's standing, but launching such an inquiry before charges could still prevent or postpone them indefinitely.

Overall the situation stays difficult, with the ICC's reputation affected by how it managed the misconduct claims.

Israel's image has suffered under either prosecutor.

While the scandal offers temporary advantage in media attention, the core dispute over war crimes allegations persists and requires strategic shifts to resolve.