ICC, İsrail Maliye Bakanı Smotrich için tutuklama emri istedi
Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi (ICC) savcılığı, İsrail Maliye Bakanı Bezalel Smotrich hakkında, işgal altındaki Batı Şeria'daki faaliyetleri ve Filistinlilere yönelik apartheid suçlamaları kapsamında tutuklama emri talebinde bulundu. Middle East Eye'ın ulaştığı bilgilere göre, soruşturma İsrail'in Batı Şeria politikalarına odaklanıyor. Smotrich, France 24'e yaptığı açıklamada, ICC savcısının kendisi için tutuklama emri çıkardığını doğruladı ve bu adımın arkasında Filistin Yönetimi'nin olduğunu öne sürdü. İsrail'in buna karşılık işgal altındaki Batı Şeria'da bulunan Filistinli Bedevi topluluğu Khan al-Ahmar'ın tahliyesini emredeceğini duyurdu. Bu gelişme, ICC'nin İsrail-Filistin bağlamında üst düzey yetkililere yönelik yargı yetkisini kullanma çabalarının bir parçası olarak görülüyor. Smotrich'in aşırı sağcı koalisyon hükümetindeki konumu ve Batı Şeria'daki yerleşim politikalarındaki etkisi, konuyu diplomatik ve siyasi açıdan hassas kılıyor. Tahliye tehdidi ise İsrail'in uluslararası yargı girişimlerine karşı meydan okuyan tutumunu yansıtıyor.
Bağlam, hikayenin etrafındaki ülke + lider + komşu hikaye ağına dayanılarak AI tarafından üretildi. Olgu içerikleri için her zaman üstteki kaynak linklerine başvurun.
Zaman çizelgesi
en güncel: 20 May- Siyasi18 May 15:00
Exclusive: ICC prosecutor's office seeks arrest warrant for Israel's Smotrich
Exclusive: ICC prosecutor's office seeks arrest warrant for Israel's Smotrich Sondos Asem on Mon, 05/18/2026 - 10:11 Charges sought against Israeli finance minister over West Bank occupation include crime of apartheid against Palestinians Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich takes part in the annual Jerusalem Day march in the Old City of Jerusalem, 14 May 2026 (Reuters/Ammar Awad) Off The office of the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court last month filed a secret arrest warrant application for Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, sources briefed on the matter told Middle East Eye. Israeli media reports over the weekend claiming the prosecutor’s office had filed five applications for Israeli officials are inaccurate, MEE understands. An evidence review took place on Wednesday last week to examine the possibility of two more warrant applications, including one for national security minister Itamar Ben Gvir, but they have yet to be filed. MEE understands that the charges against Smotrich include forced displacement as a crime against humanity and war crime, the transfer of Israel’s own population as a war crime, and persecution and apartheid as crimes against humanity. If approved by the ICC’s pre-trial chamber the warrant for Smotrich would be the first ever issued by an international court for the crime of apartheid. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); The application was filed on 2 April, following repeated Palestinian demands for the prosecutor’s office to take action on Smotrich and Ben Gvir. In a letter to the ICC's deputy prosecutors in March, seen by MEE, Palestine’s mission to the Hague outlined further evidence of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity by settlers and Israeli occupation forces. The letter also noted that Israel has failed to prosecute the alleged crimes. “The urgency to take action now cannot be overstated in any way, with the erasure and the destruction of the Palestinian people, as manifested by an illegal occupant, materializing by the day,” the letter read. When asked by MEE for comment, a spokesperson for the prosecutor’s office (OTP) did not deny that an application for Smotrich had been filed. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); The spokesperson cited the court’s regulations, amended in November, stipulating that applications for arrest warrants are to be classified as secret or under seal, unless otherwise authorised by ICC judges. “For this reason, the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC is unable to comment on questions related to any alleged application for a warrant of arrest,” the spokesperson said. ICC spokesperson Oriane Maillet told Reuters on Sunday the court "denies the issuance of new arrest warrants in the situation in the state of Palestine". By addressing whether a warrant has been issued, the denial appears to contradict the ICC’s amended regulations. MEE understands that the OTP’s latest communication strategy is to neither deny nor confirm reports related to arrest warrants. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); If judges issue his arrest warrant, Smotrich will become the third Israeli official wanted by the court, after arrest warrants were issued in November 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then defence minister Yoav Gallant. Sanctions on ICC The Netanyahu and Gallant warrants have unleashed a ferocious campaign of threats and sanctions against the court by Israel and the US, primarily aimed at pressuring it to drop the war crimes investigation. Since February 2025, Trump's administration has imposed financial and visa sanctions on the court's chief prosecutor, Khan, his two deputy prosecutors, eight judges, the UN’s special rapporteur on Palestine, and three Palestinian NGOs in connection with the war crimes probe. All three pre-trial judges who signed off the Netanyahu and Gallant warrants have been sanctioned by the US. They are Reine Alapini-Gansou (Benin), Beti Hohler (Slovenia) and Nicolas Guillou (France). They have continued to carry out their work, including examining the Smotrich application, despite the impact of the sanctions on their daily lives. The US has also threatened sanctions against the court itself, which ICC officials consider a "doomsday scenario". ICC judges are currently examining an Israeli challenge to its jurisdiction over the Palestine situation, and a separate Israeli complaint, filed on 17 November, which seeks to disqualify the prosecutor over an alleged lack of impartiality. Life as an ICC judge sanctioned by Trump Read More » It is uncertain how long judges will take to rule on the Smotrich application. ICC pre-trial judges typically take several months to rule on warrant applications, though timelines have ranged from roughly one month in the cases of Russian President Vladimir Putin and former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte to six months for the Netanyahu and Gallant warrants. So far, the arrest warrant application for Smotrich has not been ratified by the judges and a decision could still be months away. At the ICC, seeking and issuing arrest warrants are two distinct stages handled by two separate bodies. The OTP, currently led by two deputy prosecutors, conducts the investigation, including by gathering evidence and building the case. When it believes the threshold has been met, it files an application asking for a warrant, setting out the alleged crimes and the evidence linking the suspect to them. The application is then handed to the pre-trial chamber, a panel of three judges, which reviews the prosecution's material and decides whether there are "reasonable grounds to believe" the person has committed a crime within the court's jurisdiction. The pre-trial chamber can issue a warrant on some or all of the charges, or reject the application. Last year, MEE reported that the ICC's chief prosecutor Karim Khan had prepared warrant applications against Ben Gvir and Smotrich before he went on leave in May. The warrant applications have been delayed by the deputy prosecutors, who are in charge of Khan's office in his absence, partly due to the threat of US sanctions. Days after MEE’s report, the Trump administration sanctioned the two deputy prosecutors. Sanctions on Smotrich and Ben Gvir Since June last year, Smotrich and Ben Gvir have been the target of a coordinated international sanctions campaign over their policies and statements advocating the extermination and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Both ministers live in West Bank settlements considered illegal under international law, and both have championed annexation of the territory and the return of Israeli settlers to Gaza. In June 2025, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway jointly imposed sanctions on the pair, freezing any assets they held in those countries and barring them from entering. Will Israel and Trump force the ICC to drop the Netanyahu arrest warrant? Read More » David Lammy, then the UK’s foreign secretary, said the ministers had "incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights”. Under the UK measures, it is now a criminal offence to make funds available to either man, and both are barred from directing or promoting a British company. Other western states have since followed suit. In July 2025, Slovenia became the first EU member to declare both ministers persona non grata, and the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain have imposed their own travel restrictions, with the Dutch ban extending across the 29-country Schengen Area. A proposal to sanction Ben Gvir and Smotrich at EU level has been on the table for nearly two years however. Then-foreign policy chief Josep Borrell first floated it in August 2024, calling the ministers' statements an "incitement to war crimes", but the proposal was rejected by member states for lack of the required unanimity. His successor Kaja Kallas revived the idea, and in September 2025 the European Commission formally proposed a package combining a partial suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement with targeted sanctions on Hamas leaders, violent settlers and the two "extremist ministers”. On 11 May, the EU’s foreign affairs council agreed to sanction settler organisations and Hamas figures, but not the two cabinet ministers driving the settler policies. Ben Gvir and Smotrich were stripped from the list after Germany, Italy, Austria, The Czech Republic and Hungary made clear they would not support their inclusion. The US has opposed the sanctions throughout, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging allies to reverse them and the administration imposing its own sanctions on ICC officials in an effort to halt the court's Israel-related investigations. ICC arrest warrants News Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:19 Update Date Override 0
- Güvenlik19 May 22:21
Israel far-right finance minister says ICC prosecutor seeks arrest warrant against him
Israel's far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said on Tuesday the International Criminal Court prosecutor had sought an arrest warrant against him, blaming the Palestinian Authority for the move. Smotrich said Israel would respond by ordering the evacuation of the Palestinian Bedouin community of Khan al-Ahmar in the occupied West Bank.
- Güvenlik20 May 06:00
AI engineer says Google unfairly sacked him after he protested against work for Israel
Exclusive: Employment tribunal claim says worker lost his job after distributing leaflets throughout London office Google is facing a legal challenge from an AI engineer who claims he was unfairly dismissed after he protested against its work for the Israeli government, in the latest sign of growing concern about the social and ethical impacts of AI. The engineer distributed flyers around Google DeepMind’s London offices, which read “Google provides military AI to forces committing genocide” and asking colleagues: “Is your paycheck worth this?” He also emailed colleagues about Google’s 2025 decision to drop a promise not to pursue weapons that harm people and surveillance violating international norms and urged them to unionise. Continue reading...
- Ekonomik20 May 12:48
ICC could be ordered to reinstate prosecutor if it removes him, judge argues
ICC could be ordered to reinstate prosecutor if it removes him, judge argues Sondos Asem on Wed, 05/20/2026 - 12:28 Former ICJ judge says any disciplinary process against Karim Khan would likely be overturned on appeal, with court also required to pay out substantial compensation Karim Khan told MEE earlier this month he would appeal to an International Labour Organization tribunal if removed from his job (AFP) Off The International Criminal Court (ICC) could be ordered to reinstate its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, and pay up to €1.5 million ($1.74m) in compensation should the court's governing body remove or sanction him, a senior international judge has warned. In a legal opinion shared with ICC member states earlier this month, Abdul Koroma, a former International Court of Justice judge, said that the prospects of a successful appeal by Khan against dismissal or any disciplinary action were considerable. Koroma called on the bureau of the Assembly of State Parties (ASP), the ICC’s executive governing body, to adopt the conclusion of a judicial panel that concluded that a UN investigation into misconduct allegations by Khan had not established any wrongdoing. The seven-page opinion, seen by Middle East Eye, examines whether the disciplinary procedure adopted by the ASP would withstand challenge before the International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT), the body to which ICC staff may appeal employment decisions. Koroma argues that it is likely an appeal by Khan would be successful. In the event the bureau proceeds against the prosecutor, he writes, Khan would be entitled to reinstatement and compensation. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); The ASP bureau’s 21 members are due to convene on Wednesday, where they may vote on Khan’s fate, more than a month after a majority backed a motion stating that he may have committed some form of misconduct. Exclusive: ICC prosecutor Karim Khan details 'dangerous' attempt by states to remove him Read More » Khan told MEE in an interview earlier this month that he would appeal to the ILOAT if the ASP sought to remove him. MEE has asked Khan for comment. The misconduct probe has left the court in an unprecedented state of limbo amid uncertainty surrounding Khan's future and leaks to the media about the allegations that he faced. Allegations of sexual misconduct emerged in May 2024. The complainant refused to cooperate with the ICC’s own investigative body, prompting the ASP to commission an outsourced UN-led investigation. The findings of that investigation were then delivered to a panel of judges, who were tasked with advising the ASP bureau on whether Khan has committed serious misconduct, less serious misconduct, or no misconduct at all. That panel of judges found that the report contained "insufficient evidence” of misconduct according to the standard of proof required by the process. The ASP bureau’s 21 states are now expected to vote on whether they believe Khan committed misconduct. If they decide he is guilty of serious misconduct, the larger 125-member ASP will vote on the findings, with a two-thirds majority required to uphold that decision. A second vote would then take place to remove him. Beyond reasonable doubt The panel of judges followed the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard, the highest standard of proof in criminal law and the one adopted by the ICC in misconduct cases. Some civil society groups and ICC states have criticised this standard as too high in the context of a non-criminal case. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); In his opinion, Koroma backs the panel's application of the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, which ILOAT has held to be the appropriate threshold in disciplinary proceedings against international civil servants, given the severe consequences for the staff member. 'Any attempt to re-open litigation of the matter would undermine the integrity of the Institution and the rule of law' - Abdul Koroma, former International Court of Justice judge He notes the panel found that investigators had failed to make conclusive determinations on contested issues, and that one of its judges expressed "serious doubts" that the evidence could ever meet that threshold. He describes the panel's report as "thorough, clear and well-reasoned", and concludes that if the bureau does not come to a unanimous recommendation, any resulting decision by the wider ASP would face a "considerable likelihood" of being overturned. Koroma also identifies what he characterises as multiple procedural violations, saying the bureau was incorrect to deny the panel more time to deliberate or conduct additional fact finding. He argues that the bureau erroneously adopted a procedure that allowed an “initial determination” of possible misconduct before the prosecutor had any opportunity to respond. A successful appeal would likely result in Khan's reinstatement or payment of substantial compensation, Koroma writes. With four years left of his term, Khan would be entitled to total compensation in the range of €800,000 to €1m in damages, which could cover reputational damage, the delay in the proceedings, breach of duty of care and injury to health. Koroma further argues that exemplary damages - which the ILOAT reserves for exceptional cases where bias, ill will, malice or bad faith have been shown - have a good prospect of success, particularly given the bureau’s apparent unwillingness to accept the panel's recommendations. With exemplary damages included, he estimates the total award could exceed €1.5m. Koroma concludes that the bureau should adopt the panel's report and close the matter. “It is my considered view that the Bureau should adopt the Report of the independent Judicial Panel bringing the matter to a close in the interest of all concerned and the Institution,” he writes. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); “Any attempt to re-open litigation of the matter would undermine the integrity of the Institution and the rule of law.” Koroma served as a judge of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) from 1994 to 2012, was previously a member of the UN International Law Commission, and has sat on the administrative tribunals of the World Bank and the African Development Bank. Uncertain future Uncertainty surrounds Khan's future as chief prosecutor. Last month, MEE revealed that a group of predominantly western and European states had voted to disregard the opinion of the judges' panel and to make their own assessment based on the evidence presented in the UN-led report. The report presented evidence and counter-evidence from complainants and Khan but, according to the panel, “either did not reach conclusive factual determinations or concluded that such determinations were impossible based on the evidence collected”. Exclusive: Staff in Karim Khan's office write in support of his return to ICC Read More » The panel also said the UN report did not indicate which witnesses' testimonies were credible and which were rejected, did not resolve "narrative inconsistencies and discrepancies", and did not "thoroughly test witnesses' motive or bias". It added that the report relied on hearsay evidence in the absence of direct evidence of misconduct, which they assessed as carrying less evidential weight. Accordingly, the panel said it found itself "compelled to the conclusion that on the materials disclosed, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of misconduct measured against the standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt". The allegations against Khan have unfolded in parallel with a campaign to disrupt his office's efforts to pursue a war crimes investigation against Israeli officials over the genocide in Gaza. In an interview with MEE earlier this month, Khan said that the process against him had taken the court into "unchartered territory" and risked creating a "dangerous precedent" in which elected officials could be undermined and removed by political pressure. "If a process can be suborned, if it can be subverted, if it can be undermined, because state appointees and diplomats, for whatever reason, think they know better, then this is a template for getting rid of any elected official, now or in the future, on spurious or flimsy or fabricated or unfounded grounds," said Khan. ICC arrest warrants News Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:19 Update Date Override 0