On October 29, November 7, and from November 30 to December 2, the ICC Prosecutor, Karim Khan, made further statements and provided observers with a deeper understanding of his handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than before. He has been in office for approximately the past two and a half years.

What follows is an analysis of where his statements are likely to take, followed by a review of some of the relevant evolving issues of concern to senior Israeli officials, and which could also reflect the broader picture of relations between the ICC and Israel.

How does the International Criminal Court view the Israeli army?

The Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post conducted extensive contact with Khan's office, former ICC officials, and senior Israeli officials on a variety of issues. Perhaps the two most important issues are whether Khan regards Israel's targeting system as legitimate and its legal system for self-prosecution of its soldiers as legitimate.

In analyzing this case, it will be important to know whether Khan rules that the IDF attacks on hospitals, mosques and schools were:

1) Justified

2) Unjustified, because the Israeli army failed to prove military necessity and proportionality.

3) Sometimes justified and sometimes not.

Israel has claimed that Hamas uses the hospitals to carry out its nefarious activities, such as storing weapons, treating Israeli prisoners there after October 7, and as command and control bases to coordinate attacks, but this requires sufficient proof.

So, if the ICC's standard for recognizing a change in the status of a civilian site to a legitimate military target is based on providing evidence that Hamas used these sites for military purposes, then Israel must present the evidence it allegedly has.

But what if the criminal court rejects this alleged evidence?

Khan's public statements and communications with the Jerusalem Post indicate that Khan's office will continue to place the burden of proof on Israel.

When Khan says things like that he will not allow the laws to be circumvented to the point where exceptions are used to justify widespread collateral damage to Palestinian civilians, he seems to indicate that he is skeptical of Israeli claims that “Hamas is systematically abusing civilian sites and using them as human shields.” "He will ask for precisely specific evidence every time."

What if the ICC went so far as to require that Hamas had participated in an imminent attack on IDF forces or Israeli civilians in order for the IDF to be permitted to launch an attack on it in a civilian location? The same can apply to homes and other civilian sites.

Israeli sources explained to the newspaper that some other countries also say that if a fighter launches a missile or intends to launch it, he may be attacked before or after launching the missile at a civilian site.

But some interpretations of the laws of war are narrower. These laws permit attacking that fighter only if it is proven that he was about to prepare to fire the missile, not the previous firing or firing in the following hours or days.

But what if the ICC accepts the evidence presented by Israel for allegedly hiding its fighters in civilian sites as sufficient to prove that the site could theoretically become a military target, but rules that the attacks were disproportionate due to potential collateral damage to civilians? There have been significant hints from Khan and ICC officials over the years that they might draw the line of proportionality differently from Israel.

Among those scenarios - where the Israeli army often had to choose to attack or allow Hamas fighters to escape and continue to either ambush IDF forces or fire rockets at Israeli civilians - many of them unfold in Gaza, according to the Israeli newspaper.

Will the International Criminal Court charge Israel with war crimes for withholding aid to the Gaza Strip?

Khan has been adamant in his public statements on this point, and even considers it a war crime to simply delay humanitarian aid for security purposes - checking the aid and knowing where it is going.

This can be somewhat confusing. Will Khan seek to reconcile these contradictions and stand in favor of Israel, or will he condemn it and perhaps condemn other parties such as Egypt?

What about Israel's crimes in the West Bank?

In this context, Israel stands on the weakest ground with regard to the violence and terrorism practiced by settlers in the West Bank against the Palestinians. First of all, the International Criminal Court will accuse the Israelis of involvement in the settlement project itself in the West Bank.

The Israeli military and other security services have admitted that they have weak control over the issue, at least since February of this year, when a mass attack on Palestinians occurred in the town of Huwwara.

The court will charge Jews who target Palestinians with deadly attacks with war crimes. Khan will have the support of the United States, which has said it will begin depriving any Jewish Israeli of travel rights on suspicion of involvement in such attacks.

To accomplish this, the ICC must identify the individuals or even indict the Israeli security officials who did not arrest these individuals.

"Artificial Intelligence" and the Israeli army's target bank

The Jerusalem Post published an extensive report on the IDF's AI-driven target bank. On the one hand, an AI-led operation means that legal principles automatically play a more prominent role in the target selection and intelligence gathering process than ever before.

Israeli sources said that the Israeli army’s information and target bank using artificial intelligence - including aspects of legal principles - there are still certain things that artificial intelligence lacks the ability and vision to understand. In this sense, they say there is no goal for AI to approve attacks without involving the human factor to balance “legality and ethics.” Israeli sources say that the new target bank process ensures that each target receives individual legal approval, more carefully than in the past.

But the International Criminal Court may look at this issue differently. It might try to combine various statements by Israeli officials about the speed of attacks and approvals, along with outside criticism, to try to conclude that the IDF is allowing lethal AI-led attacks without sufficient legal approvals.

Or the ICC may attempt to place the burden of proof in this case on the Israeli military, forcing it either to disclose secret intelligence operations or fail to prove that it has a defense. Such an approach of pressuring the Israeli military to disclose intelligence, which some ICC sources have indicated over the years, would be unprecedented.

Source: Arabic Post