How Doha Captured the International Criminal Court

 Qatar’s Deep Ties to the Muslim Brotherhood Are Highly Relevant in Alleged Meddling in Legal Actions Against the State of Israel

Craig Considine, Sydney Rodman at JNS June 18, 2026

The International Criminal Court in The Hague is seeking the arrest of more Israeli leaders for alleged crimes against Palestinians. The court’s specious claims against Israel never made sense. Now, however, those claims are beginning to unravel because of the ICC’s own problems. New evidence suggests that the ICC has ulterior motives that go far beyond mere anti-Israel bias—and that its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, is likely acting as a pawn of even more sinister actors.

It now seems that the ICC’s actions form part of a Muslim Brotherhood-led lawfare campaign, with Qatar pulling the strings. A shocking exposé published last month seemingly blew the lid off the ICC’s true motives. According to the report, which cites individuals who worked on behalf of Qatar, the Qatari government promised to “look after” Khan if he issued the arrest warrants against Israeli leaders. Khan, for his part, has not denied the allegation. The report also claims that Qatar hired investigators to discredit Khan’s critics, including a U.S. senator and a woman who accused Khan of sexual misconduct.

The ICC has pursued an intense anti-Israel campaign, possibly at Qatar’s behest. In November 2024, it issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over the war in Gaza—a result of the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023—even though Israel’s operations produced one of the lowest civilian-to-combatant casualty ratios of any modern urban conflict.

These ICC measures were not just symbolic, as some claim. Instead, they produced immediate real-world consequences.

Fearing arrest, Netanyahu canceled several diplomatic trips to Europe.

Sometimes, it is more convenient to accept a dysfunctional status quo than to challenge it. Yet new allegations against the ICC’s top judge should catalyze scrutiny of the entire court.

That Qatar was working behind the scenes with Khan to prosecute Israeli leaders is a major revelation, and it may explain the ICC’s rush to prosecute Israeli officials, at a speed that is unusual for the court. As one legal expert observed, the ICC, which was only established on July 1, 2002, is “the most inactive and procrastinating court in the world—it dealt with a dozen cases only, over a period of more than 20 years.”

If the allegations are true (and the evidence strongly suggests they are), then the ICC is effectively being directed by an international criminal country. This would help explain why Khan issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders while largely sparing top Hamas officials.

After all, Hamas’s top leaders lived openly in Qatar, a leading state sponsor of terrorism that has funneled billions to Hamas and enabled the group’s operations for years. Nonetheless, none of these puppet masters has been prosecuted. Instead, if the allegations are true, they appear to have been manipulating the very prosecutor overseeing the case.

Yet the implications are more significant than meets the eye. The truth is that Qatar’s lawfare against Israel goes well beyond the ICC situation.

The case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, also in The Hague, follows a similar pattern. When South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, whose country is a close partner of Qatar, first revealed that his country would bring a war-crimes case against Israel before the ICJ, he did so while visiting Qatar. Around the same time, senior Qatari official Mutlaq al-Qahtani met directly with Khan and a senior ICC judge, potentially working on dual tracks to indict Israel at both the ICC and the ICJ.

Qatar’s deep ties to the Muslim Brotherhood are highly relevant. Robert Gates, a former CIA director and U.S. secretary of defense, once described the relationship bluntly: “Qatar has long had the welcome mat out for the Muslim Brotherhood.” It is an expensive welcome mat, with Qatar shelling out billions for Muslim Brotherhood actors over the years, including Hamas, whose leaders it also hosts.

Anti-Israel lawfare against Israel is straight out of the Muslim Brotherhood’s playbook. The group’s own internal documents expose how it deliberately uses legal tactics to advance its doctrine of tamkeen—the strategy of employing seemingly legitimate tools to empower Islamist goals in the West. Chief on that agenda for the Muslim Brotherhood, of course, is demonization of Israel.

Khan presents himself as a follower of the Ahmadiyya variant of Islam, a movement known for peace, interfaith dialogue and education. Yet he is actively targeting Israel, a democratic country that stands for peace and stability in the Middle East.

In addition, Khan has made several bizarre statements that amount to apologetics for the radical ideology that both Qatar and Hamas adhere to. In a 2018 interview, he asked: “Why do we have certain language that we do not see elsewhere? … Why ‘Islamic terror’? Why not ‘Buddhist terror’?” While most Muslims do not share the jihadist ideology, Khan feigned ignorance on this matter, suggesting either willful blindness or outright dishonesty.

Whatever Khan’s true motivations may be, this much is clear: The agenda that he, and the court he oversees, is pursuing is not entirely his own. The ICC is a farce—and a dangerous one at that.

 

Moral Decline in the West

 

Fawzia Amin Sido, Yazidi survivor of ISIS sexual slavery 

and captivity in Gaza, testifies at a UN Watch side event 

during the 62nd session of the UN Human Rights Council 

in Geneva, June 26, 2026. 

Fawzia Amin Sido’s story should have shaken the world. It did not.

That, too, is part of the story.

She was a Yazidi child from Iraq, abducted during ISIS’s assault on the Yazidis in 2014, one of the clearest genocidal campaigns of our century. She was trafficked to Gaza and held there for years by a Hamas terrorist affiliated with ISIS.

Eventually, she was extracted through the Kerem Shalom crossing in a complex operation led by COGAT, before being transferred through Jordan and returned to her family in Iraq.

Her testimony is almost unbearable to hear.

She was bought and sold. Abused. Raped. Forced into a jihadist “marriage.” Made to bear two children while still a captive.

In Gaza, she said, she was not free. She was controlled, beaten, and treated as a slave.

Hamas later claimed she had stayed there willingly. Of course it did.

This is not only a story about ISIS. It is not only a story about Hamas. It is a story about the failure of Western moral language when it is imposed on a world that does not share its basic assumptions.

The Western mind often begins with its own inherited furniture: individual rights, consent, personal autonomy, minority protection, the rule of law, secular politics, and the comforting belief that words like “freedom” and “resistance” mean roughly the same thing everywhere.

Then it looks at the Middle East, especially at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and tries to squeeze that reality into familiar templates.

Oppressor and oppressed. Colonizer and indigenous. Powerful and powerless. Brown and white. Resistance and occupation.

It is clean. It is emotionally efficient. It fits perfectly on a campus banner, which is usually the first warning sign.

Fawzia’s story tears through that script.

She was not Jewish. She was not Israeli. She was not a soldier. She was a Yazidi girl, a member of a persecuted Middle Eastern minority, swallowed by the same jihadist, patriarchal, tribal order that devours anyone outside its hierarchy.

In that world, women can become property. Minorities can become prey. Children can become trophies. And “marriage” can be the polite administrative term for rape.

This is the part many Western observers refuse to process. They read Gaza as if it were a misunderstood European suburb with worse infrastructure and an unfortunate public-relations problem. They cannot, or will not, confront the deeper reality: parts of the region are still governed by medieval instincts that have learned to speak the language of modern politics, human rights vocabulary, NGO reports, smartphones, and occasionally a press office.

Fawzia survived ISIS. She survived Gaza. She survived the moral obscenity of being told, after all of it, that perhaps she had been there by choice.

She later testified that her childhood had been stolen and that she had lived in Gaza “for years in slavery.”

And then Israel, the country so routinely accused of every crime imaginable by people who have turned selective outrage into a respectable profession, helped get her out.

That fact should matter. Because Israel is not fighting a misunderstanding. It is fighting an ecosystem of terror movements, ideological cruelty, hostage-taking, sexual violence, minority persecution, and a political culture in which civilians are used as shields, women as instruments, and truth as disposable packaging.

Fawzia Amin Sido’s name should be known.

Her suffering exposes the fraudulence of so much Western commentary on this conflict. The Middle East is not a seminar room. Gaza is not an abstract symbol. Hamas is not a social justice movement with unfortunate branding. And the victims of this world are not always the ones Western activists have been trained to recognize.

There is no need to dress this story in theory.

One young Yazidi woman, rescued from Gaza after a decade of slavery, tells us enough.

The world should have listened sooner.

It still can..

Just Out of Curiosity

 (With thanks to Forest Rain Marcia)

Every once in a while random people show up on my feed and ask:

"Out of curiosity, do you ever think of the families on the other side, most of whom are collateral damage ?"

And they usually do it on posts expressing our anguish for our loved ones.

Perhaps these people do not realize that this, done in this way, is a deeply hateful question.

They wouldn't make the assumptions they make if they had not internalized hate.

And I know many Jews respond to things like this with facts and figures detailing the extreme lengths Israel goes to save lives on the other side.

That's why I think it's important to highlight my latest response to this question.

No explanations - because the hateful are not really interested in facts.

No apologies - because they should be apologizing to us, not the other way around.

My answer:

First of all, my family comes before the families of the people trying to kill me. It is morally twisted to do or expect anything else.

Secondly, why in the world do you assume that most of them are collateral damage?

The Gazan elderly, women and children who invaded behind the Hamas fighters? They are the ones who set fires and looted everything in sight.

The civilians who beat the hostages in the streets?

The children who spat on the bodies of raped and murdered women?

The women who made cookies to celebrate their great victory?

The young people who watched the live stream of the Hamas horrors in the square outside the Shifa hospital, laughing and cheering at the seeing Jews being tortured and slaughtered?

Are they the collateral damage you are referring to?

Or perhaps the people who held hostages in their homes?

Or their neighbors that knew and didn't help, even when the IDF promised 1 million dollars and safe passage for their family to a new country just for information? Are they the collateral damage you are referring to?

Out of curiosity

 

Hezbollah Tunnel on Israel's Border

 Only a few kilometers from Israel’s northern border, 

Hezbollah constructed a sophisticated underground 

drone facility designed to support its ongoing

 campaign against Israel.

WHY SO MANY ISRAELIS FEEL THE TABLE HAS SUDDENLY TURNED

 With thanks to Israel Realtime

For the past several days there are lots of questions that need answering 

Not about a specific Hezbollah attack. 

Not about a specific statement from Washington.

Not even about the details of the latest U.S.-Iran negotiations.

The question is much simpler: How did the pressure suddenly shift from Iran to Israel?

Only a short time ago, Iran appeared to be on the defensive. Israel and the United States were closely coordinated. Tehran and its proxies were under pressure. Hezbollah was constrained. The strategic momentum appeared to be moving in one direction.

Today, many Israelis feel as though the entire table has somehow been turned.

Whether that perception is fully accurate or not, it is worth examining why so many people have reached that conclusion.

The first thing that stands out is that the pressure did not only shift onto Israel, it appears to have shifted back onto America as well.

The United States was also presenting the Strait of Hormuz as a point of American leverage. The message was clear: Iran was surrounded, pressured, weakened, and unable to freely control the regional equation. Then came the ceasefire framework. From that moment, the logic of the arena changed.

After the ceasefire, Washington's priority shifted toward preserving the U.S.-Iran diplomatic track, stabilizing the region, reopening Hormuz, protecting global energy flows, and keeping negotiations alive.

That created a dangerous opening for Iran.

Tehran appears to have understood that once Washington became invested in protecting the agreement, Iran could use both Lebanon and Hormuz as leverage.

That is the deeper strategic reversal. The pressure did not only shift onto Israel. It also shifted back onto America.

Hormuz was supposed to be the symbol of American leverage over Iran. Instead, Iran is trying to turn Hormuz back into leverage over America. Because if Iran can threaten the Strait of Hormuz, pressure global energy markets, and then extract concessions through negotiations, the lesson for Tehran is obvious: Hormuz works.

Iran was militarily weakened. Its air defenses were hit. Its navy was pressured. Its regional infrastructure was damaged. But through Hormuz, Tehran still had a way to threaten the global system. That is why the negotiation looks so troubling from an Israeli perspective.

America had pressure on Iran.

Israel had pressure on Iran.

Iran's proxies were under pressure.

Hormuz was being used by Washington as a pressure point.

Then the ceasefire framework appears to have allowed Iran to reverse the equation. Instead of Iran being forced to prove it would stop threatening Hormuz and restrain its proxies, Israel and America are now the ones being pressured to avoid actions that might collapse the deal.

That is the strategic inversion. The pattern is becoming clear:

Hezbollah attacks.

Israel responds.

Iran accuses Israel of endangering the broader agreement.

The United States tries to preserve the diplomatic track.

Pressure shifts onto Israel.

That is the trap.

The problem is not that America is negotiating with Iran. The United States is free to pursue its own diplomatic track if it believes that serves American interests.

The problem is that Iran appears to be trying to turn that U.S.-Iran track into a restraint on both Israel and America. On Israel, by limiting its freedom of action against Hezbollah.

That is what makes this so troubling.

If the agreement is about Iran, nuclear de-escalation, Hormuz, sanctions, or regional stability, then why should Israel be expected to absorb Hezbollah attacks in Lebanon?

Iran's conduct suggests it is testing whether it can enjoy the benefits of diplomacy while preserving the coercive power of its proxy network and its control over strategic chokepoints.

Tehran wants sanctions relief, oil revenue, access to global markets, and reduced pressure. At the same time, it wants Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other Iranian-backed forces to remain tools of pressure against Israel, regional states, global shipping, and Western interests.

That cannot become the new normal.

A diplomatic agreement that restrains Iran is one thing. A diplomatic agreement that restrains Israel while Iran's proxies keep attacking is something very different.

A diplomatic agreement that reopens Hormuz only because Iran has demonstrated it can threaten Hormuz again is also something very different.

That would not be de-escalation. That would be reward for coercion.

The repeated Hezbollah attacks against IDF forces should not be viewed as isolated skirmishes. They appear to fit into a broader Iranian strategy: keep pressure on Israel through Hezbollah, then blame Israel when it responds, while warning that the wider U.S.-Iran track may collapse.

That gives Tehran a powerful tool. It can attack indirectly, negotiate directly, and then demand restraint from the country being attacked.

If that equation is accepted, Hezbollah becomes more than a proxy. Hezbollah becomes a bargaining chip protected by diplomacy.

Instead of: Hezbollah attacks → Hezbollah pays a price.

The equation becomes: Hezbollah attacks → Israel responds → Iran threatens the talks → pressure shifts onto Israel.

And with Hormuz, the equation becomes: Iran threatens shipping → markets panic → America seeks calm → Iran gains leverage.

That is exactly the structure Tehran wants to create.

The West's real test is not whether it can sign an agreement with Iran.

The real test is whether it can prevent Iran from using that agreement as cover for continued proxy aggression and strategic blackmail.

Because if the message Tehran receives is that it can threaten Hormuz, activate Hezbollah, pressure global markets, and still move toward relief and reintegration, then the lesson will be obvious:

Escalation works. Proxy warfare works. Hormuz works. Regional blackmail works. 

And Israel is left facing the consequences on the ground. Both Washington and Jerusalem need to recognize the game being played.

Iran is trying to turn the ceasefire from a restraint on Tehran into a restraint on Israel.

It is trying to turn Hormuz from a point of American pressure into a point of Iranian leverage.

That is the danger. And that is why so many Israelis feel that the entire table has suddenly turned.

Secret Maps Expose Iran's Plan to Conquer Northern Israel

 IDF forces operating beneath Lebanon's strategic Beaufort Ridge have uncovered chilling evidence of Iran's long-term plan to dominate northern Israel: detailed maps plastered on tunnel walls showing Hezbollah's intended control over Galilee communities and the border town of Metula.

The maps were discovered during intensive operations to clear the sprawling underground network that Iran spent years constructing as a forward assault base against Israeli territory. According to IDF sources familiar with the operation, the maps were found in the same tunnel section where terrorists attempted to flee before being eliminated in a precision airstrike earlier this week.

"The maps illustrate in stark detail the Iranian regime's strategic vision for this sector," a senior military source stated. "This wasn't defensive infrastructure. It was designed as an offensive platform for terrorizing Israeli civilians from underground positions immune to air attack."

Underground Fortress Designed for Years of War

The Beaufort tunnel complex represents one of Iran's most significant strategic investments in its proxy war infrastructure. The underground network was engineered over multiple years to serve as a protected command center for directing attacks against Israel while shielding Hezbollah operatives from Israeli airstrikes.

Forces clearing the tunnels have uncovered massive weapons stockpiles including Kornet anti-tank missiles, RPG launchers, mortar shells, fragmentation grenades, and anti-aircraft machine guns, all positioned to transform the underground labyrinth into a fortified combat position. The discovery reveals the extent to which Iran prepared Hezbollah to wage sustained warfare from beneath Lebanese soil.

The operation intensified dramatically when a Yahalom unit drone conducting tunnel reconnaissance detected a terrorist cell inside the underground passage. The terrorists opened fire on the drone in a desperate attempt to destroy it, then fled toward the surface to escape the compromised position.

The Beaufort operation is part of a broader IDF campaign across southern Lebanon that has targeted more than 70 Hezbollah infrastructure sites in recent days alone. The strikes have destroyed rocket launchers, operational buildings used for planning terror attacks, and forward positions threatening both IDF forces and northern Israeli communities.

Strategic Implications for Regional Security

The discovery of Iranian planning maps in the Beaufort tunnels carries significant implications for any potential ceasefire framework currently under negotiation. Military analysts warn that any U.S.-Iran agreement that fails to address Hezbollah's massive arsenal and infrastructure would leave Israel facing the same strategic threat that necessitated the current operation.

"Hezbollah's 150,000 rockets and this tunnel network aren't Lebanese assets," noted one security expert tracking the negotiations. "They're Iranian force-projection tools positioned on Israel's border. A deal that brackets Hezbollah as a separate issue isn't a peace agreement, it's a deferred crisis."

IDF forces have made clear they will continue systematic operations to dismantle Hezbollah's military infrastructure throughout southern Lebanon. "We are dismantling the terror organization's assets layer by layer," military sources confirmed. "The goal is to achieve operational control over this sector and prevent Hezbollah from reestablishing any foothold that threatens Israeli communities."

Iran has no Intention of sign an agreement

 Sunday 23.30

Explosions rocked Beirut’s Dahiyah district on Sunday afternoon as Israel struck Hezbollah targets in the Lebanese capital, marking the clearest implementation yet of Jerusalem’s newly announced policy of responding to attacks from Lebanon with strikes in Beirut.

The operation followed several days of Hezbollah rocket and drone attacks on Israel, including repeated aerial infiltrations that triggered sirens across Israel's northern communities and sent residents to shelters.

According to an Israeli reports, Israel provided advance notice to the United States through military channels before carrying out the strike.

In a joint statement, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz said the attack was carried out in direct response to Hezbollah fire toward Israeli territory.

“Under the direction of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz, the IDF has struck Hezbollah terror targets in Beirut’s Dahiyah district in response to Hezbollah fire toward Israeli territory,” the statement said. “Israel will not tolerate attacks on its territory.”

The strike came after a weekend of repeated Hezbollah attacks. On Sunday, multiple drones infiltrated Israeli airspace from Lebanon, triggering alerts across northern Israel. The IDF later confirmed that several aerial targets crossed into Israeli territory and fell near the border. No injuries were reported.

The incidents followed rocket fire toward Metula and additional drone launches, adding to what Israeli officials describe as a growing pattern of Hezbollah ceasefire violations.

Shortly after the attack, the IDF announced that it had conducted a precise strike on a Hezbollah command center in Beirut.

It is quite clear that Hezbollah's attacks on Israel were approved by Iran, this in order to give Iran an excuse to not sign any agreement with Trump. They can now firmly place the blame on Israel