Drone attacks target western oil companies in Iraq's Kurdistan
Smoke billowed throughout the morning from the strike on the facility in the Sarsang block, located in the town of Chamanke.
Middle East Eye was among the news organisations granted exclusive access to the facility operated by the US company HKN Energy. Security personnel at the site cautioned reporters to keep their distance due to ongoing gas leaks following the attack.
Guards at Kurdish oil fields in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq are armed with Kalashnikov rifles and PKM machine guns, locally known as BKC. Empty bullet casings were scattered on the ground, evidence of an earlier attempt to repel the drone attack on the facility.
A video posted Wednesday from the Tawke oil field in Zakho, operated by Norwegian company DNO, shows guards firing machine guns in an attempt to fend off a drone.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
However the press visit to the site was cut short due to a security alert. The Kurdistan Region's Counter-Terrorism Service later said that a drone had struck an oil facility operated by DNO in Zakho, one of the locations included in the planned tour.
Separately, another drone crashed in the village of Surezha, near the Erbil Gas Power Station.
Oil fields targeted
Since 14 July, at least six oil fields have been targeted by drone attacks, including sites operated by US companies - HKN and Hunt Oil were each hit twice - and DNO, which was also struck twice.
Drone attacks have also occurred in other areas, both before and after 14 July, particularly near the US consulate in Erbil, the Erbil airport, and the 70s Peshmerga base in Sulaymaniyah.
Drone attacks have increased in the Kurdistan Region since the 12-day war between Israel and Iran ended on 24 June.
'The drone attacks in Kurdish energy sites grew out of a sequence of drone attacks since 19 June on Kurdish security forces, where Iraqi militias were claiming that Kurdistan was supporting Israeli and US strikes on Iran,' Michael Knights, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute, told MEE.
A general view shows the Sarsang oil field in the Chamanke district near the Kurdish city of Dohuk in northern Iraq's autonomous Kurdish, 17 July 2025 (Wladimir van Wilgenburg/MEE)
Kurdish officials have claimed neutrality in the war. On 13 June, Kurdistan Region President Nechirvan Barzani condemned Israel's attack on Iran and spoke with the Iranian foreign minister during the conflict - a stance welcomed by Iranian state media.
'On July 14 this drone and rocket campaign on Kurdistan and Kirkuk transitioned to an attack on Kurdistan's energy. The switch happened because Iran-backed militias in Iraq's government want to push back on Kurdistan Region, and US pressure from Baghdad about salary payments and energy contracts. This is a counter-pressure campaign by Baghdad militias,' Knights said.
'We know exactly who's behind these attacks and where they're coming from'
- Aziz Ahmad, deputy chief of staff, Kurdistan Regional Government
These attacks are not new. According to a Washington Kurdish Institute report, Iran and Iranian-backed armed groups in Iraq launched 32 attacks on the Kurdistan Region between September 2018 and October 2023.
An analyst said the attacks appear aimed at disrupting the Kurdistan Region's oil infrastructure and delaying a potential energy agreement with Baghdad.
Mahmood Baban, research fellow at the Rudaw Research Center, said the attacks appear aimed at disrupting the Kurdistan Region's oil infrastructure and delaying a potential energy agreement with Baghdad.
Baban added that they also demonstrate the attackers' technical capability and lack of concern for the consequences.
"The oil and gas fields in the Kurdistan Region do not have adequate protection systems so far. If they did, the attacks would not have such huge economic impacts,' he said.
Erbil-Baghdad negotiations
Since last month, there have been several negotiations between Erbil and Baghdad to resume suspended oil exports from the Kurdistan Region.
The exports were suspended after a 2023 ruling by an arbitration court in Paris that found Turkey in violation of an agreement with Iraq by allowing independent Kurdish oil exports.
In May, Iraq's finance ministry suspended salary payments to Kurdish public employees, accusing Kurdish authorities of exceeding their 12.67 percent share of the federal budget and failing to deliver the agreed volume of oil to the state-owned oil company.
'Hollow victory': Iraq is not really a winner in the Turkey oil arbitration case Read More »
Analysts saw the move as retaliation for two energy deals, worth $110bn, the Kurdish government signed in Washington with US firms, including HKN, without Baghdad's approval in May.
A Kurdish official, speaking to MEE on condition of anonymity, blamed the Popular Mobilisation Front (PMF) 'and other militias aligned with the Iraqi government' for 'targeting Kurdistan's oil fields and economic infrastructure.'
Aziz Ahmad, deputy chief of staff to Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) Prime Minister Masrour Barzani, also blamed 'criminal militias on the Iraqi government payroll'.
On 15 July, Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, who is also the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, ordered an investigation into the drone attacks on oil facilities in the Kurdistan Region and vowed to hold those responsible to account.
However, Kurdish officials have complained that the perpetrators are well known and that action has been limited. 'We know exactly who's behind these attacks and where they're coming from,' Ahmad said.
Tensions escalated earlier, on 5 July, when Sudani's military spokesperson condemned a statement by the KRG interior ministry accusing PMF groups of involvement in the attacks, calling the allegations against an official security institution 'unacceptable'.
'Duty to protect'
Myles B Caggins III, spokesperson for the Association of the Petroleum Industry of Kurdistan (APIKUR), which represents the majority of international oil companies operating in the Kurdistan Region, called on Baghdad to stop the drone attacks.
'The government of Iraq must take immediate action to protect the commercial oil production sites in the Kurdistan Region. After three days of attacks on this critical petroleum infrastructure, we are alarmed, and we are taking appropriate precautions to protect our personnel and our facilities,' Caggins told MEE.
'Most APIKUR member companies have temporarily paused oil production operations, and each day that operations are paused, there is a great financial loss to the people of Iraq.'
The United States has also strongly condemned the drone attacks on its companies.
'Over 60 percent of KRG oil production has been halted due to the strikes in the past three days'
- Mehmet Alaca, analyst
'The Government of Iraq has a duty to protect its territory and all of its citizens,' US Department of State spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a statement on Wednesday. 'These strikes target international companies that are working with Iraq to invest in Iraq's future.'
Ankara-based analyst Mehmet Alaca told Middle East Eye that Baghdad has long used hard power to undermine Erbil and curb its autonomy.
'The ongoing attacks on oil fields, even as negotiations between Erbil and Baghdad reach their final stages, are a clear indication of this. Over 60 percent of KRG oil production has been halted due to the strikes in the past three days. The attacks appear aimed at forcing Erbil into concessions,' Alaca said.
'Erbil has always been an easy target for Iran. Erbil is chosen for its retaliation against Israel. The current use of similar tactics by militia groups is a tactic learned from their patrons.
'Unable to maintain its internal political integrity and with its economic weakness deepening, the KRG will be even more vulnerable to Baghdad.'
On Thursday, the Iraqi government approved a deal with the KRG to resume oil exports from the Kurdistan region and the salary payments for public employees.
Barzani welcomed Baghdad's decision and called for an end to the attacks on the Kurdistan Region, including its oil infrastructure.
'We hope the federal government will assist in identifying those responsible and in taking the necessary legal measures against them,' Barzani said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
38 minutes ago
- Middle East Eye
Why are people protesting against the Boston Consulting Group?
In San Francisco, Boston, Dallas and other cities around the country, protesters have marched and chanted outside the offices of the Boston Consulting Group (BCG). The demonstrators were demanding accountability for BCG's role in creating a deadly new aid distribution system backed by the US and Israel that a United Nations official described as using starvation as a bargaining chip. Founded in 1961 and headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, BCG is one of the most prominent consulting firms in the United States and advises clients on a large number of topics, including security and humanitarian issues. BCG is one of the world's three largest management consulting firms by revenue and is no stranger to controversy. It has been reported to have worked with Isabel dos Santos, who was accused of exploiting Angola's natural resources. It is also reported to have been one of the firm's "critical" in helping Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman consolidate his grip on power in the kingdom. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Middle East Eye examines the BCG's role in Gaza's humanitarian crisis and efforts to hold the consulting firm accountable. Collaboration with Gaza Humanitarian Foundation Between October 2024 and May 2025, BCG helped establish the controversial US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). The GHF began to invite increased scrutiny in early June as evidence of massacres at GHF aid sites emerged, prompting BCG to cancel its contracts with GHF and describe their previous cooperation as 'unapproved'. 'Two former partners initiated this work, even though the lead partner was categorically told not to. This work was not a BCG project. It was orchestrated and run secretly outside any BCG scope or approvals. We fully disavow this work. BCG was not paid for any of this work,' BCG wrote on their website. But a Financial Times (FT) investigation revealed that BCG's cooperation with the GHF was extensive and discussed with senior BCG figures, while the Washington Post's reporting showed that BCG was filing monthly invoices of over $1m a month. The FT investigation found that BCG was originally contacted by Orbis, an American security company working on behalf of an Israeli think tank, to do a feasibility study for a new Gaza aid operation. Senior partners at BCG 'step down over Gaza humanitarian controversy' Read More » BCG then helped create Safe Reach Solutions (SRS), a mercenary firm that would provide security at aid sites, along with GHF. At one point, SRS reportedly chastised a contractor under its command for refusing to shoot Palestinian children. GHF's executive director resigned hours before GHF's public launch in May, claiming it was impossible to implement GHF's Gaza aid plan 'while also strictly adhering to humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence'. UN aid chief Tom Fletcher also criticised the GHF, describing it as 'a fig leaf for further violence and displacement'. BCG planned to bill GHF around $4m for work that included developing financial models of what the UN described as 'ethnic cleansing' in Gaza. The model included 'voluntary relocation', where Palestinians in Gaza would have been given $5,000, rent subsidies for four years and subsidised food for a year. The model predicted that a quarter of the population would leave, and three-fourths of them would never return, according to FT. As Israeli air strikes indiscriminately kill Palestinians and children starve to death under Israel's suffocating siege, such an offer could hardly be considered voluntary and was widely condemned by rights groups. Why is the GHF controversial? Set up to bypass UN aid distribution networks that have been in place for decades, but that Israel alleges are now linked to Hamas, GHF sites have proven deadly for Palestinians seeking aid. Israeli soldiers have admitted to deliberately killing unarmed Palestinian aid seekers at GHF distribution sites, with one Israeli soldier describing the aid centres as 'killing fields'. Over a thousand Palestinian aid-seekers have been killed, mostly at GHF sites, since May, according to the UN. Yet as malnutrition spreads across Gaza, hungry Palestinians have little choice but to brave Israeli bullets to search for aid. Israel alleges that violence at the aid sites is necessary to stop the aid from being stolen by Hamas. However, an internal US review examined 156 instances of stolen or lost aid and found no evidence that Hamas was stealing it. Rather, Israel directly or indirectly caused the loss or theft of aid in 44 instances, according to the findings. Meanwhile, Israel has admitted that it supports anti-Hamas gangs notorious for stealing aid. How other aid organisations reacted to BCG On 13 June, Save the Children International became the first charity to pause cooperation with BCG over its role in the GHF. Save the Children CEO Inger Ashing said BCG's modelling of a plan for the forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza 'disregards fundamental rights and dignity, and raises serious ethical and legal questions' - and that Save the Children would suspend work with BCG pending the outcome of an external investigation. Several days later, BCG's chief risk officer and the leader of its social-impact practice resigned from their roles. Yet despite the international outcry against GHF, some humanitarian aid organisations have been hesitant to cut ties with GHF. Although the World Food Programme told The New Humanitarian that it planned to review its ties with BCG, other humanitarian aid organisations, including some that decried the GHF, did not indicate that they were considering ending their relationship with BCG. What protests have there been against BCG? Some protesters have found BCG, with dozens of locations across the US, an accessible target to protest against the killing of aid seekers in Gaza. On 25 July, demonstrators banged pots and pans outside BCG's headquarters in the Seaport district of Boston. GHF chief attacks UN and media, avoids saying 'Palestinians' when referring to Gaza Read More » A security guard at the building seriously injured one protester when he pushed the protester into a metal pole, breaking several ribs. 'Very quickly, a security guard ran from within the building without me noticing him, and slammed into me and pushed me away from the door with all his strength,' the protester, who asked to remain anonymous, told Middle East Eye. Multiple witnesses corroborated the account, and the protester was later taken by ambulance to a hospital with a trauma centre. On 25 July, at least a dozen protesters were arrested when demonstrators staged a sit-in at a BCG facility in Dallas. Protesters also demonstrated outside a BCG office in Dallas on Thursday. On the west coast of the United States, the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) organised protests outside of BCG's offices in San Francisco and San Diego. 'The time to act is now! The genocide in Gaza had reached a critical moment with thousands facing starvation due to the brutal siege on the strip… we will make ourselves heard,' a statement from the San Diego chapter of PYM said.
Middle East Eye
3 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Israel's meltdown over western recognition of Palestinian statehood reveals its deepest fears
Now that France and Britain, both members of the United Nations Security Council and the G7, have indicated they are prepared to recognise the State of Palestine, the dam has burst. On Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney indicated his government also intends to recognise Palestine during the upcoming session of the UN General Assembly in New York, and an increasing number of western states are adopting or preparing similar positions. It is far from certain whether any of these governments will actually follow through on their statements of intent. By attaching various conditions to their plans, they have already given themselves an escape clause should they need to use it. Given that a two-state settlement has been the official position of these western governments for decades, the question arises as to why they have waited so long to recognise the state without which their proclaimed strategic objective is impossible, particularly since a majority of countries recognised Palestine long ago. One reason lies in their domestic politics and the profound transformation of western public opinion. The shift has been building over many years, and is the harvest of continuous, persistent efforts by countless individuals and organisations to bring about changes in official policy. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters In large part, thanks to their campaigns, the impact of the Gaza genocide on public opinion manifested itself much more rapidly and broadly than would otherwise have been the case. It is safe to conclude this change is now irreversible, similar to that experienced by South Africa after the 1960 Sharpeville massacre. Public pressure Faced with a deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza and mounting public pressure, western governments were compelled to act. Most have chosen the symbolic and comparatively cost-free approach of recognition. They have done so in large part to avoid adopting concrete measures, such as an arms embargo, trade sanctions, or diplomatic isolation. Yet their response has also demonstrated that the pressures generated by protracted public campaigns can and do produce results, and can indeed force governments to change course. Western governments are now acting on recognition because Israel's own words and actions have backed them into a corner and left them with no other choice The continuation and intensification of these campaigns is therefore more justified and necessary than ever. They must now focus on compelling these governments to take active measures to end their complicity in Israeli crimes, bring these crimes to a halt, and replace the shield of impunity that governments continue to provide to Israel with policies that impose actual accountability. A second reason western governments are now acting on recognition is that Israel's own words and actions have backed them into a corner and left them with no other choice. For decades, these states have treated "two-state settlement" and "Palestinian state" not as policies requiring concrete actions in order to bring them about, but rather as political slogans, under the cover of which Israel was permitted to turbocharge its efforts to annex Palestinian territory and dispossess its inhabitants with the express purpose of making a two-state settlement impossible. As long as Israel was willing to pretend it sought peace with the Palestinians and make occasional statements that it, too, supported a two-state settlement, western states could deflect pressure to confront its annexationist activities on the pretext that doing so would undermine Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and thus the consummation of a two-state settlement. The peace process had to be kept alive at all costs. In this Kafkaesque world, "two-state settlement" served as a fig leaf for its elimination. Cornered by Israel As Israel shifted ever further to the extreme right, the pretence of negotiations became increasingly untenable. With the Gaza genocide, it has become simply impossible to sustain. Israeli leaders - all of them - now openly speak of their intention to collectively expel the Palestinians they have not killed from the Gaza Strip, to annex the West Bank, and to ensure a Palestinian state is never established. It is official Israeli government policy. In explaining Canada's new position, Carney explicitly referenced Israel's actions, not only in the Gaza Strip but particularly in the West Bank, as justifications. These include "accelerated settlement building across the West Bank and East Jerusalem", the "E1 Settlement Plan", and this month's vote by the Knesset calling for the annexation of the West Bank, as well as soaring settler terrorism. Like its predecessors, Canada recognised that its continued embrace of a two-state settlement and Palestinian statehood, while supporting these only with empty slogans, had become at best nonsensical and politically costly. Israeli extremism left Ottawa and other western capitals with exactly two options: recognise Palestine or endorse formal Israeli annexation. In addition to other factors, last year's International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion that Israeli rule in the occupied territories is illegal and must end as rapidly as possible would have complicated a move to legitimise Israeli annexation. Failed alternative A third reason for the recognition of Palestinian statehood is the failure of the alternative formulated by the first Trump administration: Arab-Israeli normalisation as a substitute for Palestinian self-determination. Rather than promote normalisation as the icing on the cake of a two-state settlement, the grandiloquently titled Abraham Accords were designed to weaken, isolate and ultimately marginalise the Palestinians. Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of Israel's war on Gaza They essentially aimed to remove the Question of Palestine from the regional as well as international agenda with official Arab support. They enabled Israel to unilaterally resolve the Question of Palestine as it saw fit. Israel was given all the time and space it required to discard the Palestinians into the dustbin of history while the world looked the other way. These efforts, however, ended in resounding failure on 7 October 2023. While claims that Hamas specifically acted that day to thwart a purportedly impending Saudi-Israeli normalisation agreement were never convincing, by 2025, any such deal that excludes provisions for Palestinian statehood is no longer a tenable proposition. Nearly two years on, Palestine continues to dominate the headlines. Selective memory Israel and its apologists have responded to these recognition announcements with predictable rage and fury. The eruption of Mt Hasbara is almost without precedent. Among the arguments put forward by Israel and its flunkies are that recognition is a "reward for terrorism", represents "a prize for Hamas", and even that it encourages Hamas to harden its position in negotiations to end the Gaza genocide. It is, of course, true that political crises and armed conflicts typically result in modifications, changes, and even transformations of policy. This has been an observable pattern since the dawn of history. Israeli settler terrorism isn't new. It is foundational to the Zionist project Read More » If reality were any different, Ho Chi Minh City would still be an American brothel named Saigon, Algeria would still be an administrative department of France, and Zimbabwe would still be known as Rhodesia, to give but a few recent examples. In their time, those who brought these changes about were vilified as terrorists, and the achievement of their rights similarly denounced as rewards for terrorism. There is nothing new under the sun here, though the Hasbara Symphony Orchestra is admittedly more shrill than its historical counterparts by orders of magnitude. What the orchestra's musicians omit entirely is how this pattern worked to their own advantage. After Britain successfully crushed the 1936-39 Arab Revolt in Palestine, during which it empowered Zionist militias to serve as auxiliaries in its counterinsurgency campaign, the latter increasingly turned their guns on their British sponsors. Throughout the 1940s, Zionist militias conducted a growing volume of attacks against British forces, and in addition to killing British soldiers, assassinated British officials in Palestine and abroad. In 1946, they blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the headquarters of the British Mandatory government in Palestine, killing nearly 100. Two future Israeli prime ministers, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, were classified as wanted terrorists by the British authorities. The Zionist campaign against the British played an important role in London's decision to terminate the Mandate, which gave way to Israel. But that was "good" terrorism. Political blackmail In the specific case of Palestine, every country now announcing an intention to recognise its statehood has been on record supporting this position for decades. And for roughly half a century, the recognition of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories has formed a key component of the international consensus on Arab-Israeli peace. As for the Palestinian people, their right to national self-determination has been recognised as inalienable since the 1970s. For good measure, the ICJ in 2024 ruled that Israel has no right to exercise authority over even a square millimetre of Palestinian territory. The more pertinent question, therefore, is why it took the Gaza genocide and Israel speeding towards formal annexation of the West Bank for these states to finally begin the process of recognising Palestinian statehood. Why have they spent the past several decades appeasing Israel at every turn rather than confronting its crimes and illegal activities? And why have their announcements regarding recognition not been accompanied by specific, concrete and meaningful measures that promote it in practice? Palestinian UN representative Riyad Mansour attends the General Assembly's 46th plenary meeting on the Question of Palestine at UN headquarters in New York, 3 December 2024 (Kena Betancur/AFP) The indisputable reality is that it is Israel that has, year after year, been rewarded for its illegal occupation and criminal policies, and has been endlessly appeased. That it took a genocide, and two years after its onset, for western governments to reconsider this state of affairs is the true scandal. As for Hamas's negotiating position, it is unclear how a symbolic political act that may or may not be carried out in several weeks is going to harden or in any way change its calculations in ongoing negotiations about an end to Israel's genocidal military campaign, which has now also produced a famine in the Gaza Strip. Rather, we are dealing with either pure hysteria, a desperate effort at political blackmail, or a talking point designed to provide Israel's government with yet another pretext to sabotage ceasefire negotiations. It also bears mentioning that those announcing an intention to recognise Palestinian statehood have typically conditioned this on a removal of Hamas from governance in the Gaza Strip, and in a number of cases, such as that of Canada, even the exclusion of Hamas from new Palestinian Authority elections. Israel's real fear When it comes to negotiations, Israel has never acted in good faith to bring the occupation that commenced in 1967 to a definitive end. In each round of negotiations, Israel invariably insisted upon, among other things, retaining occupied territory in a manner that ensured most illegal settlements and settlers would remain in place. The territory Israel sought to annex would not only fragment a Palestinian state but, together with other demands, also leave Israel in effective control of its external borders - as though Jordan and Egypt were poised to invade Tel Aviv. As the two-state paradigm becomes a thing of the past, and recognition of Israeli annexation remains off the table, a deeper crisis awaits the genocidal apartheid regime What Israel was offering the Palestinians was a state in name only: for all intents and purposes, an Israeli protectorate lacking meaningful sovereignty. It is what former Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad perceptively called a "Mickey Mouse State". Today Israel is not only rejecting any negotiations with Palestinians on an end to the occupation as a matter of principle, but these talks have also been made superfluous by the ICJ ruling. The ruling declared the occupation illegal in its entirety and requires Israel to withdraw to the 1967 boundaries as a matter of legal obligation, without Palestinian territorial concessions save mutually agreed, reciprocal, and minor border adjustments. Given this context, it is noteworthy that the final document of the recent High-Level International Conference on Palestine, organised by France and Saudi Arabia, co-chaired by 19 states, and convened at UN headquarters in New York, repeatedly speaks of implementing a two-state settlement without once referencing that tired old saw, "negotiations". Ultimately, Israel's meltdown over western recognition of Palestinian statehood is not about recognition as such. Rather, it reflects its fear - an entirely justified one - that the dam has burst. Slowly but surely, these governments are beginning to respond to the campaigns and demands of their citizens for an entirely different approach to Palestine. It won't end with symbolic political gestures, and Israel understands this better than anybody. As the two-state paradigm becomes a thing of the past, and recognition of Israeli annexation remains off the table, a more fundamental crisis awaits the genocidal apartheid regime. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Middle East Eye
3 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Exclusive: How Karim Khan's Israel war crimes probe was derailed by threats, leaks and sex claims
A major Middle East Eye investigation has uncovered extraordinary details of an intensifying intimidation campaign targeting the British chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court over his investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes. The campaign has involved threats and warnings directed at Karim Khan by prominent figures, close colleagues and family friends briefing against him, fears for the prosecutor's safety prompted by a Mossad team in The Hague, and media leaks about sexual assault allegations. It has taken place against the backdrop of Khan's efforts to build and pursue a case against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials over their conduct of the war against Hamas in Gaza and accelerating Israeli settlement expansion and violence against Palestinians in the illegally occupied West Bank. Last month, Middle East Eye revealed that Khan was warned in May that if the arrest warrants issued last year for Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant were not withdrawn, he and the ICC would be destroyed. The warning was delivered by Nicholas Kaufman, a British-Israeli defence lawyer at the court, during a meeting with Khan and his wife, Shyamala Alagendra, at a hotel in The Hague. You can read more here.
