return to table of content

ICC prosecutor seeks arrest warrants against Sinwar and Netanyahu for war crimes

jupp0r
127 replies
22h20m

The optics of equating a terrorist organization on the one hand with a democratic state with functioning judicial system and accountability for any crimes committed on the other hand by putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the court.

I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion. On the other side you have what's a pretty clear case of a large scale terror attack against innocent civilians.

In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?

umanwizard
45 replies
22h7m

Israel administers multiple territories, some of them democratically (e.g. Israel proper, where Arabs are citizens with equal legal rights), and some of them undemocratically (e.g. the West Bank).

In other words, if by "Israel" you mean only within the borders of its sovereign territory, yes it's a democracy. If by "Israel" you mean all territory controlled by the State of Israel, it's clearly not.

So, they at best get partial credit for being "a democracy". If they wanted to get full credit, they would have to either relinquish control over the West Bank (and Gaza for that matter), or grant the people living there equal citizenship and voting rights.

In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?

Nobody has to let foreigners into their country if they don't want to. Israel has every right to limit what goes over their border with Gaza, too. What bothers me is that they also restrict Gaza's territorial waters and airspace (and have been doing so since long before Oct. 7th), which AFAIK Egypt isn't involved in.

xg15
22 replies
21h11m

Israel administers multiple territories, some of them democratically (e.g. Israel proper, where Arabs are citizens with equal legal rights), and some of them undemocratically (e.g. the West Bank).

This is one aspect of the whole conflict that has always seriously irked me.

The West effectively treats Israel as if it were the legal guardian of the Palestinians: Israel controls the entire territory, controls the tax revenue, population registry, borders, airspace, energy and water supply, can precisely restrict what (is allowed to) go in and out, can construct or demolish buildings at will, can arrest people at will, or even shoot them, can arbitrarily set the rules for court proceedings, etc. Western and neighbor countries fully support this view, to the point where, if Palestinians import or export goods into their own territories without Israel's authorisation, this is called "smuggling".

Yet at the same time, Israel seems to have no obligation to actually consider or represent the interests of the Palestinians: They are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections; they don't have any representation in the Knesset; laws can be passed that arbitrarily disadvantage them without loss of democratic status; Israeli politicians openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies".

In any situation where any individual person were the legal guardian of another person and at the same time called them "their bitter enemy", we'd be deeply alarmed and suspect an abusive relationship. Yet in the case of Israel and the Palestinians, that's "how things are supposed to be" and everyone who tries to change that status quo is the problem.

This feels extremely wrong to me.

(The UN is clearer here: They give Israel the specific legal role of "occupation force" and point to various obligations towards the occupied population that come with that role. However, the western countries somehow both deny that any occupation even takes place and demand that Israel must continue to have full control over the territories - which is contradictory in itself)

YZF
9 replies
18h13m

Israeli politicians openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies".

I don't think this is really true or at the very least it's nuanced. There are some extreme right politicians that say very questionable things but Palestinians (including Israeli Arabs, Palestinians in the west bank, and Palestinians in Gaza) are not generally, as a whole, thought of as bitter enemies. The Hamas maybe. People on both sides generally get along in many situations (e.g. Palestinians that are Israeli citizens, Palestinians working in Israel, Israelis shopping in the West Bank, even most settlers in the West Bank with their Palestinian neighbours).

tsimionescu
8 replies
17h41m

One of those "far right wing" politicians happens to be the President of the country, who has repeatedly claimed that "[Gazans are] an entire nation out there that is responsible… This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved [in the October 7 onslaught] — it's absolutely not true." [0]

Even in his denial that these claims are basically holding all (or at least most) of the people of Gaza responsible for October 7th, he has actually reiterated the same claim:

"But the reality cannot be ignored, a reality which we all saw with our own eyes as published by Hamas on that cursed day, and that was the involvement of many residents of Gaza in the slaughter, in the looting, and in the riots of October 7. How the crowds in Gaza cheered at the sight of Israelis being slaughtered and their bodies mutilated. At the sight of hostages — God knows what they did to them — wounded and bleeding being dragged through the streets. In view of such terrible crimes, it is appropriate that the honorable court investigate them in depth, and not casually in passing."

He then goes on to say that despite this, they are of course not targeting civilians. But it's hard to see any way to interpret both of these statements other than as claims that the people of Gaza, collectively, deeply hate Israelis.

And other figures of power (members of the Knesset certainly, even some minsters I believe) have said much more explicit, and more heinous, things. I can search for quotes if you haven't seen them.

Quotes taken from

[0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-blood-libel-herzog-says-icj-...

YZF
7 replies
16h59m

But your quotes do not support your statement. They do not refer to Israeli Arabs which are also Palestinians or to Palestinians in the west bank.

Your statement is incorrect but you're doubling down on it.

I think the sentiment of Gazans towards Israelis is a topic we can look at via surveys if you want to go that way.

It's also a matter of fact that some Gazan civilians were aware and did indeed participate in the Oct 7th attack. The first wave was combatants but random people followed that pillaging, killing, taking hostages. The statement about cheering in Gaza at slaughtered Israelis is also true. Neither of those truths support the idea that in general Israelis view all Gazans or all Palestinians (your original claim) as "bitter enemies". I can find you many quotes of Israelis saying their war is not against all Gazans. Those opinions outnumbers by 2 orders of magnitude. You can't just cherry pick, you need to look at the entire picture. Even Netanyahu clatified many times that Israel's war is not on Gaza's civilians (despite the truth of some of them participating in Oct 7th).

tsimionescu
6 replies
16h54m

I said nothing about Israeli Arabs or even Palestinians in general (though I'm sure I can find statements about Palestinians in general).

But these are clearly statements about Gazans in general, not some specific subset of Gazans. Mr Herzog is clearly saying, or at the very least heavily implying, that Gazans in general are bitter enemies of Israel. Not every single Gazan, but Gazans in general. He could have said "there was some small group of Gazans that [...]". He could have said "There are some X thousand Gazans that [...]". But he didn't: he chose to say "Gazan civilians", without any other discriminant.

YZF
5 replies
16h34m

Yes you did:

"Israeli politicians openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies"."

As I said the bulk of statements from Israeli military, politicians, and government, in Hebrew and in English say that the war in Gaza is not against civilians but against Hamas. If you insist on cherry picking some statements and building your story on those then I would respectfully ask that you reconsider.

I would also urge you look at surveys and see what Gazans think about Israelis instead of obsessing with the (IMO not true) idea that Israelis consider Gazans their bitter enemy. Find me surveys before Oct 7th that show that Israelis had more negative opinions about Gazans than Gazans held about Israelis overall and I'm open to changing my position. I also urge you to see footage of Oct 7th and ask yourself a question about the mindset towards Israelis leading to these actions.

hedora
3 replies
15h0m

The actions of these politicians are more important than their words.

According to Amnesty International (which has a separate report detailing Palestinian war crimes), the politicians you are defending directly authorized the killing of 10,000’s of children, the maiming of 10,000’s more, torture of civilians (often to death, and including residents of Israel), created a famine that lead to a 93% starvation rate last winter, and also committed systematic violations of LGBTI’s rights in Israel.

There are many, many more war crimes enumerated in the report, and it also documents the connection to top Israeli officials.

The above is indefensible, as are the actions of Hamas.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-af...

YZF
2 replies
13h23m

The UN has revised its estimate of the number of children killed to 7,797 admitting the "fog of war" makes it hard to know how many were killed. The definition of "child" is anyone under 18yo which can include combatants. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-69014893

The UN numbers come from Hamas, there is no independent verification of those numbers and Hamas is a side to the conflict.

Either way, your statement about "authorizing the killing of 10's of thousands of children" is false.

I'm not sure what systemic violation of LGBT right you're referring to. The LGBTQ+ community in Israel has no issues unlike anywhere else in the middle east (for example). Israel ranks above most countries in the world in LGBT legal rights and friendliness: https://www.equaldex.com/equality-index

I don't know what 93% starvation rate you're talking about. This is just an outright lie. Also straight from Hamas. This lie has been repeated endlessly since the war started but somehow the markets are still full of food. People (e.g. Hamas) are also stealing aid and re-selling it.

Everything happening in Gaza is a result of war. Yes, Israeli went to war after Oct 7th, which Israel's government has authorized. The goal of the war is to destroy Hamas something that is within Israel's legitimate right to self defense. These outcomes you're describing including civilian casualties, hunger, etc. are not just a function of Israel's decision, they're also a function of Hamas' decision to hold onto its hostages and continue fighting. The reason for the war is Hamas attacking Israel. Hamas, the government of Gaza, is responsible for the condition of the people it governs.

tsimionescu
0 replies
8m

The UN numbers come from Hamas, there is no independent verification of those numbers and Hamas is a side to the conflict.

There are no other numbers for Palestinian casulaties. The Israeli state and military have continuously and vehemently refused to provide any numbers of their own (recently in a very embarrassing way on Piers Morgan's show, of all people). In contrast, the Gaza Ministry of Health numbers are considered very high quality by the UN and by all humanitarian organizations working in the region, and have been consistently confirmed for years. Sure, the ministry of health is run by Hamas, but that is only because they are the official ruling party in Gaza. Its not like trusting numbers reported by Al Quaida or ISIS.

Not to mention, those numbers represent a significant undercount of casulaties, since they only count confirmed deaths of people whom the health ministry could specifically identify. People lost in the rubble, small communities that were killed or starved and were not reported, etc are all not counted in these numbers. You can go and check the name and address of each and every one of those 7,797 children, and confirm that they are indeed dead.

Edit: If the IDF or Israel want to refute those numbers, it is extremely easy to do so: they can provide their own numbers, their own methodology, and allow independent experts to study them, like the ministry of health has. "Mysteriously", they have entirely failed to do so, just like they have failed to price that the hospitals they were bombing were Hamas control centers, and many other bogus claims they are making.

VagabundoP
0 replies
4h46m

Ah you've only killed 7,797 children. That's okay then, carry on. /s

tsimionescu
0 replies
3h26m

I did not, that was another poster. I specifically talked about Gazans.

As I said the bulk of statements from Israeli military, politicians, and government, in Hebrew and in English say that the war in Gaza is not against civilians but against Hamas. If you insist on cherry picking some statements and building your story on those then I would respectfully ask that you reconsider.

They say they are not fighting against the civilians through one corner of their mouth, and say the civilians are bitter monsters that cheered as Israelis were slaughtered (as you are claiming as well) through the other corner of their mouth. In the meantime, their hands are busy destroying hospitals, schools, universities, killing journalists, killing aid workers, killing doctors and nurses, killing children, preventing aid of any kind from entering the country, and so on.

Not to mention, for every video of one Palestinian or Gazan cheering on the Hamas crimes of October 7th you find, I'll find a similar video of an Israeli citizen or soldier cheering when a school is destroyed or a "terrorist" killed. Both are heinous, but a lot of people, like yourself apparently, pretend only Gaza has monsters that take pleasure in the killing of civilians.

And still it must be remembered that Gazans are being actively occupied by Israel, a state which has no intention whatsoever as recognizing them as an independent nation, nor allowing those of them that wish to to return to the homes they had to abandon in the fighting of only a few decades ago. I personally cut oppressed people some small amount of slack when they feel vindicated for their oppressors feeling some amount of the oppression they feel every day, as bad as it is to think like that (note that more than 200 Gazan civilians were being killed per year even before the current slaughter began).

haberman
8 replies
15h40m

Everything you say is true. The only reason Western nations tolerate it, in my view, is because they have witnessed the alternative.

To continue your analogy, Israel tried to "graduate" Gaza to adulthood in 2005. The army removed all Jewish settlers and settlements, and all military presence, and left the Gazans to form their own government. Gaza held elections that were judged to be free and fair by international observers.

Unfortunately, Gazans elected a Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Don't get me wrong, I can understand if Palestinians feel sore about the creation of Israel on some of the land that they desired for an undivided Palestinian state. But 10 million people live there now, including generations of Jews who have no other home, many of whom were expelled from other Arab countries when Israel was founded. A settlement between Israel and Palestinians will require compromise, but Hamas is not interested in compromise. Hamas dedicates every available resource towards an absolutist goal of destroying Israel.

Moreover, Hamas does not see itself as having any responsibility towards the people of Gaza. It builds tunnels to protect its fighters, but considers it the UN's responsibility (through UNRWA) to protect its civilians. In this sense it operates differently from almost any government in the world, in that it is not actually trying to build a society and govern it. In the eyes of Hamas Palestinians are in a war that has been going since 1948, and this war will continue until Israel is destroyed. It considers all of its people refugees and wards of the UN until Israel is destroyed.

I have plenty of criticism for Israel, primarily that it builds settlements in the West Bank, sabotaging prospects for a future Palestinian state. But it's hard for me to fault Israel for acting as the legal guardians of the Palestinians when I witness the Palestinian's disinterest in actually building a state that could coexist with Israel, not to mention the means by which they enact their resistance.

1shooner
5 replies
15h16m

But it's hard for me to fault Israel for acting as the legal guardians of the Palestinians when I witness the Palestinian's disinterest in actually building a state that could coexist with Israel, not to mention the means by which they enact their resistance.

I suspect this is an aspect of the collapse of support for Israel in the US along demographic lines. For many of young Americans' adult lives, Israel's 'guardianship' has been somewhere between anti-democratic and outright oppressive, and certainly not a context in which a people could be expected to 'build a state' for themselves.

haberman
4 replies
14h28m

Why can they build a war machine (tunnels, rockets, etc) but not a civil society?

I really am curious what young Americans expect Israel to do.

theoldlove
2 replies
13h35m

I think young Americans have learned all their lives that ethnostates are bad, especially those based on religion. I think they (we) want a one state solution where Palestinians are full Israeli citizens who can move, work, and vote freely.

haberman
0 replies
11h49m

I don't think Hamas wants to be citizens of Israel, the western-style democracy. Its charter (even the softened 2017 version) unambiguously rejects recognition of Israel: "There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity."

Hamas wants an Arab Islamic state to rule Palestine from the river to the sea. It doesn't want equal rights and seats in the Knesset, it wants Arab Muslims to govern the land under Islamic law. This is all spelled out explicitly in their charter.

edanm
0 replies
9h31m

This is by far the worst way to think about this conflict. It comes from a good place, but it's advocating for something that is:

1. Not even remotely likely to happen.

2. Not what almost any of the parties on the ground want to happen.

3. If implemented, would almost certainly lead to atrocities.

4. The opposite of what most people who have studied this issue think is a good option.

It is the essence of not being really engaged with the problem, and trying to fit it into a mold that doesn't make any sense, and therefore coming up with solutions that will leave everyone worse off.

I highly suggest that if you want to better the lives of people in the region, especially the Palestinians (since they're currently the worst off), you advocate for some form of 2-state solution, just like almost every other peace advocate in the region.

(I'm happy to elaborate on any of the points above, if you'd like.)

skyyler
0 replies
1h27m

what young Americans expect Israel to do.

Stop bombing hospitals and churches. Even if hamas "built tunnels" under them.

downWidOutaFite
1 replies
12h44m

The biggest mistake in the last 20 years was when Hamas took power and Netanyahu took an immediate hardline, imposing a crushing blockade, full demonization propaganda, "mowing the lawn" policy, and refused to even try to work with Hamas from day one. But Netanyahu has never wanted peace.

haberman
0 replies
3h26m

How do you work with an organization that is explicitly dedicated to destroying your state and killing your people?

Do you just hope they didn't mean the things they wrote in their charter?

naasking
0 replies
13h45m

Yet at the same time, Israel seems to have no obligation to actually consider or represent the interests of the Palestinians: They are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections; they don't have any representation in the Knesset...

Doesn't the US have a bunch of territories that don't have representation? Like Puerto Rico. It seems like this sort of arrangement is not alien even to Western politicians, although the treatment of people certainly differs.

ignoramous
0 replies
19h11m

Israeli politicians openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies" ... This feels extremely wrong to me

Wait till you find how in response to white nationalist attacks, the US political elite instead end up making laws to ban Palestinian groups.

An issue involving 14m peoples shouldn't be this international and should have never shaped the West's domestic policy (let alone foreign policy) as much as it has.

https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/instruments-of-dehuman... / https://archive.ph/BWrzw

YZF
20 replies
18h19m

It's more complicated than that. Israel did not administer Gaza nor does it administer PA controlled territories in the West Bank.

Last I checked the question of democracy didn't expand to occupied territories. When the US occupied Afghanistan or Iraq (or German or Japan) those countries did not get a vote in the US elections. Puerto Rico also don't get a vote in the US?

Handing over the west bank to Palestinians isn't an option because: a) the world would not recognize that as the end of Israel's occupation just like it didn't accept Israel's handing Gaza over as the end of the occupation. b) That area would be taken over by Hamas just like Gaza was taken over and would be staging ground for launching attacks into Israel just like Oct 7th or the rocket barrages that came from Gaza over the years since Israel's withdrawal. The West Bank has a significantly longer border with Israel which would put most major Israeli cities minutes of driving and within rocket/mortar range. c) The option of annexing the West Bank and Gaza and making everyone citizens is also not acceptable to either the Palestinians or the international community.

This really answers your unasked question of why is this area under military occupation for so long (IIRC Germany and Japan were also controlled for a pretty long time but anyways). Initially Israel needed the area so Arab armies aren't sitting 10 minutes from its population centers (when the entire Arab world was still at war with Israel). Now that there's peace with Jordan and Egypt it's more of a Palestinians aren't willing to make peace in exchange for this land, they don't want to become Israelis, and there's no realistic option that ensures both the safety of Israelis and their rights and the rights of Palestinians.

After all this you might be right to complain about e.g. settlements in the west bank. And there I'd finally agree with you. Israel should not allow Israelis to live in the west bank before it's final status is determined. That said, it wouldn't really make the problem that easier to solve, if anything it is taking us closer to a day where that area is annexed and Palestinians do become Israeli citizens.

mardifoufs
14 replies
17h23m

Israel has had complete control over Gaza's borders, even the Egyptian border side. And that's since the 1980s, before Hamas even was a thing. That means that Israel either was blockading or "administrated" the border if we want to sugarcoat it. I'm not sure about you but that sure sounds like either an act of war, or occupation.

Also, settlers in the west bank aren't just a "that sucks" type of thing. It shows exactly the intentions of Israel once any territory is pacified. Which is exactly what happened to the west bank since they stopped fighting back.

YZF
7 replies
16h41m

Israel had no control of the Egyptian border to Gaza since it withdrew in 2005. That is a fact.

You got the settler vs. Palestinian violence in exactly the wrong order. Before the first Intifadah there were hardly any settlers in the west bank. The settlement movement is a response to Palestinian violence, not something that happened because the violence stopped. Palestinian violence against Israelis and Jews predates 1967 (when the west bank was occupied from Jordan) and predates 1948 (When the state of Israel was created).

mardifoufs
2 replies
15h45m

Yes and Israeli violence against Palestinians also dates from 1948. In fact the Israelis killed much more Palestinians than the reverse.

Also I don't get your point. So they started settling because of the intifada? That doesn't make sense, and I've never seen settlers claim that it was related to anything expect that they see it as their god given land regardless of what happens to those who live there already.

I mean it's pretty simple, when the Fath ceased armed combat, the settlers came and Israel did nothing expect provide IDF protection to them. That's what the Palestinians got for trying to actually normalize the situation and create the PA and even fight their own little civil war against extremists (Fath vs Hamas): unrelenting settlement.

I'm sure the settlers wouldn't be so brazen if Hamas was also on the west bank. Funnily enough though, Israel ministers were also openly discussing allowing settlements again in last year in Gaza.

Still, it's very weird to see settlement as a "oh well that sucks but what can we do" when Israel could stop it any moment they want like they did in 2005. Oddly enough, only Israel gets to have literal conquest and blatant disregard for international law and even their allies marked as an oopsie.

YZF
1 replies
15h17m

The Israeli right wing is supports (to some extent) settlement in the west bank and the rise of the Israeli right is related to Palestinian violence. That's the correlation/connection. Israel's left wing, that used to support a two state solution and peace, has ceased to exist as a direct result of Palestinian terrorism.

You story doesn't jive with the facts. The period between 1967 and the mid eighties was the least violent period in the west bank. Palestinians worked in Israel. Israelies shopped in the west bank. That period also had virtually no settlement activity in the west bank.

The extreme right in Israel sees settlement as the "proper" answer to Palestinian violence. That's another thread connecting these things. But the government that enables this was literally brought into power by Hamas.

When did Fatah cease armed combat exactly according to you? Are you talking about the Oslo agreements and the return of Arafat to Ramallah? I'm not following you (and I used to live in Israel during those times so I'm not making stuff up).

Hamas is also in the west bank so your other statement doesn't compute either.

Israel has dismantled settlements in Sinai, and in Gaza, as part of an agreement. During the Oslo process there was support in Israel to dismantle those as part of a peace agreement. The Palestinians didn't want peace (Arafat thought he'd be murdered if he makes peace with the Israelis and anyways Hamas and the PIJ wouldn't abide which makes the whole thing moot).

mardifoufs
0 replies
14h2m

Hamas is in the west bank? I'm sure they have a few militants but they literally are hunted down and killed by the Fatah. Also, I really wonder what happened in the 1980s that lead to more violence. Could it be that the IDF enabled and even caused the massacre of 3000 Palestinians in Lebanon?

I'm not sure I'm following though. You are saying that Palestinian terrorism caused the right wing to come in power and disregard international law. Sure, okay. I hope you realize that in the 1980s, most of said terrorism was happening in areas that Israel was already occupying. Also, again, you seem to imply that Israel's left wing actually gave the Palestinians more than apartheid and at best, a ghetto to live in semi undisturbed. That has never happened. Again, the poster child for that was 2005. What the Palestinians got was a a completely choked out, blockaded strip of land.

Like were the Palestinians supposed to be grateful and just accept that they will have to live in a state of semi servitude and protectorate because at least it wasn't the right wing in power? That's just completely irrelevant from the Palestinians pov. Again, who cares about the political climate of Israel as if it's some sort of actual excuse for settling and stealing land at gun point? Again, there's an incredible double standard here.

Palestinian motives and goals and politics don't matter, but Israel is always justified because it could've done worse. I mean sure? It reminds of Russian propaganda for the war: they have really tried to stay peaceful but NATO FORCED them to invade and steal land. It could've been worse though! They could've used nukes.

Yes, Israel wasn't doing settlement back then. But that's the point now isn't it? Back then, they already occupied the west bank. And the extremism and fascist inspired ideology of settlers didn't emerge yet. On both sides, extremism was less prominent. But again, the double standard is to excuse the Israeli settlers and their batshit insane ideology.

Georgelemental
2 replies
15h12m

Before the first Intifadah there were hardly any settlers in the west bank. The settlement movement is a response to Palestinian violence, not something that happened because the violence stopped.

Even if this is true, all it demonstrates is that Israel is willing to take any measure necessary to avoid giving Palestinians in the West Bank full legal and political rights. Mere military occupation was met with violence, so instead of taking it as a sign that they weren't welcome and letting the population govern itself, they resorted to civilian settlement on top of that to solidify their hold.

YZF
1 replies
12h8m

Israel offered them full rights multiple times. During the Oslo peace process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords and later in the Camp David: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

Many (IMO most) Palestinians don't want to govern themselves. They want Israel erased. Israel tried "govern themselves" in Gaza.

There is nobody representing Palestinians that will accept resolving the conflict in return to control over the west bank and Gaza. This is true in multiple ways, firstly the Palestinians are fractured and have no one representative. None of the different factions would accept this either. Find me one Palestinian leader that says that.

It's super naive (sorry) to think that this conflict would be over as soon as Israel withdrew from the West Bank and Gaza. Ariel Sharon wanted to withdraw from the West Bank if the withdrawal from Gaza proved successful. Most Israelis do not sympathize with the settlers (at least that's the way it used to be, public opinion shifted a lot with all the violence). What would happen is that Hamas would take over, just like it did in Gaza. The PA is relies on Israel's support right now which prevents that from happening. Then all of Israel would be bombarded with rockets, mortars, etc.

The Palestinians demand the right of return, that is any refugee from the war of 1948 and all their descendants should be allowed to return to Israel. This is a non-starter for Israel and something without precedent in any other war in history. What this means in practice is the destruction of Israel by killing or expelling all Israelis. The other point of contention is Jerusalem. Israeli maintains freedom of religion and access to all religions. When Jerusalem was under Jordanian control Jordan did not. It's unlikely that Jerusalem under Hamas control would maintain free access. Jersualem is the holiest city for Jews.

Georgelemental
0 replies
6h44m

Israel offered them full rights multiple times. During the Oslo peace process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords and later in the Camp David: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

Oslo (which never included a firm promise of a Palestinian state in the first place, or even an end to the settlements) was sabotaged by the extremist fringe on both sides. If there is ever to be peace, those fringes can't be allowed to have a veto over the process. As for Camp David: https://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_m...

Israel tried "govern themselves" in Gaza.

To be specific, Israel tried "govern themselves, but also help fund and bolster Hamas terrorists. And blockade Gaza by land, air, and sea (including bombing out their airport) so their economy has no possibility of ever growing. And shoot to kill civilians in wheelchairs if they dare protest this state of affairs." That's what the situation in Gaza has been for the past two decades. Any nation—any nation—subjected to such treatment for such a span of time would consider it casus belli.

the Palestinians are fractured and have no one representative.

Yes, and that's because Netanyahu and co worked tirelessly for years to fracture them, so that they would be able to make this argument. https://original.antiwar.com/scott/2023/10/27/netanyahus-sup...

Barghouti perhaps could be a unifying figure if released, though maybe that wouldn't be a good thing… In any case, lack of unity between Gaza and the West Bank is no excuse to block work towards peace and ending the occupation in either locale. Israel could make separate deals with both factions.

The Palestinians demand the right of return

They demand that RoR be acknowledged. In practice, their negotiators have admitted on several occasions that all of them returning would be impracticable. Instead, Israel could let only a small percentage in, and financially compensate the rest as restitution.

Israeli maintains freedom of religion

Eh, they are trying to destroy the Armenian Christian quarter. But mostly true

8note
0 replies
16h5m

Alternatively, the settler movement has its own start, unrelated to violence, and will continue whether there's violence or peace.

jdietrich
5 replies
16h9m

Egypt is a sovereign nation with control over their borders. It is entirely within their power to facilitate as many border crossings as they see fit. The Egyptian side of the Rafah crossing is staffed by the Egyptian Border Guard Corps. The Philadephi Corridor is demilitarized as per the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty and is controlled by the Egyptian Border Guard Corps. Egypt has chosen to cooperate with Israel on the security arrangements at the border, largely because the Egyptian government regards Israel as an ally and Hamas as a hostile power.

mardifoufs
3 replies
15h59m

This is either not true or misleading. Palestinians can't move without Israeli consent. It doesn't matter that what the egyptians have chosen voluntarily (they haven't), when every other path in and out of Gaza is controlled by Israel and subject to force and threat of death. For any other territory or nation that would be considered a threat of war.

Under the Agreed Principles for Rafah Crossing, part of the Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA) of 15 November 2005, EUBAM was responsible for monitoring the Border Crossing. The agreement ensured Israel authority to dispute entrance by any person.[14]

This was in 2005, before Hamas. Now if you can't get to Gaza from the sea, because of Israel. Or from Egypt, because of Israel. Or from Israel itself...

Again, any territory or nation would consider something like this as an act of war, or if we don't see them as nation then apartheid. But no, the Gaza strip was completely free otherwise I guess?

YZF
2 replies
12h20m

Well, Hamas and Israel are at war, and have been at war since Hamas came to power, so not sure why "act of war" matters here. Firing rockets at Israel surely is an act of war.

If Israel has such good control over the Egypt-Gaza border how do Hamas fighters get to train in Iran?

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-fighters-trained...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/09/...

How did they get all the rocket manufacturing technology? Weapons?

This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing says: "It is located on the Egypt–Palestine border. Under a 2007 agreement between Egypt and Israel, Egypt controls the crossing but imports through the Rafah crossing require Israeli approval."

There is no mention of controlling movement of people. Anyways, this is something Egypt agreed to and it's sovereign and free to agree to anything it wants to. What do you mean "Egypt has no chosen voluntarily"?

Do you have a reference to your claim that Palestinians can't move without Israel consent?

You're mentioning EUBAM but EUBAM hasn't been there since 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Border_Assistan...

mardifoufs
1 replies
11h19m

This was before Hamas took power. That's why I said 2005.

And yes, so between 2005 and 2007 Israel already had control over the border. That's before Hamas. Once Hamas got into power, Israel restricted the border policy even more, but Egypt just basically closed theirs.

I mean I'm not sure what's the debate here. Even Israel is very clear that they issue visas for entry to Gaza. That sure sounds like administering a border to me. In the west bank, they completely control every border point. In Gaza, it's de facto the same thing as Egypt doesn't open theirs for most of the year as they consider Israel the administrative authority that deals with Gaza borders. Which is something Israel acknowledges. Does your country emit visas for territories it doesn't administer?

https://www.gov.il/en/service/entry-to-gaza

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2016-03-10/ty-article/.p... https://www.btselem.org/freedom_of_movement/20170515_thousan...

Edit: as for Egyptian control of the border, here's a source that explains how it's in many ways nominal only, with a tacit agreement between Israel and Egypt about dual use materials.

https://features.gisha.org/red-lines-gray-lists/

Which I guess can make sense considering Hamas. But then one has to remember that this has been the case before Hamas took power too. So that catch all excuse doesn't hold water.

jdietrich
0 replies
7h53m

Gaza was under Israeli control until 2005. The Agreement on Movement and Access was made between Israel and the Palestinian Authority as part of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. That agreement collapsed in 2006 when Hamas took power. The PA had fled Gaza and were no longer able to uphold their side of the agreement; Hamas did not recognise the agreement and were unwilling to negotiate with the PA, Egypt or Israel on border security arrangements.

legulere
0 replies
15h24m

Egypt lost the six-day war and had to sign the Camp David accords and peace treaty to regain the Sinai peninsula. In return it gave up upon part of its sovereignty needing consent of Israel on topics like arming of the border guard or wares that are allowed the crossing.

etc-hosts
4 replies
17h19m

if anything it is taking us closer to a day where that area is annexed and Palestinians do become Israeli citizens

I doubt the current state of Israel would ever make the Palestinians full Israeli citizens, because then Israel would no longer be majority Jewish. Being known as the Jewish homeland is very important to Israel.

YZF
2 replies
16h56m

They would. Even with the current numbers Israel still maintains Jewish majority and also the proponents of this annexation also say it'll come hand in hand with a "de-radicalization" program. There are other tools Israel can leverage (e.g. a constitution) to ensure Israel remains the Jewish homeland while making Palestinians full citizens. These don't have to contradict. Either way the Palestinians have no interest in being equal citizens in the country of Israel so it's more or less a moot point, for now.

legulere
1 replies
15h15m

Previous negotiations like the 2000 Camp David Summit have failed because (among other points) the right of return:

Almost all Israeli Jews oppose a literal right of return for Palestinian refugees on the grounds that allowing such an influx of Palestinians would render Jews a minority in Israel, thus transforming Israel into an Arab-Muslim state. In addition to the right-wing and center, a majority of the Israeli left, including the far-left, opposes the right of return on these grounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return

YZF
0 replies
12h7m

That is correct. My scenario of annexation does not include the right of return. Israel is never going to allow that.

Georgelemental
0 replies
15h8m

then Israel would no longer be majority Jewish

It still would, as long as the Gaza strip is not also included (West Bank only).

JumpCrisscross
20 replies
22h13m

equating a terrorist organization on the one hand with a democratic state with functioning judicial system and accountability for any crimes committed on the other hand by putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the court

War crimes are war crimes, and these were committed in the same war. This is like complaining a corporation and an employee were charged in the same press release. They’re different, but not in the respect of the alleged crimes.

why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?

Refusing refugees isn’t a war crime and isn’t—to my knowledge—under the ICC’s jurisdiction.

mkoubaa
8 replies
21h59m

Furthermore, if Egypt did accept refugees, depending on how it was done, they could be implicated as an an accomplice to ethnic cleansing

IncreasePosts
7 replies
21h20m

In that sense, the UK and America (among others) were accomplices to the Holocaust, by accepting Jews who were fleeing Germany?

danans
4 replies
19h47m

The US and UK have a checkered record with respect to accepting people fleeing the Holocaust [1].

Saving them was not an objective of the war effort and was opposed by many due to domestic anti-Semitism and ethno-nationalism (Nazism had significant open sympathy in the US at the time).

Until the political tides changed in the US/UK, both countries definitely wasted time during which many perished in the Holocaust. Mostly people watched as the Nazis killed millions. There was no public uproar to intervene while the events were happening.

It's also not clear that either country would have ever accepted millions of Holocaust refugees, even though the US certainly had the space. The creation of the state of Israel after the war in a way helped them not have to face that question.

1. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-united...

mkoubaa
3 replies
18h50m

My reading of the history is that a not insignificant fraction of early Western support for Zionism was explicitly to avoid Jewish immigration to Western nations.

danans
2 replies
18h35m

That was among the secular/ethno-nationalist rationales.

But there is also a religious rationale. In fundamentalist Christianity, the re-establishment of the state of Israel to its biblically described borders is a precondition for the return of the Messiah and Judgement Day, when the same Jewish people will supposedly be given a last chance to convert ... or else. So the policy is in part rooted in the anti-Semitism of Christian eschatology.

Those ideas had strong appeal after WW2, and they are a major policy motivator of the Christian religious right-wing in the US today.

tsimionescu
1 replies
17h37m

Just one minor note: these are parts of American Protestant fundamentalist Christianity, I don't think similar concepts can be found in even the more fundamentalist factions of Catholic, Orthodox, Calvinist, Lutheran, or Ethiopian Christian sects.

danans
0 replies
13h36m

Yes, I don't generally include Catholicism, Orthodox, and several other Christian sects when I use the term fundamentalist Christianity (although I'm sure fundamentalists exist in any sect of any religion).

I suppose a better term would be "evangelical protestant fundamentalist Christianity", although I suspect that even there, some small number of them are not focused on politicizing Christian eschatology.

mkoubaa
1 replies
18h52m

An interesting comparison. If they took in every Jew in Germany they would have been accomplices to an ethnic cleansing but would effectively have prevented an ethnic extermination. So while technically the answer would have been yes in that case it might have been a good thing anyways.

But the analogy breaks down here because (1) the UK and USA had strongly antisemitic attitudes at the time and imposed very small quotas on the number of Jews they accepted as refugees and (2) it appears that Israel is not pursuing extermination of Palestinians.

llm_trw
0 replies
15h54m

The point is that a law which would label people saving the victims of the holocaust as being complicit in a genocide then it's a stupid law.

benced
6 replies
19h13m

It's not a war crime but it is against the 1951 and 1967 refugee conventions, both of which Egypt is a signatory to. I wish more time was spent lambasting them for that.

feedforward
5 replies
19h5m

How about Israel take them as refugees. After all, some of them still have the keys to their homes which were stolen in the Nakba.

xenospn
3 replies
18h34m

You’re confused. The people of Gaza have always been in Gaza. You’re thinking about others who left Israel to go to Jordan, Syria or Lebanon.

istjohn
0 replies
14h55m

That's absolutely false. Yes, there were Palestinians in Gaza before the Nakba, but the reason there are refugee camps and the reason UNWRA exists is to provide for the Palestinian refugees from the Nakba.

AnarchismIsCool
0 replies
18h12m

I'm not sure that's historically accurate. Gaza was where a lot of Arabs fled during the Nakba and surrounding periods.

20240519
0 replies
15h10m

That cannot be true based on any logical thinking. It would be amazing if that were the case. That people fleeing in Nakba all said “we will go anywhere but the remaining unoccupied Palestinian territory”

benced
0 replies
12h28m

I agree, you should be roughly 50-50 in terms of pressure.

xdennis
2 replies
19h13m

Palestine using human shields are not Israel's war crimes. They are Palestine's war crimes.

Israel is not at fault for trying to recover hostages from a population aiding and abetting terrorists. Have you even seen footage of a Hamas member in uniform being killed? They dress as civilians so their rightful killing is interpreted as "war crimes" by gullible American students.

ignoramous
0 replies
19h6m

gullible American students

The prosecutors at the ICC are neither gullible nor American.

Palestine using human shields are not Israel's war crimes

Starvation as a war tactic ... can't be human shields? Dropping a bomb every 50secs for the first 2 weeks and now again in the past week killing 15k+ can't be human shields? Withholding aid, inciting genocide, destroying large swathes of infrastructure isn't merely human shields.

Georgelemental
0 replies
14h57m

There are many, many pieces of evidence I could cite to refute this argument, but the one I find the most compelling is the situation in the West Bank. Hamas does not control that area, there are no "human shields" there. And yet the IDF kills civilians and commits crimes there regularly (with reams of documentation from organizations like https://www.btselem.org/ and https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/). Why should I trust the IDF to be any less criminal in Gaza?

gullible American students

I know one such student quite well. They are Jewish, right-wing, and all their life were taught (at the Jewish school they attended, and by their family) to support Israel. Then they went out into the world, and met some Palestinians. Now they are leading protests against the war

ars
0 replies
20h25m

War crimes are war crimes, and these were committed in the same war.

Some were committed 7 months ago, the other were allegedly committed a short time ago.

Putting them both in the same release is utterly repugnant.

chakintosh
10 replies
21h57m

Except only one of those organizations killed 30 000 civilians within 7 months.

throwitaway222
3 replies
21h44m

I suppose if Hamas was the larger one, those 30k would have been 30 days, but most likely 5 if given the same resources.

HL33tibCe7
1 replies
21h43m

If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike.

ThePowerOfFuet
0 replies
14h42m

Nothing but the truth from Gino. As usual.

curiousgal
0 replies
21h40m

Yeah still does not excuse Israel..

lr4444lr
3 replies
20h28m

Those are the Gaza ministry of health's numbers for all killed, IIRC, not just civilians.

FireBeyond
1 replies
16h29m

Hamas only makes up 40,000 of Palestine's 2.3M.

Unless you're trying to claim that Israel has decimated 75% of Hamas, and is almost done, let's not try to diminish this.

The number has also been largely substantiated by press and aid agencies, it's not just Gazan propaganda.

ddoolin
0 replies
15h18m

Not to mention that Israel is practically recruiting for Hamas since Oct. 7th. I don't know where the 40,000 number comes from, but if it's from before the war, I have to guess that the needle probably hasn't moved much, even if the # of Hamas killed are accurate.

longitudinal93
0 replies
20h23m

And not just all who were killed but everyone who has died since Oct. 7

Invictus0
0 replies
7h41m

How exactly do you expect a war in a dense urban area, where the enemy is not uniformed and is directly embedded in and under civilian populations, to transpire?

HL33tibCe7
0 replies
21h52m

And cut off water supplies and electricity, and killed international aid workers, and rained hellfire on hospitals, and killed workers from the UN, and wiped out entire Palestinian families, and razed Gaza to such an extent that it changed the colour of it as seen from space, and plunged Gaza into famine in the worst drop in nutritional status in recorded history.

kmeisthax
9 replies
21h29m

If this was October 2023, sure. I'd agree with you. The problem is that, as the war has continued, Israel has engaged in a number of actions that, depending on how you spin it, are either catastrophic fuck-ups or deliberate attempts to starve out Gaza, including bombing a humanitarian aid convoy.

Furthermore, there's no way in hell Netanyahu gets his endgame (wiping Hamas off the face of the planet) without either exterminating all Palestinians in Gaza (which absolutely is a war crime, orders or no) or significantly backing down on several of the things Israel does to Palestine to make it mad. He also has no reason to simply snipe some of the higher-ups, patch up the holes in the Iron Dome, and declare victory. Netanyahu needs the war to continue so he can continue delaying his corruption trial long enough to declare himself above the law with a judicial reform.

To be clear, yes, Israel is more western and more liberal than Palestine, but that gap is closing faster than I think anyone would like to admit.

In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?

Because countries do not recognize migration as a human right. If the ICC did this and was consistent about it, they'd have to challenge basically every restrictive immigration policy ever. I'd personally love that, but given how many countries in the EU are making handbrake turns to the right wing specifically so they never have to take in another refugee ever again[2], the EU would rather just invade the Hague like Bush threatened to.

Furthermore, (one of) the reason(s) why the 'three state solution'[3] never really panned out is because Egypt and Jordan don't want to become hosts for further revaunchism. Hamas will set up shop in their new home and Israel will just invade them - like they did in the Yom Kippur War. For similar reasons Israel has never wanted to entertain the 'one state solution'[1] that would also have solved this conflict decades ago, because they (mostly correctly) think Hamas will never be satisfied until Palestine extends from the border to the sea and all the Jews have been deported.

[1] Just abolish the Palestine/Israel border and let people live and work wherever

[2] Which, to be clear, is also a travesty.

[3] Move Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan and let Israel take over the rest of the land

DiogenesKynikos
4 replies
20h58m

or deliberate attempts to starve out Gaza

The Israeli defense minister went on TV on 9 October 2023 [0] and declared that he was going to starve Gaza:

"We are imposing a complete siege on the city of Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly."

I assume that this explicit admission of guilt is why he has been charged.

0. https://youtu.be/ZbPdR3E4hCk?si=Gx1Uf_jWeRVUNELr

xdennis
3 replies
19h1m

A blockade is completely legal. Israel is not responsible for feeding Gaza. Do you think the Allies fed the Nazis?

The Geneva Conventions prohibit attacks on agricultural areas, livestock, production of food, etc. Not blockades.

We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.

He's referring to Hamas and those are the nicest words said about them.

camel_Snake
0 replies
16h58m

The Geneva Convention specifically has a section regarding this[0] - the occupying force is required to allow in relief supplies. ICC is accusing Bibi and Gantz of specifically using starvation as a tactic, which is a war crime.

[0]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...

FireBeyond
0 replies
16h27m

A blockade is completely legal. Israel is not responsible for feeding Gaza. Do you think the Allies fed the Nazis?

Okay. Sure. The Israeli navy has blockaded Gazan ports since 2007, not since October. It bombed the control tower of the airport in 1999 and bulldozed the runways in 2002.

And it told Gaza any attempt to build an airport would have the same happen to it.

Israel is not responsible for feeding Gaza. But with closed land border, and those blockades, it is responsible for some of the results.

He's referring to Hamas and those are the nicest words said about them.

Why did Netanyahu give them billions over the last couple of decades, these human animals?

DiogenesKynikos
0 replies
9h19m

Whenever people say, "But the Allies did X in WWII," I wonder if they realize that a lot of international law was established specifically to make things that were done in WWII illegal.

FireBeyond
2 replies
16h29m

Furthermore, there's no way in hell Netanyahu gets his endgame (wiping Hamas off the face of the planet)

Citation needed. When the PLO and Arafat were becoming less militant, and more diplomatic, that's when Netanyahu and Mossad started sending tens of millions a month to Hamas, to keep it as the "public enemy number one". But if Hamas goes away, then Netanyahu has to explain why he won't support a two party state (because "from the river to the sea" has also been Likud's platform and policy).

Sabinus
1 replies
16h13m

that's when Netanyahu and Mossad started sending tens of millions a month to Hamas

Wasn't this internationally donated Palestinian aid money?

komali2
0 replies
15h14m

Aid money to Palestine is only "donations to Hamas" when it's politically convenient, apparently. I've heard many justify the bombing of convoys because the food would feed Hamas people.

flawn
0 replies
19h13m

Exactly - totally agree.

threeseed
7 replies
21h59m

why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee

Because Egypt believes this would amount to supporting ethnic cleansing:

https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2024/02/27/why-e...

And given that many on the far-right in the Israel government want Palestinians out of Gaza it's a reasonable position.

itronitron
5 replies
21h24m

Has anyone asked whether the Palestinians in Gaza want out of Gaza? That seems like a more important question.

ok123456
2 replies
20h22m

They want to return to their homes from before the Nakba. They tried to march for this peacefully in 2018 and had snipers shoot their kneecaps out.

Sabinus
1 replies
16h16m

They tried to walk through a militarized border fence, which will get you shot. If they had got to the homes they meant to reclaim the 'march' would have been anything but peaceful.

ok123456
0 replies
4h49m

Border guards usually just deny entry and turn them away without blasting out their kneecaps.

The real question is: why is there a militarized border fence and who is paying for it?

lr4444lr
0 replies
20h27m

Many of them have demonstrable property ownership (or their parents/grandparents did) in Israel proper.

dathinab
0 replies
20h59m

they don't, in general

but they also don't want to die, want flowing water, food, electricity, medical infrastructure etc.

jupp0r
0 replies
15h0m

Egypt may well believe that (and others have rightfully pointed out that not following UN conventions for refugees is outside of the jurisdiction of the ICC), but I don't think there is a plausible case to be made that refusing to help people wanting to flee from armed conflict can be considering "supporting ethnic cleansing".

mkoubaa
4 replies
22h3m

The better comparison is between Hamas and the current Israeli executive branch, not the state of Israel per se. Even so, I see no equating the two. The ICC is implicating both parties with war crimes, not claiming they are equal

doctorpangloss
3 replies
16h52m

Is it possible to conduct a lawful urban war?

I might not want to ever be on either side of such a war, but that seems to be the biggest, intellectually honest hole in the ICC's warrants.

After all they are supposed to be an alternative to the justice system of violence.

istjohn
1 replies
14h43m

The US fought in urban settings in Iraq without putting civilian populations under siege and starvation. By all appearances, Israel isn't even trying to conduct a lawful urban war.

doctorpangloss
0 replies
14h24m

Is it possible to win an urban war lawfully?

Iraq is kind of a terrible example.

Over a hundred thousand civilians died in Iraq. Maybe most of them died in urban combat settings.

Isn't the "Battle of Fallujah" a whitewash of the Siege of Fallujah? (https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2012/1/4/seven-years-afte...)

"Early Target of Offensive Is a Hospital" (https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/world/middleeast/early-ta...)

"US Admits Using White Phosphorus in Fallujah" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/16/iraq.usa)

This isn't whataboutism. War is horrible.

dragonwriter
0 replies
14h14m

Is it possible to conduct a lawful urban war?

Yes.

that seems to be the biggest, intellectually honest hole in the ICC's warrants.

No warrants have been issued nor have the specifics of any of the charges sought, beyond the names of the crimes, been made public. No oene can talk about what the holes in the charges that might ne issued in the future are, only of strawman charges that they have invented to argue against.

eynsham
3 replies
22h5m

Juxtaposition and equation are different. The press release makes very clear which charges apply to which parties—the charges against the Hamasnikim are quite different from those against Israeli leaders. It also makes clear that the principle of subsidiarity of course applies.

If you think the prima facie case against Bibi and Gallant is convincing, the Israeli AG is quite plausibly doing so little that subsidiarity is no longer engaged. If you think it is unconvincing, as you say, the problem is not some inappropriately symmetric ignoring of subsidiarity but that the charges themselves are unconvincing.

A final point is that the Rome Statute does not prohibit merely ‘orders of directly targeting civilians’, and so other potential crimes must be considered. These include ‘cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); [e]xtermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity; [and o]ther inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k)’. Of course, you may think that Khan has jumped the gun on each of these in that each of these charges is also implausible, but that is a stronger position than doubting that there were orders to directly target civilians.

(edit: I should add that Khan [I imagine] and I would say that while subsidiarity may not preclude proceedings against Israeli officials because of Israeli inaction, Hamasnikim are not subject to anything that remotely resembles a judicial system worth the name, so there is nothing comparable to even fail to act.)

jupp0r
2 replies
19h36m

I realize that the charges are different and clearly attributed to each party they are brought against. The optics of this will still practically lead to people equating both parties and the charges. An alternative (ie seeking both warrants separated by time (ie a week) and space (different press releases)) would have been better.

Again I'm all for investigating whether war crimes have been committed by Israel. It's going to be a nuanced argument in any case to prove so that will probably involve how many civilian casualties are acceptable to achieve legitimate military aims.

The contrast must be pointed out by all who want nations and non state actors to be accountable for their actions.

tsimionescu
0 replies
17h29m

The crux of the matter is not the casualties inflicted by Israel, not directly. If it were just numbers of casualties, then Hamas's horrific attack wouldn't even register at this point (2000 victims compared to 35000). Even if it were about percebtages, Hamas's brutal attack on October 7th wouldn't be far from Israel's operation (about 25-35% of the victims of Hamas's attack were IDF personnel, if I recall the numbers correctly; IDF is not giving any numbers about their Hamas VS civilian calculations, but comparing their published numbers of killed militants with the available casualty numbers suggests at best a 50% rate, though likely much worse).

Instead, the case is mostly about intent, and that can be gaged from public declarations and actions outside of mere combat. The case against Hamas is clear, they attacked in secret, with quite likely no military targets at all, and with a clear history of anti-civilian sentiments and declarations.

The case against Israel is also relatively simple from this point of view: numerous Israeli leaders, from the president to ministers to members of the Knesset have given public declarations about the collective guilt of Gaza's civilian population, and their actions in preventing aid from entering Gaza, attacking refugees, attacking journalists and international aid workers have been thoroughly documented.

eynsham
0 replies
10h54m

If people are stupid enough to misread the current press release, they are stupid enough to misread two press releases separated by a week as if they were one press release.

Gibbon1
2 replies
21h51m

It's bad optics that the court didn't immediately move after 10/7.

A point. The reason a lot of countries want a two state solution is because they plan on deporting all their Palestinians once that happens.

xenospn
1 replies
18h31m

I’ve never heard that before. Did you just make that up?

verteu
1 replies
21h37m

I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion

The Panel's report is not based on "far fetched assumptions." It names the explicit acts that Israel is known to have committed (eg: mass starvation via blockade of food and shelter):

"based on a review of material presented by the Prosecutor, the Panel assesses that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant formed a common plan, together with others, to jointly perpetrate the crime of using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. The Panel has concluded that the acts through which this war crime was committed include a siege on the Gaza Strip and the closure of border crossings; arbitrary restrictions on entry and distribution of essential supplies; cutting off supplies of electricity and water, and severely restricting food, medicine and fuel supplies. This deprivation of objects indispensable to civilians’ survival took place in the context of attacks on facilities that produce food and clean water, attacks against civilians attempting to obtain relief supplies and attacks directed against humanitarian workers and convoys delivering relief supplies, despite the deconfliction and coordination by humanitarian agencies with Israel Defence Forces. These acts took place with full knowledge of the extent of Gazans’ reliance on Israel for essential supplies, and the adverse and inevitable consequences of such acts in terms of human suffering and deaths for the civilian population."

https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p...

ronjobber
0 replies
13h22m

Not sure if this is what OP was saying, but evidence of orders to directly target civilians would be an open and shut case.

The starvation charge could at least in theory fail (e.g., along the lines of intent - although Gallant's words in the beginning of the war certainly do not help Israel's case).

genman
1 replies
21h56m

It is even worse than this - the document calls Israel "a territory" and Gaza "a state". I really expected that ICC can be less biased even when a Muslim is appointed as a prosecutor against Israel.

selimthegrim
0 replies
21h26m

Why don’t you ask Pakistan if he counts as one.

feedforward
1 replies
22h12m

terrorist organization

Is that the "terrorist organization" that Netanyahu sent the Mossad head to Qatar a few months ago so he could beg them to fund Hamas? ( https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q... )

democratic state

Israel says it controls Palestinian territories and it does (with some trouble in Gaza since October). None of those millions can vote in the Knesset (although a foreign Jew who moves to a West Bank settlement can vote). It is not a democracy. Even for those who can vote, Netanyahu is trying to get rid of the judiciary.

It is a colonial settler state like Rhodesia or French Algeria, and will have the same fate as those states. It is a relic in 2024, and becomes more so every year.

petra
0 replies
21h51m

Analysing the Israeli-arab conflict as colonialism takes a very complex issue and describes it in a very shallow, non-accurate way.

tootie
0 replies
15h43m

It's an interesting question. Even if you believe Netanyahu is guilty he was elected in a functional democracy. His ruling coalition is tenuous but legal. But if the ICC is trying to prevent atrocities then the size of the constituency behind an atrocity is irrelevant. At least to the mission. It does make enforcement seem kinda impossible. The best outcome they can hope for is shaming the Israeli electorate into doing something different.

neilv
0 replies
22h2m

I assumed the ICC named the two opposed leaders in the same press release because the ICC had concerns about both, and it is a politically charged situation.

(If they had named only one leader in that press release, perhaps quietly expecting to name the other later, I would think that would appear to be a judgment of the multiple obvious potential concerns, and a taking of sides.)

lr4444lr
0 replies
20h29m

You're right, the optics are weird, but sufficient conditions that define criminal acts can be multiple and varied.

Egypt's non-involvement may violate some other principle, but probably not a "war crime".

kelnos
0 replies
21h6m

The optics of equating a terrorist organization on the one hand with a democratic state with functioning judicial system and accountability for any crimes committed on the other hand by putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the court.

I don't think anyone is actually doing that, though. The leader of a terrorist group and the leader of a democratic state can both commit war crimes. We need not compare them directly or try to say which one of them is worse in order to acknowledge that fact. Putting them in the same press release (this isn't a press release, though; this is a CNN article) seems fairly natural to me, since both are actors in the same conflict, regardless of how it started.

I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion.

You don't need direct orders to target civilians. You merely need negligence or a lack of care that causes civilian deaths in excess of what is "necessary" (ugh) to achieve the military objectives. I personally believe that Israeli forces have been indiscriminately killing civilians in Gaza in a way that would constitute war crimes, and apparently that just means I'm in agreement with the ICC.

On the other side you have what's a pretty clear case of a large scale terror attack against innocent civilians.

Again, it is perfectly possible to acknowledge that two different parties have committed war crimes, even though they've done so in completely different ways, and the organizations they represent are completely different.

In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?

Because that's not against international law. Even if it was, your question here is just whataboutism.

jjulius
0 replies
21h49m

In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?

I see phrases like this tossed around in countless political debates - "Well, if they're investigating X, why the heck aren't they investigating Y!?".

To that, I ask - how are you 100% sure that that's not also happening?

jjtheblunt
0 replies
20h24m

The arrest warrants are for individuals, some from Hamas and some from Likud. Where do you see an arrest warrant for Israel?

I spent a while trying to see what you wrote but am not finding it.

hirako2000
0 replies
20h19m

A terrorist organisation is what typically a government stamp on that group for using terror to gain political advantages, those against it. Such government may use terror tactics which it would stamp as national security, preemptive actions, necessary interventions, collateral damage. Anything to justify what could be qualified as brutal unjust "terrorism".

On that basis all of the targets of the ICC are leaders of terrorist organisations. Hamas is considered terrorist organisation by certain authorities, you bet the Israeli government is considered terrorist by other authorities.

The ICC is meant to act on the evidence of war crimes. The definition of war crimes is far more formal than the qualification of terrorism. Consider giving a definition of terrorism, you will find that any arm belligerent who happen to cause civilian casualties can be categorized as such.

Finally, it is also worth noting the french resistance to the country's occupation and Nazism was considered led by terrorist groups. Those did employ sabotage, kidnapping, bombing, instill terrors. The collaborating french authorities and the Wermacht put those resistants on their terrorists lists, back then.

The ICC is surely meant to be above the arguments in the lines "these terrorists and those aren't", or politically and some government's biases as arguments. It would look into the evidence and prosecute based on these.

gnulinux996
0 replies
14h19m

The optics of equating a terrorist organization on the one hand with a democratic state with functioning judicial system and accountability for any crimes committed on the other hand by putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the court.

What's pretty bad is attempts to discredit the ICC by those who oppose it's decisions.

I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion. On the other side you have what's a pretty clear case of a large scale terror attack against innocent civilians.

No you are not; Your pro-genocide stance is nauseating.

In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?

Whataboutism and deflection from the issue at hand must not and will not be tolerated.

What an unacceptable conduct.

dragonwriter
0 replies
14h2m

The optics of equating a terrorist organization on the one hand with a democratic state with functioning judicial system and accountability for any crimes committed on the other hand by putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the court.

They aren't being equated by the fact that people associated with each are having charges sought. The five individuals charged are in the same press release because it is the outcome of one investigation of the conflict by the prosecutor's office.

In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?

Because, even if that were to constitute a crime within the general subject matter jurisdiction of the court, that's not an crime that took place on the territory of Palestine or any other State Party to the Rome Statute, or by nationals of Palestine or any other State Party to the Rome Statute, so the ICC, under Article 12 of the Rome Statute, lacks the ability to exercise jurisdiction over them.

TMWNN
0 replies
18h45m

The optics of equating a terrorist organization on the one hand with a democratic state with functioning judicial system and accountability for any crimes committed on the other hand by putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the court.

It's obvious to all that the warrants for the Hamas leaders only exist in order to justify the warrants against Netanyahu and co.

HL33tibCe7
0 replies
21h57m

Nice whataboutism

DiogenesKynikos
0 replies
4h37m

a democratic state with functioning judicial system

The "functioning judicial system" is only relevant here if that judicial system is actively investigating the crimes that the ICC is looking into. If Gallant and Netanyahu were on trial inside Israel for war crimes, then the ICC would step back. But that's not the case.

I won't get into whether Israel is really democratic, given that it rules over several million non-citizens in the occupied territories, whom it deprives of even the most basic rights.

I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion.

In Gaza, the IDF has targeted nearly every civilian apartment building, nearly every hospital, nearly every school, in fact nearly every building period. The IDF knows that civilians live in apartment buildings. It knows that hospitals are full of sick and wounded civilians, as well as medical staff, families of patients, and people seeking shelter from the bombing. When Israel decides to bomb a civilian apartment building or a civilian hospital, it is intentionally targeting civilians. Israel can claim that it is just going after Hamas operatives in a highly selective fashion, but that is implausible given the scale of the bombing campaign. It is also contradicted by leaks from inside the IDF, which show that Israel is intentionally targeting the personal homes of anyone suspected by an AI system of being connected to Hamas, and that the IDF is willing to kill up to hundreds of civilians just to hit one Hamas member.[0,1]

0. https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-cal...

1. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

20240519
0 replies
15h16m

You are using characterisations there rather than facts. Or irrelevant facts, such as how the leader was elected. Think about who else in history has been democratically elected.

Courts can only deal in facts otherwise they are ineffective.

Courts that care about “optics” are ineffective. And there are no optics here that will please everyone. So just follow law.

jaynetics
127 replies
22h52m

Another interesting question is, will it end Netanyahu's career if it goes through? It seems like a major deficit for a PM to be unable to travel to the majority of relevant states. Most of his international trips have been to central Europe so far, and I think Europe is too invested in the ICC to circumvent it, even if some member states were to criticize this decision.

phone8675309
94 replies
21h58m

The current political situation in the US gives me every indication that the US would provide Netanyahu asylum if these warrants to through. The US has withdrawn from the Rome Statute and therefore has no obligation to arrest him.

tptacek
93 replies
21h56m

Why would he need US asylum? Israel isn't an ICC signatory.

rusk
74 replies
21h42m

When the horror of what Israel has done dawns on them they might want to hand him over themselves.

saintkaye
73 replies
21h17m

I genuinely don’t understand this opinion. Israel was viscously attacked unprovoked (regardless what you think of the history of the two orgs) by the organization that governs the province. They’re states goal is to demilitarize the area while their enemy insists on playing out the war in highly populated urban areas.

This isn’t a guerilla war either, it’s the actual official government party. One who has actively promised sequels of the attack.

What would you do in such a situation?

boppo1
30 replies
20h56m

As a fairly emotionally disinterested party: greater specificity of strikes, focus on Hamas leadership. It seems to me that Israel (and the west more generally) will be facing a generation of motivated terrorists in about 15-20 years, as the young people who went through this come of age.

tptacek
13 replies
20h49m

People say this a lot, for obvious and fair reasons, but it's worth noting that a rational policy person in Israel could look at Hamas as a distinct and unlikely form of militant nationalism: overtly Islamist, funded and trained by the IRGC, and led (since 2017) by a messianic lunatic.

I've been saying, only kind of jokingly, that a more likely outcome than arrest or Israel-directed assassination of Sinwar is Haniya (or his successor) taking him out to a field to talk about the alfalfa they're going to plant, and how Sinwar will get to feed the rabbits. Sinwar really fucked Hamas over here. Easy to lose sight of how good a thing they had going! It had tacit Israeli government support and was making a bunch of Hamas people fairly rich.

Anyways, from that point of view: yes, killing tens of thousands of civilians is certainly going to radicalize people and drive them into militant groups. But those groups might look more like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades than the Al-Qassam Brigades.

Karrot_Kream
6 replies
20h43m

After having signed the Abraham Accords, Israel could have gone a long way to keeping their hands clean by pursuing Hamas through a joint effort with Egypt, UAE, KSA, and other states in the region. Israel has a long history working with Egypt regarding Gaza. Several actors in the region that already receive tacit US support are opposed to perceived Islamic dictatorships due to various complicated reasons. There are complicated reasons why Israel didn't and continue not to, a lot of which comes down to having a direct line to US support, but this option was something they could have done and chose not to. Though full disclosure, I'm not an unbiased party here, but I can view this situation from a realpolitik lens as well.

tptacek
5 replies
20h35m

I mean, I agree. I'm a 2-stater. Netanyahu and his governing coalition have for a decade now been redlining "culpability" as far as I'm concerned!

(I'll say again though that Hamas in 2018 is a different entity than Hamas in 2016. They're both very bad organizations, but only one of them was literally working to bring about the end of days.)

Karrot_Kream
4 replies
20h30m

IMO Israel is digging its own grave in the region by being so unwilling to work with their neighbors. KSA and UAE are brutal to opponents and KSA's own meddling in the region shows that they'd do anything to keep militant Islamism from gaining a larger foothold in the region. All they had to do was to open up a dialogue with their neighbors, it would have stopped Muslims from unifying around this issue, probably normalized relations even further between these states, and would have given Israel significant leverage in the region as a bulwark of diplomatic stewardship. Now even though the US is doing everything they can to tow the line between supporting Israel and stopping a bloodbath, Israel itself has probably lost any and all support from its neighbors sans maybe Egypt, and the US will be hard-pressed to offer support in further instances of aggression against Israel.

tptacek
3 replies
19h49m

I'm less sure. I think the most salient conflict in MENA is between the Arab states and Iran, not Israel and Palestine (look no further than the grim track record of the surrounding states at actually helping Palestinians for evidence).

It's hard to look at October 7th and its aftermath as anything but a setback for literally every party in the region. Even Iran seems to have been caught flat footed.

jcranmer
1 replies
19h3m

In one respect, October 7th was a success for Hamas. Before then, it looked likely that most of the Arab countries would have made peace with Israel without Israel having to concede an iota on the Palestinian issue. After the attack and Israel's response, Israel probably has to make visible progress on the issue before the current holdouts would move forward, or at least wait 10, 15 years before everything is forgotten.

Karrot_Kream
0 replies
18h43m

It's a victory for militant Islam that didn't need to happen. KSA, UAE, Oman, and Turkey could have been great examples of Muslim countries with high standards of living that engaged in the international diplomatic process, as opposed to the pariah states of Iran and the wartorn Yemen and Syria. Since the decline of ISIL Islamists have achieved little save the Taliban taking Baghdad in Afghanistan. But with this new round of aggression in Palestine, Islamist movements once more have a grievance to look at.

Karrot_Kream
0 replies
19h33m

It would end up in a proxy war, surely. Iran would back Hamas and a coalition of KSA, UAE, Egypt, and Israel would spearhead the Gaza situation from the other side. It's still a shitty outcome but IMO a better one. For one, regional actors are incentivized to deal with the situation in a way that spillover doesn't affect them (Lebanon and Egypt have both been vocal about not accepting refugees), but most importantly it wouldn't be as affected by the US political news cycle and the heart-rending imperialism that creates (essentially American domestic interests and politics affecting regional politics in the Middle East, meaning Palestinians have no say over their own politics in any meaningful way, unlike American college students.) The biggest risk would probably be Russian and Chinese interests coming into the region which would surely prompt a US reaction, but I'm not sure how much Russia or China would have to gain here if the US were not involved.

It would have probably ended in a civil war type situation but at least you wouldn't have widespread famine or the bombing of hospitals or further civilian atrocities. Also forcing regional states to allocate their own resources to the conflict means there's a direct incentive to wind it down since their resources are a lot smaller than the resources of the US. Israel would eventually face domestic pushback over wartime spending and the autocratic states in the region would have to balance their funding of the proxy conflict against their own ambitions and budgets. Iran is somewhat democratic and they too could only fund Hamas so far before looking after their own affairs. A civil war would also create a generation fatigued by conflict and more open to compromise. The unilateral nature of this conflict will guarantee that Palestinians and dissidents in the region will hold this as a grudge over Israel and the US for decades and might even open the possibility of further terrorism against the US.

The US's own nation building efforts in the Middle East after 9/11 flagged due to outrageous spending that materialized in minimal results. The same effect with poorer governments would naturally circumscribe the conflict in the area.

boppo1
2 replies
20h33m

...Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades than the Al-Qassam Brigades.

Can you tell me more about the difference here?

tptacek
0 replies
19h49m

The former is the former armed wing of Fatah, the latter of Hamas. Fatah is a (notoriously corrupt) secular nationalist organization. The story goes that Netanyahu tacitly supported and helped fund Hamas for many years as a check against Fatah consolidating power into a coherent Palestinian state.

adw
0 replies
17h21m

The first is Fatah/PLO, who are in many ways much closer to, eg, the IRA (also nominally religiously inspired) than what we understand as modern Islamist terrorist groups.

saintkaye
0 replies
20h45m

Yea,but the thing that changed was Saudi flipping more western recently. It meant that directionally the region was going have a much bigger problem with this kind of behavior in the future and it seems like (as an amateur) they saw the writing on the wall and thought the more messy the region gets the longer it would take to move toward a capitalist ideals motivated region.

ignoramous
0 replies
18h53m

Easy to lose sight of how good a thing they had going!

Some millions from Qatar with no political engagement towards 2SS isn't good by any measure. It was most certainly good for the Israelis: the Abraham Accords and recognition of the Western Golan Heights + Jerusalem by the US, with practically no opposition.

Sinwar may be a lunatic, but we'd be lunatics just the same to assume Hamas were happy with the status quo. They are not PA for a reason.

FireBeyond
0 replies
20h6m

but it's worth noting that a rational policy person in Israel could look at Hamas as a distinct and unlikely form of militant nationalism: overtly Islamist, funded and trained by the IRGC, and led (since 2017) by a messianic lunatic.

Funded and trained by Mossad and others too, at times. In fact, Netanyahu was approving tens of millions a month to Hamas to stay militant and provide a more extremist opposition to Arafat and the PLO who were calming down and more peaceable in their old age.

This is the thing that really gets frustrating.

Israel's hard right is as opposed to a two state system as Hamas is. People point to "from the river to the sea" as "proof" of Hamas' genocidal intent (and I won't pretend they haven't said other things to that end, either), ignoring that it was literally Likud's platform slogan since the 1970s.

tomp
7 replies
20h42m

Not if they win decisively and eradicate not just the terrorists, but the terrorist indoctrination as well.

Note: there hasn't been a "generation of motivated terrorists" coming out of Japan and Germany after WWII, those populations were entirely subdued.

rbanffy
6 replies
19h3m

Having your parents, or your children, “eradicated” by someone is a powerful motivator.

JumpCrisscross
5 replies
18h53m

Having your parents, or your children, “eradicated” by someone is a powerful motivator

But again, Japanese and Germans aren’t blowing up Americans and Indians aren’t blowing up London. Claiming this will create more terrorists is saying the Palestinians are irredeemably violent. I don’t think that’s right.

semi-extrinsic
4 replies
18h25m

Both Japan and Germany were left with their home countries and were given substantial aid to rebuild after the war. That aid was given by their former enemies.

Unfortunately I don't see it as very likely that Israel will give back all the territory in Gaza and provide aid to the Palestinians to rebuild.

tomp
1 replies
10h0m

This has been the case for the past decade - Israel has been financing Gaza and providing it with resources (e.g. electricity) as well as jobs.

Gaza was quite beautiful! And given its prime location on the mediterranean sea, I don't see why it couldn't be built up again.

https://twitter.com/InsiderWorld_1/status/178854608101537840...

But of course the massive mistake was not eradicating the evil terrorist genocidal mentality of its nominal leadership, Hamas. Israel (and the world) shouldn't make that mistake again.

rbanffy
0 replies
3h13m

Is it true that the Likud was helping to finance Hamas’ opposition to the Fatah as a way to ensure a two-state solution would remain non-viable?

saintkaye
1 replies
17h12m

Oh my this is not true

rbanffy
0 replies
11h47m

I’m pretty sure that, unless some time traveler really screwed up, this is how it played out on this timeline.

YZF
5 replies
19h46m

This statement about Israel creating a new generation of terrorists is said a lot but I think we have pretty strong counterexamples. Germans didn't become motivated terrorists after WW-II despite great devastation and killing of civilians by the Allies. Neither did Japan. I'm sure there are similar WW-I examples. One might argue that not fighting this war until the enemy surrenders is a much stronger motivation for terrorism. A more recent example might be Russia's campaign against Chechnya or Sri Lanka's campaign against the Tamil Tigers, both fought until the enemy was crushed and both seemingly have for now resolved the terrorism issue.

With respect to your proposal. Can you be more specific about how Israel is supposed to target Hamas leadership when they are in tunnels underground below civilian populations and holding hostages? That Hamas leadership is not dead is not due to lack of Israel trying to target them specifically. I don't think it's possible to get at Hamas without taking over the entire Gaza strip which leads me to repeat the OP's question of what would you do. Another question is whether you're suggesting to give free pass to the Oct 7'th attackers and kidnappers (which seems to be implied by saying "focus on Hamas leadership").

Karrot_Kream
4 replies
19h17m

Germans didn't become motivated terrorists after WW-II despite great devastation and killing of civilians by the Allies. Neither did Japan. I'm sure there are similar WW-I examples.

Heh this is funny because this was an explicit concern for the US after WWII. This is the reason behind the creation of the Marshal Plan and directly the reason why the US occupied both Germany and Japan and assisted in nation building there. The idea that losing a war leads to radicalism is as old as WWII, but probably even older, as the UK came to a similar conclusion when divesting its colonies in South Asia.

For more recent cases on how political instability and sectarian conflict leads to a rise in terrorism, look at what happened in Iraq after the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the dissolution of the Baathist party.

tptacek
2 replies
19h15m

An absolutely wild video from the time about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=821R0lGUL6A

If you've never seen "Your Job In Germany", bookmark and it and make sure you do at some point. It is pretty unreal.

Of course, the counterpoint here is: the reason we worried about German terrorism but didn't see it is because we trained our forces with videos like this, and we were the nice guys about it compared to the Soviets.

YZF
1 replies
19h4m

Germans were hung from streetlamps after the war in some places. I think you're referring to after the Germans were defeated? We're not at that stage yet.

tptacek
0 replies
18h59m

See the preceding comment, "after WW-II".

YZF
0 replies
19h2m

Right. But first the Germans were defeated totally. They were forced to surrender. Imagine if the war was halted with massive German casualties but with the Nazis still in power. Which option results in more radicalization?

xdennis
1 replies
19h44m

Israel [...] will be facing a generation of motivated terrorists in about 15-20 years

The Palestinians are taught from primary school to hate Jews[1] (books paid with western money). They couldn't possibly hate Jews more.

[1]: https://www.cfr.org/blog/teaching-palestinian-children-value...

rusk
0 replies
6h38m

Well that’s what happens when you cowardly murder people in the middle of the night and turf them out of their ancestral homeland

throw310822
20 replies
19h43m

I don't understand why you say "unprovoked". Gaza has been under occupation for decades (yes, it's technically an occupation, regardless of whether there are settlers or not). It's been periodically bombed, each time with as many victims as an October 7th. It's been under a complete blockade for 16 years. The fact that everything was fine in Israel on October 6th doesn't mean that there was a peace- it just means that they weren't expecting their victims to be able to fight back.

What would you do in such a situation?

The situation is that Israel is an oppressor and an occupier, so what should it do? Well, first of all it should have made different choices in the past, honest and fair and peaceful choices. Which it didn't make, and it's its fault. But it's never too late. It should have made honest, fair and peaceful choices also in this occasion- mourned its deads, vowed to bring those responsible to justice, and engaged with Palestinian counterparts to withdraw within the 1967 borders and promote the birth of a Palestinian state.

Of course, it didn't do any of those things. It did exactly what Hamas expected.

YZF
13 replies
18h46m

It has not been "technically" occupied. There's no such thing. Either a place is occupied, or it's not, and Gaza was not. What is true is that most in the international community refused to accept Israel's withdrawal from Gaza as the end of Israel's occupation. That's a political statement.

You're missing an important part about tens of thousands of rockets and mortars being fired from Gaza at Israel and terrorism originating from Gaza at Israel. Israel didn't just randomly attack Gaza.

Here's what really happened in Gaza: Israel completely withdrew in 2005 and was not occupying Gaza any more. It handed the entire Gaza strip to the Palestinian Authority. There was even an agreement for safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_freedom_of_movemen...

Not to mention that even before 2005 Israel handed control of most of the Gaza strip to the PA as part of the Oslo accords (and agreement to hand Gaza and Jericho over to the Palestinians predates the Oslo accords).

In 2007 following Palestinian elections Hamas took control of the Gaza strip by force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007) Israel only imposed a full blockade of Gaza as a result of this change because Hamas' stated goal is/was the destruction of Israel. Despite Israel's blockade Gaza has a border with Egypt and had no shortage of goods (and weaponry) through smuggling and other means. There was also plenty of travel in and out of the Gaza strip (both towards Israel and the West Bank and towards Egypt) and there were plenty of good going into Gaza through Israel. Gazans also worked in Israel. Gaza also had a power station and a water desalination plant. It has billions of dollars of aid and investment flowing into it (Ismail Hanyah needs to be a billionaire after all).

So Israel was neither an oppressor nor an occupier in Gaza. It took actions to try and prevent Hamas from arming itself.

The other part wrong with your premise is that Palestinians want to live in peace with Israel within the 1967 borders. They do not. Maybe some of them do. But many do not. When the Oslo peace process was accelerating towards that goal Palestinians started a suicide bombing campaign against Israeli civilians which results in the killing of Rabin, the rise of the right, and the termination of the peace process.

EDIT:

Bombings by Hamas starting 1993: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_at...

Rabin's assassination 1995: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin

1993: Oslo accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

2007: Blockade of Gaza: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip

2005: Disengagement from Gaza: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaz...

Rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_...

Gaza-Israel barrier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_barrier

Hikikomori
11 replies
17h54m

It's not technically occupied. Israel just controls their border with Gaza. And their coastline. And their airspace, also bombed their airport. Oh and the border to Egypt as nobody can visit Gaza without Israels approval. Israels continued denial of a Palestinian state and the basic rights of statehood, like the control of their own borders, is what makes it an occupation.

Netanyahu has supported Hamas long before 2005 as part of a divide and conquer strategy. The elections were pushed by Bush at a time when PA were seen as corrupt. When they lost Bush tried to get them to coup and Hamas took over and kicked them out as a reaction to that.

In July 1995, Netanyahu led a mock funeral procession featuring a coffin and hangman's noose at an anti-Rabin rally where protesters chanted, "Death to Rabin"

Should tell is everything we need to know about the people in power now.

Maybe the Palestinians were not happy with the deal, them losing their land. Not to forget previous atrocities perpetrated by Jewish terrorists and the nakba.

saintkaye
5 replies
17h13m

Israel does not control the Egypt border and almost all of this is opinion through implication not fact. This type of post does not belong on this message board.

YZF
3 replies
16h24m

This is Egypt's choice. Egypt has the control. If they choose to let Israel have a say it's their choice. Their making an agreement with Israel != Israel controls the border. Plenty of tunnels too but that's besides the point.

Hikikomori
1 replies
5h0m

Are you even able to criticise Israel for anything?

tptacek
0 replies
3h40m

Maintain civility.

ceejayoz
0 replies
3h9m

This is Egypt's choice.

Doubly untrue today; Israel took complete control of it on May 6.

YZF
4 replies
16h44m

I can give you an endless list of atrocities committed by Arabs against Jews going to the beginning of Islam rule in the region. The Nakba was an outcome of Arabs deciding to attack Israel in 1948, they wanted to wipe it off the map, and they lost. They rejected the partition plan.

Factually this was never Palestinian land. This was Ottoman land, then British land, then Israel. Many Palestinians are not native (e.g. El-Masri, "The Egyptian", is a common family name in Gaza, because they are Egyptians) and the Jewish people have as much of a claim on the land as they do. Parts of the land were also under Egyptian and Jordanian control for some time (ask them why they didn't establish a Palestinian State over these lands while they had them by the way). Jewish refugees immigrated to the region before 1948 because they had nowhere else to go. Many Israeli Jews have been expelled from Arab countries under violence and their assets stolen. The Arab behavior toward Jews in the region is purely racist, there's no other way to look at it.

Also factually what pushed the Israeli right wing to demonstrate was Hamas' suicide bombing attacks. I was there and I know this first hand. You're not going to rewrite history by referring to some random fact.

Israel blockaded Gaza. Blockades are legal. Gaza still had a border with Egypt which Egypt chose to blockade as well. Gaza was effectively a polity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity) and was at war with Israel. What should amaze you is that Israel supplied Gaza with electricity (Gaza also had their own power station) and with water (Gaza has wells and a desalination plant) and allowed good in all while being enemy territory under the control of Hamas. Hamas stole the aid flowing into Gaza to buy weapons and build tunnels.

throw310822
3 replies
8h21m

I know it's pointless bickering but...

The Nakba was an outcome of Arabs deciding to attack Israel in 1948, they wanted to wipe it off the map, and they lost. They rejected the partition plan.

The "partition plan" was a plan to give part of Palestine to Israel. It's pretty natural that one side refused and the other accepted- the action is the same but the outcome is the opposite for the two parties. Trying to spin it like "they both got the same generous offer" is propaganda.

But even more important is that the partition plan assigned to a "Jewish state" a territory whose population was 45% Palestinian. This means that either

a) they thought it was possible to create a Jewish democratic state with a 45% of the population non-Jewish, or

b) the plan was to enforce apartheid from the beginning, or

c) the plan was ethnic cleansing from the beginning.

And- lo and behold- ethnic cleansing is exactly what happened one minute after the creation of Israel. How convenient that it was the Palestinian's fault.

tptacek
2 replies
4h15m

The problem trying to tie everything back to the Nakba is that the same thing happened in reverse in all the other MENA countries: they ethnically cleansed their Jewish populations in response, which emigrated wholesale to Israel.

rusk
1 replies
2h3m

This is the only reasonable point in support of Israel’s actions though it does not justify them

tptacek
0 replies
1h6m

I'm not supporting Israel's actions. I think Israel is justified in killing every Hamas member it can get a bead on, but not in inflicting mass civilian casualties on a population that is supermajority too young even to have voted for Hamas in the first place, at least not without extraordinarily clear military proportionality claims (arguably present early on, now clearly absent).

But this "Nakba" stuff appears invariably to be coded appeals to a "one-state solution". Israel is a nuclear-armed state with one of the world's best trained military and a strong economy that, contrary to activist opinion, stands on its own two feet. There is only one outcome in a "one-state solution" and it's not the one you (or I) want.

It's worth pushing back on existential arguments against Israel as it's currently construed. "Mass murder of Israeli civilians is unprovoked because Nakba" is one of those. The correct response is "no, things are much more complicated than that."

throw310822
0 replies
8h11m

It has not been "technically" occupied. There's no such thing. Either a place is occupied, or it's not, and Gaza was not.

Gaza is considered an occupied territory by all international bodies with the power and authority to make such a determination, for excellent reasons that you can look up. End of the story. What you do (and Israel does, for propaganda purposes) is to confuse the civilian settlement with the military occupation, or to pretend that since soldiers are not inside Gaza but just all around its borders, Gaza is free. Which is like saying that a prison camp is free if the guards are all outside the fence.

tptacek
5 replies
19h32m

And, as a result, Hamas has been gone from a rent-extracting governing authority with 16 combat-effective brigades, deep connections to the IRGC, and ongoing funding not just from the Gulf States but from Israel itself(!) to an international pariah with military leadership hiding in tunnels and its last 2 allegedly combat-effective brigades preparing to make a valiant last stand behind a wall of civilian refugees in Rafah.

Yes: Israel did exactly what Hamas expected. The problem for Hamas is twofold:

* Hamas thought the urban combat to root them out of Gaza City and Khan Younis would be a Vietnam-scale bloodbath that would tie the IDF up indefinitely until they were forced to make a truce.

* Hamas's messianic nutbag leader genuinely believed that he was ushering in the end of days, and that the IRGC's other assets would immediately commit to full scale combat operations against the IDF. Instead: Hezbollah noped the hell out, and Iran launched a large scale drone attack that ended up providing a Boeing and Lockheed-style fireworks display in which other Arab states, even as Israel was massacring Palestinian civilians, pitched in to help. Then Iran "declared the matter resolved". Gulp.

Sometimes, if only strategically, it makes sense to do what your enemy wants you to, because your enemy is stupid.

rbanffy
3 replies
18h59m

Hamas's messianic nutbag leader genuinely believed that he was ushering in the end of days

This is more or less why Israel has so much support between Evangelical Christians. A relatively large number of these people actually want the world to end because they really believe in the Rapture and that they’ll be saved.

tptacek
2 replies
18h57m

People overindex on this. Israel enjoys overwhelming support in both parties, and, for those unfamiliar with US politics, evangelicals belong overwhelmingly to just one of them.

rbanffy
1 replies
11h50m

In the US, not supporting Israel is political suicide.

That said, a lot of evangelicals do believe the world is about to end and are willing to pay to hasten the process.

tptacek
0 replies
3h41m

Telling a pollster you support Israel isn't political suicide, and Americans consistently do that. It's political suicide for a politician to oppose Israel, because Americans like Israel.

throw310822
0 replies
15h31m

Hamas was designated a terrorist organisation and the Gaza strip was subject to a total blockade since 18 years because of Hamas having won regular elections (at the time). So much for becoming an international pariah.

No, the real news here is of course the news: the ICC seeks to arrest Israeli top leaders as much as the Hamas leaders. The subject that is going from being everyone's darling to international pariah is Israel, absolutely no doubt about this. This is a massive win for Palestine and those who claim to fight for it, including Hamas- with the potential for historical consequences.

My take is that this was the intention behind the October 7th attack- to drive Israel to such a violent retaliation as to force the world to take notice and to condemn Israel. I might be wrong and the victory might be entirely an unintended consequence. However your interpretation essentially requires Hamas to have zero knowledge of the real ratio of military force between Hamas/ Iran and Israel, and zero knowledge of the fact that the US have always been ready to commit their entire military for Israel. And even your imagined "win" scenario for Hamas is Israel committing to "a truce"- which is what they already had before Oct 7.

* Iran's fireworks display is the result of Israel, not Hamas, trying to drag Iran into the war.

Hikikomori
9 replies
20h24m

Unprovoked, really?

60% of homes destroyed, 80% of schools, all universities, 31/35 hospitals.

What Israel [0] could have done was to not create this situation in the first place, but their goal was never solve it anyway.

[0] I mean the current government in power and right wing extremist settlers

YZF
5 replies
19h13m

I believe we're talking about the provocation for the Oct 7th attacks and you are giving us the outcome of the war that was a result of that attack? Is there time travel involved here?

Israel withdrew from Gaza. Is your proposal that Israel should not have withdrawn to "not create the situation in the first place"? Or re-taken Gaza when Hamas took it over from Fatah by force in 2007 after winning the elections?

Hikikomori
4 replies
18h49m

The provocation is the continued blockade and military occupation of Gaza, as that is what most consider it to be. With the exception of the US and Israel of course.

Not to mention the continuation of apartheid in Israel itself and expansion of settlements in the west bank.

This situation was created because Netanyahu has supported Hamas for a long time, even before 2005, as a classic divide and conquer strategy, to not allow PA to control both territories. But the US also helped as Bush forced elections early when PA had a reputation of being corrupt, and when they lost the election they tried to get PA to do a coup and Hamas kicked them out from Gaza.

YZF
3 replies
18h0m

You're mixing stuff up. Why are you looking at "what most consider it to be"? How can you be military occupying a place where your military is not and you are not. There is no way there was a military occupation of Gaza by any normal definition of this term. Gaza was under the authority and control of the government of Hamas. Not of Israel. The rest is politics.

There's no apartheid in Israel itself but let's not get into that.

Expansion of settlements in the west bank. True. I don't understand how that's a provocation to Gazans to rape and murder random Israeli civilians. It's also true that Netanyahu pursued a divide and conquer approach. Again you're trying to claim that Israel's support of Hamas' rule in Gaza is provocation for Hamas to launch attacks on Israel civilians which makes no sense.

EDIT: To be fair the legal question of "when does an occupation end" is complicated. Gaza was occupied from Egypt and Egypt does not want it back. The uni-lateral withdrawal of Israel without a peace agreement left Gaza in a weird legal situation. This is why despite Gaza being under Palestinian control and not occupied the legal state of occupation is perhaps not fully resolved. There's reality on the ground though (not occupied) and international law status (debated).

Hikikomori
2 replies
17h29m

I mean the UN, Amnesty, other organizations like them. Israel has controlled their land borders, even the one to Egypt, their water and airspace. They control what goes in and out, people and goods. They might have left but Gaza is not free.

No apartheid? I guess Palestinians enjoy the right to return then? https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-...

The west bank is part of the whole situation, of course it matters to Gaza what happens there. It also shows exactly what would happen if Hamas did not exist, Israel would continue to allow settlers to take land and homes. I'm not saying that Hamas should exist, but its very much a situation created by Israel themselves and Hamas has support from Palestinians because of Israels actions.

May the hasbara be strong in you.

YZF
1 replies
16h19m

Do Germans that were expelled from the Sudettes have a right to return? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudeten_Germans

Does this make the Czech Republic an Apartheid state?

Is Russia an Apartheid state? Can Ukranian refugees return to their homes? What about the millions of other refugees from random places?

There is zero connection between the right of return (which does not exist, refugees have no right to return after they lost a war) and Apartheid.

It's not "Hasbara" (which means explaining in Hebrew, so yes, I'm explaining). It's just common sense.

saintkaye
2 replies
19h49m

They killed and raped kids at a concert. If calling that unprovoked terror is too far across the aisle, it’s hard to imagine an intellectually honest conversation, no?

Hikikomori
1 replies
18h59m

Its not unprovoked because its an ongoing conflict and occupation, it cannot be viewed in isolation no matter how horrible it was.

saintkaye
0 replies
17h7m

What? They targeted innocents at a music festival, the people you’re talking about are dying during war time in the actual theatre of war. Can you seriously not agree that the target and method of killing is very different?

threeseed
5 replies
20h43m

Israel was viscously attacked unprovoked

Unprovoked is a stretch.

Settlers have been given free rein to commit terror acts all throughout the Palestinian Territories.

And Hamas has been propped up by the Netanyahu government for years.

YZF
3 replies
19h17m

Palestinians in Gaza were not provoked and there were no settlers in the Gaza strip. Not sure about your last statement there, Hamas being propped up by Netanyahu was how Israel provoked them to attack?

What was the total number of Palestinians killed by Settler terrorist attacks in 2022? Do you have that handy? What was the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorist attacks during that time?

Hikikomori
2 replies
18h24m

Gaza is under military occupation by most definitions, that is provocation.

167 Palestinians and 12 Israelis in the west bank. All deaths, not just by settlers etc.

YZF
0 replies
17h58m

You're evading my question. For good reasons. It doesn't support your case.

If a Palestinian attempts to stab someone and is shot that's not the same situation as "settler" terrorist attacks.

I think you should answer my question.

Also please count Israelis in Israel killed by Palestinians from the west bank.

YZF
0 replies
17h56m

Gaza was not under military occupation by any definition. That is a fact that anyone can verify for themselves. Gaza was put under a blockade in 2007 after Hamas came to power (still has a border with Egypt, maybe Egypt is actually occupying Gaza by your definition). A blockade is not an occupation.

Maybe by "is" you mean since Oct 7th. But again that's not provocation, that's after the fact. If you think Gaza was occupied how come the IDF needs to re-occupy it?

amluto
0 replies
19h59m

Settlers have been given free rein to commit terror acts all throughout the Palestinian Territories.

Not quite:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_G...

This is not to say that Israel permitted Gaza to have any reasonable sort of economic development (as a simple example, it’s effectively a country with two not-very-open land borders and no port, which surely made trade rather challenging).

If you want an analogy, imagine roughly the population of San Francisco plus San Mateo County, but with under half the land area, hostile relations and extremely limited travel across the land border with Santa Clara County and points South, with no bridges and no port. Throw in a near-complete dependency on Santa Clara for water and electricity, and nowhere near enough agriculture. (At least San Mateo County has a decent amount of farming to the West.) Take out the hot tech scene as well, and the economic situation would not be awesome.

zoklet-enjoyer
1 replies
20h49m

As the other person stated, more targeted attacks. Israel is well known for their assassinations of Iranians. Why not Palestinians too?

whimsicalism
0 replies
20h47m

I promise you, Israel does plenty of targeted assassinations in Palestine. For instance [0] (mildly graphic, shots are fired by Israeli assassination squad into car) - stuff like this is very common in WB and now Gaza.

[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/17p7mfx/bett...

tptacek
0 replies
3h13m

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rusk
0 replies
19h46m

Well if you believe it was unprovoked then I can understand why this point of view would be so confusing.

alephnerd
17 replies
20h54m

Neither is the US nor most countries in the World.

The only major countries/blocs that are ICC members are the EU/EFTA/EU ascension candidates, UK, Canada, Mercusor (lowkey surprised Venezuela's still a signatory), Mexico, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and NZ.

Edit:

Yes. 124 nations did initially sign the Rome Statute.

I meant regional powers/countries that matter.

amiga386
9 replies
20h28m

If anyone here is from the US and doesn't like Israel scoffing at the ICC, they should read up on the American Service-Members' Protection Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...

The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Act authorizes the president of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the president to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of the Netherlands, where The Hague is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.

It was introduced in 2002 when the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and hasn't been rescinded. So if the US ever committed war crimes in those countries, or any other ones; too bad. The US so totally and completely doesn't recognise the ICC's jurisdiction that it will literally invade the Netherlands in order to not be bound by it in any way, shape or form.

tptacek
4 replies
19h54m

Is this all that weird? The ICC is fairly Eurocentric. India and China aren't signatories either.

The "Hague Invasion Act" is performative silliness enacted in the immediate wake of September 11. The truth is that no major European country is going to arrest an American, Indian, Philipino or Israeli politician. There's kind of a deus ex machina thing happening with the ICC; you still have to do standard-issue diplomacy.

KKKKkkkk1
3 replies
19h42m

What do you mean they wouldn't arrest? Israel's foreign minister Tsipy Livny had arrest warrants issued against her by courts in the UK and in Belgium.

tptacek
2 replies
19h38m

The UK literally apologized to Livny for doing that; that's how not toothy these things are.

KKKKkkkk1
1 replies
19h35m

That depends on who is in power. I don't think Jeremy Corbyn's Labour government would have apologized.

rbanffy
0 replies
19h7m

A real shame a Corbyn Labour government isn’t a reality.

FireBeyond
3 replies
20h15m

What's frustrating about that is that a lot of the US's early efforts to not get involved in the ICC was to protect Henry Kissinger from prosecution, who, most objective observers tend to agree did commit or authorize multiple war crimes, from assassinations of Chilean leaders, to the carpet bombing of Indochina, particularly Cambodia, and others.

dragonwriter
2 replies
19h0m

What's frustrating about that is that a lot of the US's early efforts to not get involved in the ICC was to protect Henry Kissinger from prosecution

No, it wasn't; the ICC (which the US had a lead role in negotiating and initially signed despite never ratifying it) was never going to have retroactive authority, and the US knew that was not an issue long before it “unsigned” the Rome Statute.

Both the unsigning and the “Hague invasion act” were in 2002, during the runup to the 2003 Iraq War; it was about protecting people then in office from consequences in the war of aggression they were about to launch, to the extent it was about protecting specific people and not just the broad idea of American exceptionalism and opposition of the US government of the time to the idea of international institutions not fully subordinated to the US.

FireBeyond
1 replies
16h56m

No, it wasn't; the ICC (which the US had a lead role in negotiating and initially signed despite never ratifying it) was never going to have retroactive authority, and the US knew that was not an issue long before it “unsigned” the Rome Statute.

The ICC was formed out of the ICJ, to tackle matters that rose beyond 'dispute' between states. The ICJ came out of the IMT, which was the Nuremburg trials, which defined war crimes and crimes against humanity for the first time, so it would not have been really retroactive. These things were already crimes, there just wasn't a body capable of prosecuting them.

dragonwriter
0 replies
13h38m

The ICC was formed out of the ICJ

No, it wasn't. In any sense.

It was a permanent successor to ad hoc criminal tribunals like the International Military Tribunal, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

The ICJ came out of the IMT, which was the Nuremburg trials

No, it didn't, it was the UN system's successor to the League of Nations system's Permanent International Court of Justice (the ICJ statute is modelled on that of the PICJ, the PICJ transferred irs assets and archives to the ICJ on its dissolution, the ICJ was headquartered in the Peace Palace that had held the HQ of the PICJ, and the ICJ even adopted the PICJ seal.)

The ICJ—like the PICJ, a court for disputes between nations—was in no respect a successor to International Military Tribunal, which dealt with crimes by individuals (and, indeed had most of its lifespan during that of the ICJ, starting work only a few months before the ICJ.)

eynsham
4 replies
20h22m

There are 124 state parties to the Rome Statute, which is more than a majority, counting standardly.

tptacek
3 replies
19h53m

And? It's not a vote. Pick a person from the world out at random; it's a coin flip whether they live in a country that has or hasn't ratified Rome.

runarberg
0 replies
18h34m

I did a quick tally with my calculator and tallied up the population of each country above 10 million which isn’t among the 137 countries which are current signatories to the Rome Statute. My final tally was 4,6 billion which is around 57% of the world, leaving around 43% of the world population living in a country which is at least a signatory to the Rome Statute.

Non-signatories are overwhelmingly represented by a handful of countries with very large populations. None of the 5 most populated countries in the world are signatories, and out of the 10 most populated, only 4 are signatories (Nigeria, Brazil, Bangladesh, and Mexico). Out of the top 20 most populated countries, 10 are signatories.

Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey have all previously expressed intentions of signing the Rome Statute, if only these countries would do so, it would bring over 60% of the world’s population under it.

rbanffy
0 replies
19h5m

Considering China, India, and the US didn’t sign it, the odds are considerably in favour of not being in a country that ratified it.

eynsham
0 replies
10h58m

Neither is the US nor most countries in the World.

The standard semantics of ‘most countries’ counts countries, not the people in them. Of course the related claim that the majority of /people/ do not live in state parties to the Rome Statute has different truth conditions.

craftkiller
1 replies
20h23m

nor most countries in the World.

Wikipedia says there are 124 states party to the Rome Statute and there are 193 sovereign states that are members of the united nations. Thats 64%, which is most countries.

dragonwriter
0 replies
18h57m

The State of Palestine is a State Party of the Rome Statute but only a non-member observer state of the UN, so treating the parties to the Rone Statute as a subset of the UN members is not quite right.

catlikesshrimp
12 replies
22h41m

"How far will the US and/or Israel go to threaten or discredit the ICC leadership?"

I think the US would not comment on the matter. Candidates for Office (Trump) would loudly comment about it.

The US has deep political and geopolitical ties with Israel. It will never go agaisnt Israel (the country) when it matters.

falcrist
5 replies
22h32m

I could see the US pulling back on Israel if it starts to cost them soft power elsewhere, but you're fundamentally correct. Israel is the primary instrument of US hegemony in the middle east, and they aren't going to risk losing that.

rusk
4 replies
21h41m

Biden has already started drawing lines though. He has been actively been distinguishing between defensive and offensive use cases and basically saying that US aid isn’t for the latter

nebula8804
2 replies
21h9m

Likely just political nonsense to help stop the (supposed) bleeding from the swing states. As it stands, if the election were held today polls show a massive loss for him.

What even is his plan anymore? Keep beating the "im better than Trump" drum and hope for the best?

mindslight
0 replies
18h24m

Personally I'm no fan of the two party duopoly and 2020 was my first time voting for a mainstream party in a national election (after decades of voting). Lest we forget, the last Trump term had a paralyzed federal government incapable (unwilling?) to respond to national or international crises, the polar opposite of leadership with the bully pulpit used to divide as if still campaigning, and culminated in an economic catastrophe of massive inflation that we're still reeling from today. And that was all before the chode embraced wholesale-reality-rejecting big lies, and grew a massive chip on his shoulder indicating a desire for straight revenge on his political opponents. So at least to me, affirmatively supporting the conservative option of Biden simply so we continue to have a country to criticize, despite all of the abhorrent status quo military industrial surveillance complex shit continuing to go on, has a pretty strong appeal. If "I'm better than Trump" can't carry the election on its own, then frankly we're doomed.

boppo1
0 replies
20h54m

Yes, that appears to be his plan.

mkoubaa
0 replies
18h42m

I don't see evidence of any lines drawn

Levitz
4 replies
21h34m

Rather relevant: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

Statement from President Joe Biden on the Warrant Applications by the International Criminal Court

The ICC prosecutor’s application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous. And let me be clear: whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.
lossolo
3 replies
20h51m

The ICC prosecutor’s application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous. And let me be clear: whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.

This is the hypocrisy of the West, when the same court issued a warrant for Putin, it was praised but when it involves a U.S. ally, it's labeled as "outrageous". This only fuels the sentiment prevalent in many Global South countries about us (the west) "rules for thee but not for me".

zeroonetwothree
0 replies
13h55m

Not sure why it’s hypocritical just because you praise one action by a group but not another. It’s not as if the circumstances are identical.

tarasglek
0 replies
12h42m

I think motives matter. Putin and Hamas decided to rape and kill for the sake of it.

Seems unlikely that Israel would be causing this much destruction if the group that they were seeking to retaliate against wasn't using civilians as shields (which is a war crime in itself).

Seems weird to put all responsibility on Israel here.

But in general I agree that a world government criminal court is a political joke that nobody takes seriously

mkoubaa
0 replies
18h40m

Some actors in the "West" might have some credibility but certainly not the USA. In recent decades our state department has been openly Machiavellian, which I wouldn't have minded if they weren't also utterly incompetent.

dragonwriter
0 replies
20h52m

I think the US would not comment on the matter.

Sitting US officials, up to and including the President, have already strongly condemned the pursuit of the warrants.

The US has deep political and geopolitical ties with Israel.

Which is fine as a basis for opposing things like this as long as the US doesn't ever want anyone to believe any of its claims that its policies are based on principals beyond bloc interest.

whimsicalism
8 replies
22h44m

Very strongly doubt it - decisions like these probably only benefit Netanyahu's rally around the flag effect. If it feels like the whole world is against you, you rally to your leaders.

whimsicalism
3 replies
22h25m

Significant portions of those disapproving are people who want to intensify the war in Gaza, so I doubt an ICC warrant would make them more opposed to Netanyahu.

Think it is easy in the US to think Israeli public opinion somehow mirrors the US but the vast majority of people in Israel right now are pro-war (similar to the US post-9/11) and anti-two state

e: not sure why I'm downvoted for something that can easily be confirmed by googling polls

fineIllregister
2 replies
21h26m

Significant portions of those disapproving are people who want to intensify the war in Gaza, so I doubt an ICC warrant would make them more opposed to Netanyahu.

Israel has a multi-party legislature. Netanyahu can be outflanked on the right.

whimsicalism
0 replies
21h20m

Certainly, but if he is outflanked on the right it won't be because of the ICC arrest warrant. If anything, that might help prevent him from being outflanked on the right.

alephnerd
0 replies
20h1m

Netanyahu can be outflanked on the right

He was outflanked by the right in 2019 when Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu and Lapid's Yamina withdrew it's support for Likud and joined Bennett's and Lapid's anti-Netanyahu coalition in 2021, but Bibi was able to leverage fringe Kahanist and Mizrahi parties to reclaim the top seat.

Hell, Bibi would make a coalition with the Arab List/Ra'am (the Islamist Party in Israel) if it meant remaining PM (and thus retaining immunity)

Traditionally, the hard right Jewish parties would always win around 20 seats in Knesset but would never be a major part of any coalition - but Bibi has alienated just about every single faction in Israel at this point trying to extend his rule.

dragonwriter
0 replies
20h55m

half of Israelis disapprove of Nethanyahu

Yeah but part of that half probably supports Gallant, who has split with Netanyahu, but is also charged alongside him.

nabla9
1 replies
22h10m

Nethanyahu is survivalist but he faces uphill battle as time passes.

The fact that Hamas attack was so successful under his watch has not disappeared.

His career is full of scandals and corruption. He is still going to have domestic charges in near future.

His war cabinet is going to collapse soon if he continues without any plans for the future of Gaza.

noobermin
0 replies
6h15m

But he's in power, still. His career has been "over" for years now.

amirhirsch
6 replies
20h31m

His career was already over. Nearly all Israelis would support exchanging Netanyahu for hostages, again.

xenospn
5 replies
19h48m

As a former Israeli, I cannot say this enough: please take Netanyahu, dig the deepest hole you can, throw him in there, lock it up and throw away the key.

cromka
2 replies
19h33m

You mean him, not them?

xenospn
0 replies
18h30m

I do! Thank you

rbanffy
0 replies
19h11m

There are a couple people that should be handed to the ICC.

rbanffy
0 replies
19h11m

I would strongly suggest handing him over to the ICC and signing the Rome treaty. Let the ICC deal with what to do with him exactly.

anovick
0 replies
4h16m

You claiming to have been Israeli in the past (what does that even mean?) does not give you any greater validity in criticizing Netanyahu.

A majority of Israelis voted for this government's representatives, including Netanyahu, some specifically voting for him (his party has almost x2 as many votes as the second-biggest voted party).

Democracy doesn't work only when the representatives that you like are elected.

gklitz
0 replies
2h6m

It didn’t end Putins career to have arrest warrants issued for him. So I doubt it would effect Netanyahu

bawolff
0 replies
20h55m

His career is already in a bad place as far as i understand. If anything it might help him because he could cry that they are unfairly (regardless of if true) out to get him.

andy_ppp
40 replies
10h45m

Everyone seems to be arguing as if they have lots of evidence disproving the Israeli part in war crimes and I’ve seen plenty of videos of absolutely cold blooded murders of unarmed civilians and massive destruction of civilian infrastructure. If Israel is not starving Palestinians why did the US build a jetty to take in aid?

I don’t mention that Hamas are also war criminals because I think everyone can agree they are already. It’s obvious.

Anyway I always thought that courts like this should have a special higher authority and any of us arguing on hacker news, I believe they are brave to take this case, will review the evidence fairly and a court case can happen at some point. If these leaders are innocent then I’m convinced the court will find them not guilty, but they should be allowed to follow any evidence, your or my opinion on hacker news really isn’t very relevant compared to that of experts in war crimes and international law.

AmericanChopper
33 replies
8h50m

The merits of the case are mostly irrelevant because the ICC doesn’t have the authority to enforce any of its judgements. Any country that has one of its citizens (or leaders) convicted by the ICC cannot be compelled to honor the judgement, it can only do so voluntarily, whether it’s a signatory or not. If a country chooses not to comply, the only option is for the ICC to wage a war to enforce its judgement, which it can’t do, and is unlikely to convince others to do.

The name of the ICC does not describe what it actually does. The only role it’s ever actually fulfilled is to punish people who have already lost wars. Which is why it’s pretty much only ever been used to prosecute WWII losers, Yugoslavian civil war losers, and random African warlord losers.

The most optimistic outcomes for the ICC here are sanctions (which Israel’s closest allies wont participate in) or restricted international movement for the involved parties (which Israel’s closest allies will also ignore), and I still think that’s rather optimistic.

bawolff
15 replies
7h40m

The merits of the case are mostly irrelevant because the ICC doesn’t have the authority to enforce any of its judgements. Any country that has one of its citizens (or leaders) convicted by the ICC cannot be compelled to honor the judgement, it can only do so voluntarily

This misunderstands how icc works. Generally the accused has to be in ICC custody for the case to go forward. Once the accused is in custody, the ICC has all sorts of power over them.

Perhaps you mean arresting people is hard. That is true, but the merit part only cones after that part.

Which is why it’s pretty much only ever been used to prosecute WWII losers, Yugoslavian civil war losers

Neither of those were the ICC.

----

You're not entirely wrong of course. The ICC has trouble enforcing warrants against powerful people from powerful countries.

AmericanChopper
7 replies
7h26m

You’re right about that, The ICC has actually only ever prosecuted Africans (and recently issued a couple of warrants against Russians). But The ICC, The ICTY and the IMT/IMTFE all have essentially the same authority when it comes to enforcing “international law”, which is none at all. International laws aren’t real, there is no international government, international police or international armed forces. All international legal or military actions take place only with the voluntary cooperation of all countries involved. If any country decides to withhold that cooperation on any particular issue, then there is no enforcement mechanism. Which is why all of history’s “international courts” have only ever prosecuted the losers of wars.

skissane
5 replies
6h54m

International laws aren’t real, there is no international government, international police or international armed forces

What you are expressing here is essentially a variant of the philosophy known as "legal realism" – laws only exist to the extent they are enforced, so a law lacking a sufficiently effective enforcement mechanism isn't really a law at all.

However, that perspective was rarely heard prior to the 20th century. Historically, international law grew out of the work of early modern European scholars such Grotius. Many of them (Grotius included) were natural law theorists – they saw the law of nations as grounded in human nature, and ultimately established by God. In those days, much of Europe – even in the purely domestic sphere – was still governed by customary law: laws evolved due to custom, whose content was never entirely clear, and which were never perfectly enforced. The continental legal tradition was founded on ancient Roman law, which continued to be studied as a kind of abstract intellectual system in universities long after it had ceased to be enforced in practice – however, rather than an exercise without any practical relevance, lawyers and judges would apply its provisions to every day cases, but only when they could get away with doing so – an attempt whenever they could to impose some neat Roman order on the anarchic mess of royal decrees and Germanic pagan custom. Against that historical background, the idea of international law without any clear lawgiver or law-enforcer made much more sense than it does to you.

AmericanChopper
4 replies
6h50m

The way it works today is the way it’s always worked. Laws have always needed enforcers, and international laws have only ever been enforced by the winners of war against the losers of war. That’s why the Romans enforced egregious reparations against the Carthaginians after the first Punic war (and took many of their men into slavery), which lead to the second Punic war (after which the same thing happened again).

skissane
3 replies
6h24m

The way it works today is the way it’s always worked. Laws have always needed enforcers

Again, you are relying on a contested viewpoint in the philosophy of law as if it were obviously true, despite the fact that many people (both historically and today) disagree with it.

It is one thing to argue for a contested philosophical position – but if you are just going to assert it as "obvious" or "self-evident", then you are really just preaching to the choir, you can only ever convince people who already agree with you.

AmericanChopper
2 replies
5h47m

I'm simply stating the facts of history, which your primary criticism of seems to be that they're too realistic. Describing a viewpoint as contested doesn't really mean anything, you are here contesting it, so it's self-evidently contested. That doesn't lend any credibility to what you're saying. Laws without enforcers are just somebody's ideas, and having some esoteric philosophical objection this doesn't change the reality of the situation.

I could issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and hold a trial for him myself. Perhaps I could also contrive some philosophical justification for why this would be a deeply meaningful act, but the reality of daily life would continue without any regard for such a gesture.

skissane
0 replies
5h35m

I'm simply stating the facts of history, which your primary criticism of seems to be that they're too realistic.

No, my criticism is that you are making the category mistake of confusing history with philosophy of law.

Nobody disputes the historical fact that international law has never seen any more than selective enforcement.

The dispute is about what relevance that historical fact has for the ontological status of international law qua law. That's a philosophy of law question, not a history question.

You are also ignoring the historical fact that the vast majority of states prefer to claim compliance with international law (however dubiously) rather than openly defy it. If other states accuse them of violating international law, the standard diplomatic response is to dispute the contents of the law or its application to the facts at hand, not to reject the whole concept of international law. Your nihilism about international law ignores the real historical fact that states at least pretend to believe in it – and a lot of the people who make those decisions on behalf of states (diplomats, bureaucrats, politicians, etc) aren't just pretending to believe in it, they really actually do. This is a real historical and contemporary phenomenon your theory can't explain.

I could issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and hold a trial for him myself.

There is an obvious difference – nobody with any real world power would accept what you did as legitimate. Whereas, if the ICC issues an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, many people around the world with real power (government officials, judges, diplomats, international bureaucrats, etc) will officially consider that a legitimate act. Now, of course, despite the fact these people do have some real world power, it is unlikely to be enough in practice to actually bring about Netanyahu's arrest. But still, that's a very different situation from your hypothetical of an act which nobody with any significant real world power would accept as legitimate.

And, an ICC arrest warrant is likely to have some real world consequences for Netanyahu – it will likely reduce somewhat his ability to travel internationally; it is also likely to harm Israel diplomatically and politically (e.g. it could well make an easier job for people lobbying for various governments to recognise the State of Palestine); conversely, it is likely also going to help Netanyahu in Israel's domestic politics; whereas, your warrant/trial would have zero real world consequences for him or for his government or country.

Etherlord87
0 replies
1h20m

I could issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and hold a trial for him myself.

And it wouldn't be discussed through-out the Internet. It wouldn't be spoken about on CNN and other mainstream media.

It all really comes to this, doesn't it? It all comes to the established belief in the authorities. With enough uncontested claims like yours, the power of ICC would fade. However because of witty responses of skissane, its power grows.

One of the best quotes from the Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire:

A King, a priest, a rich man and a sellsword are in a room. Those three man tell the sellsword to kill the other two.

Who lives and who dies?

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/161997/so-what-was...

Teever
4 replies
7h5m

Why don't they just try war criminals in absentia, sentence them to death and then put bounties on their heads?

The US put bounties out on Osama Bin Laden. This isn't unprecedented.

gengwyn
3 replies
6h46m

The US putting a bounty on the head of an internationally-recognized terrorist and leader of a violent non-state actor like Al-Qaeda is nowhere near comparable to an international body putting bounties out for the leaders of sovereign states of millions.

shmel
0 replies
6h21m

What about Hamas leaders then?

Teever
0 replies
6h42m

Well sure they aren't comparable if you leave out the 'convicted war criminal' part of this hypothetical.

ElevenLathe
0 replies
6h17m

Right, in this hypothetical one bounty target has been convicted of war crimes by an internationally recognized court, and the other is Osama bin Laden.

mst
1 replies
7h0m

I find it a little unfortunate that the ANC, who have explicitly stated they won't enforce the ICC warrant against Putin (and have previously ignored ICC genocide charges against a Sudanese leader), were still considered a reasonable group to prosecute Israel.

Makes it look rather like they did so at the behest of Russia (whether on behalf of their ally Iran or as a simple continuation of Russian support for the ANC, who knows).

Even if it only looks like that, the conflict of interest is sufficiently obvious that I find it difficult to regard the ICC's indictments wrt Israel as judicially legitimate.

(this is not to imply that Israel is anywhere near innocent of all accusations made against her, only that I see no reason to trust the ICC's judgement in the matter of which ones she's guilty of)

vidarh
0 replies
4h17m

The ICC is not prosecuting Israel. The ICC prosecutes individuals. South African or the ANC have no saying in who the ICC pursues cases against.

The ICJ is handling a the case against Israel filed by South Africa. The ICJ handles only cases with state parties, and only on the basis of complaints of one of those state parties.

The two cases are entirely separate, and the ICC and ICJ are two entirely different courts. The ICC was created under the Rome Statue. The ICJ, meanwhile was founded on the basis of the UN Charter.

andy_ppp
6 replies
8h32m

Well I think the ICC disagrees with your assessment of them, and they are in fact proving you incorrect by doing the exact opposite of what you’re claiming; attempting to try people who have potentially committed war crimes even though they are allies of western countries. I think this is an excellent thing personally and while it might be a new development for the court I think it’s very reasonable to follow the evidence and come to a conclusion despite huge political pressure.

AmericanChopper
5 replies
7h51m

Of course they would disagree. Their entire existence is based upon this fiction. The fact that they are attempting to reinforce this narrative doesn’t prove anything. If Netanyahu appears in handcuffs in The Hague I’d be forced to reassess my position, or better yet one of the too-many-to-count US war criminals. But I’m quite confident that’s never going to happen.

Talk is cheap, and it doesn’t matter what the ICC says, its role is defined by what it actually does. Which is as I’ve described.

VagabundoP
3 replies
6h43m

We all thought the ICTY would never get their hands on Milošević. I'm old enough to remember the day he appeared in handcuffs.

We can only hope that the law catches up with these fucks.

AmericanChopper
2 replies
5h25m

Milosevic was sent to The Hague after being ousted by a political revolution. I guess you could say that's not exactly the same as losing a war, but certainly within the theme of international law only applying to history's losers (as opposed to history's criminals).

ignoramous
1 replies
4h32m

No matter how you spin it, a court created in the wake of the Nuremberg Trials has ironically sealed Israeli leadership's outcast international status. Win or lose, History won't be kind.

Etherlord87
0 replies
1h30m

It hasn't sealed it yet. It's a start of the process, there's no arrest warrant yet.

sharpshadow
0 replies
2h59m

Absolutely right and there didn’t changed much in the last 100 years. Here a quote from a old book: ‘It is true that there exists a vast body of what is termed “international law”; but this bloodless caricature lacks the first essential foundation of law in capitalist society, the existence of a sovereign power capable of enforcing it…’[1].

1. World Politics 1918-1936 R. Palme Dutt

llamaimperative
3 replies
8h6m

Eh, a conviction would make domestic US political support a a lot dicier to maintain.

lozenge
1 replies
7h59m

This the US that passed the Hague Invasion Act?

llamaimperative
0 replies
5h56m

If you’re suggesting “the US” is one monolithic entity, then no.

Xylakant
0 replies
8h2m

A conviction would also require signatory states to arrest the convicted persons - or give up the support for the ICC. Almost all of the EU is member of the ICC. A conviction, or even just an arrest warrant would lead to massive political complications for the EU-Israel relations.

DyslexicAtheist
3 replies
7h23m

If a country chooses not to comply, the only option is for the ICC to wage a war to enforce its judgement

not just does the US criminal elite not recognize ICC but they took it one step further with spelling out[1] what might happen if a US criminal is being charged by the court:

"The Hague Invasion Act", allows the president to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of the Netherlands, where The Hague is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.

... so not only should Israeli and Hamas war crimes be prosecuted, but in order not to appear utterly hypocritical, and "to do right by history", should US/UK war criminals like Dick Cheney, G.W. Bush, Tony Blair, and all other despicable criminal soldiers face the music for what they did in Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and other places. Kidnapping from a sovereign country, torture, etc ... Just utterly barbaric.

But the US especially is a lost cause considering how they treat the worst transgressors and war-criminals like the execution without trial as in the case of Osama bin Laden. So just imagine if anyone would propose having US war criminals meet that very same fate? It would get you banned on every Internet site for "hate speech" LOL. Which is why it's pointless to cite laws, the justice system or pen and paper to solve something that is immune to that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

gengwyn
2 replies
6h27m

- You act like it’s unreasonable for the United States to not want US citizens held by bodies the United States doesn’t recognize the authority of. No sovereign country would accept this.

- What crimes and under whose jurisdiction are Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, and George Bush guilty of? Osama bin Laden was indicted by a US grand jury under US jurisdiction and refused for extradition by the Taliban, not to mention his Interpol arrest warrant from Libya.

You also linked the Wikipedia page for the Hague Invasion Act but didn’t bring up this paragraph from the Abu Ghraib one:

In response to the events at Abu Ghraib, the United States Department of Defense removed 17 soldiers and officers from duty. Eleven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery. Between May 2004 and April 2006, these soldiers were court-martialed, convicted, sentenced to military prison, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, found to have perpetrated many of the worst offenses at the prison, Specialist Charles Graner and PFC Lynndie England, were subject to more severe charges and received harsher sentences. Graner was convicted of assault, battery, conspiracy, maltreatment of detainees, committing indecent acts and dereliction of duty; he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and loss of rank, pay and benefits. England was convicted of conspiracy, maltreating detainees and committing an indecent act and sentenced to three years in prison.

Let’s not act like the United States not being party to the Rome Statute means that US soldiers can commit crimes with impunity and not be punished under policy like the UCMJ.

vidarh
0 replies
4h11m

For the US to engage in acts of war against countries that make their choices as to how to apply treaties with the force of law in their territory is pretty extreme, yes. Most countries do accept that if their citizens are held in foreign territory for violation of laws enforceable in that territory, that is an issue for diplomacy, not invasion.

ignoramous
0 replies
4h27m

unreasonable for the United States to not want US citizens held by bodies the United States doesn't recognize the authority of. No sovereign country would accept this.

Many US citizens killed by state actors abroad, including by allies. Nothing of note happens. The key here is you think it is unreasonable for US war criminals to be tried at all (even when they commit atrocities in countries party to the Rome Statue).

piokoch
1 replies
7h34m

"The merits of the case are mostly irrelevant because the ICC doesn’t have the authority to enforce any of its judgements." - tell this to Slobodan Milošević

dagw
0 replies
7h32m

Milošević died before any judgement could be rendered. So we have no idea what would have happened if had been found guilty.

shmatt
5 replies
8h2m

You’re ignoring 2 major things

* Israel is the one operating the jetty. If you look at photos the trucks bringing the aid from the sea to land have yellow Israeli civilian plates. These are civilian Israeli contractors being paid by the Israeli government to disperse the aid because the Americans refused to have boots on the ground

* it only takes 3 people (prosecutor + 2 judges) to completely crumble the western block. You could suspect war crimes for any post 9/11 war campaign and arrest every past and present leader of the Us, France, UK, Australia since 2001 because 3 people said so. That’s way too much power for a small group

cyclecount
3 replies
7h23m

Think for a minute why Israel might be “providing security” for this floating pier (built by the US), or why a sea-route for aid is even necessary in the first place. Wouldn’t it be much, much simpler to bring in aid by land (via the many border crossings also administered by Israel)?

The pier provides something else to Israel: a large escape hatch for forcibly transferring a large population without resettling them in Israel (or Egypt). This plan was suggested last year by an Israeli think tank linked to Likud and the current Israeli war cabinet: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231024-israel-think-tank...

(By the way, there is still some aid attempting to enter Gaza via the land routes but there are multiple examples of trucks being blocked and food being destroyed. Here’s a video from last week where the IDF watched as food aid was blocked and burned: https://x.com/sapir_slam/status/1791143191988543538?s=46)

shmatt
1 replies
5h34m

So your take is Israel is going to take the US military built port and put millions of Palestinians on a boat? This goes way beyond conspiracy theory

Like you mentioned there are hundreds of trucks going in per day but there are also issues with Egypt shutting down their side, Hamas bombing the Israeli gates, and israeli protesters blocking aid. The sea bypasses all 3 of those issues. They’ve already transferred in hundreds of tons of aid in just the few days it’s been open.

cyclecount
0 replies
5h8m

This is not my take, this is a proposal that has been suggested by Israeli officials.

andy_ppp
0 replies
6h57m

The tragedy of a people who often experience racism being perpetrators of it always shocks me. The difficulty the majority of human beings have differentiating people who look like my enemy, from my enemy, is really impossible for me to understand. Targeting every part of a group in this way rather than as individuals based on the content of their character is something that is still a pipe dream :-(

skissane
0 replies
7h22m

* it only takes 3 people (prosecutor + 2 judges) to completely crumble the western block. You could suspect war crimes for any post 9/11 war campaign and arrest every past and present leader of the Us, France, UK, Australia since 2001 because 3 people said so. That’s way too much power for a small group

There are two additional checks-and-balances which you have not mentioned: (1) Decisions of the Pre-Trial Chamber can be appealed to the Appellate Chamber (2) the UN Security Council can by resolution suspend proceedings in any case for up to 12 months (indefinitely renewable).

So, a prosecution requires (1) the Prosecutor to decide to prosecute, (2) at least two out of three Pre-Trial judges to approve the prosecution, (3) at least three out of five Appellate judges to dismiss any appeal of that decision, (4) either a majority of the UN Security Council or else at least one of its permanent members to oppose suspending the prosecution. That's more than just 3 people's say-so. That's six people plus at least one major world power say-so.

octopoc
26 replies
22h28m

Interestingly looks like both the US and Israel withdrew their signatures at some prior point.

sirbutters
15 replies
22h13m

Certainly wouldn't want US or IDF soldiers to be held accountable. smh.

edanm
11 replies
12h16m

It's not about being held accountable at all - it's about who is holding them accountable.

The belief is that as sovereign nations, they can hold their own people accountable, and no one else should have the right to hold them accountable instead.

justinclift
5 replies
10h25m

they can hold their own people accountable

Except when they can't, as in the case of senior government figures.

edanm
4 replies
9h42m

Except when they can't, as in the case of senior government figures.

It is a principle of democracy that senior government figures can be held accountable.

E.g. in the US, Trump, a former president and a potential future president, is currently in several trials.

E.g. in Israel, where Netanyahu is under trial in several cases (unrelated to the ICJ) and where e.g. a former PM was convicted of several charges and served time in prison.

wffurr
3 replies
8h11m

Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush have yet to be held accountable for their war crimes after a conviction by the ICC.

Obama deserves an investigation and trial at the ICC for much the same reasons, but was somehow seen as better by the ICC and signing countries.

All of your examples are domestic crimes.

gengwyn
2 replies
6h17m

I could be missing something but I don’t think any of those three have ever been convicted by the ICC.

The examples are domestic crimes because the argument is that the US doesn’t need to be party to the Rome Statute because it would enforce similar penalties on servicemen and leaders using domestic jurisdiction. Others countered that the US somehow can’t do that despite the former president literally being on trial as we speak and the above commenter provided examples to the contrary.

wffurr
0 replies
1h3m

I must be mis-remembering some Facebook memes based on the 2012 conviction in absentia by a Malaysian tribunal. Seems like the ICC never took it up; although they almost certainly should have. US sanctions and pressure on the ICC not to seems to be working.

justinclift
0 replies
6h8m

Some quick searching online turns up relevant stuff:

https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/bush-and-associat...

Not seeing any mention of a conviction on the Wikipedia page though, which seems like it would have at least a mention:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...

---

This is pretty wild: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/16/icc-us-coope... (archived: https://archive.md/IDpQk)

That's clearly trying to pull some shit / suppress investigation into US activities.

oaiey
2 replies
9h51m

Is not one of the principles of the ICJ that if a nation process their own war criminal citizen, the ICJ has no jurisdiction. But if they do not properly, the ICJ does.

bawolff
1 replies
8h57m

You are confusing ICJ & ICC. But yes, that is one of the principles of the ICC.

(ICJ = a court for countries to go to when they disagree on how to interpret a treaty. ICC = throw individual people in jail who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide)

VagabundoP
0 replies
6h39m

Only if the country brings good faith cases themselves against the individuals involved in the war crimes. And it only gives them cover for the crimes they are tried for.

hnbad
0 replies
8h58m

The belief is that as sovereign nations, they can hold their own people accountable, and no one else should have the right to hold them accountable instead.

There is no such thing as a sovereign nation in the modern age.

Even if you ignore the dependence on international trade (i.e. relying on other nations to trade with you), sovereignty requires the military ability to defend yourself against any adversary trying to impose their will on you. In the nuclear age we've effectively abolished this concept thanks to Mutually Assured Destruction. If China wants the US gone, either China "wins" (i.e. the US surrenders or offers a compromise) or the world ends (i.e. the outcome of global thermonuclear war makes "US" and "China" meaningless concepts).

So if "as sovereign nations" is no more than a meaningful flourish, the belief becomes simply this:

they can hold their own people accountable, and no on else should have the right to hold them accountable instead

We can break this down again:

they can hold their own people accountable

It's interesting that you say "can", which already admits that there is a difference between the ability and willingness to do so. But even if we ignore this, the important consideration here is that there can be a mismatch between what "they" think "holding their own people accountable" means and what others think.

By "they" you reference the US and Israel but legal entities don't do anything, people do things. Granted, those people exist within social systems of power but at the end of the day people within those states will be the ones holding people accountable or not. If you think of this in terms of people, a potential conflict of interest becomes apparent: the people being held accountable are the military and political leadership and legislators, the people holding them accountable are military and political investigators and courts. The victims of the alleged crimes are not represented by either of these groups as Gazans are generally not fully Israeli citizens.

This isn't to say that Israel's legal system might be unfairly biased against Gazans or that it might err on the side of ignoring crimes against them or that this might be a systemic problem. My point is merely that there's a credible reason to believe that an investigation by Israel into alleged actions by its government against Gazans might be biased simply based on an in-group/out-group distinction between the involved groups.

no one else should have the right to hold them accountable

This is begging the question of "accountable for what". You can only hold someone accountable if there's some bar they're supposed to meet. Israel was a signatory to the Rome Statute (although it walked back from it in 2002 along with the US) and we're talking about the ICC so the bar seems to be "upholding human rights and abstaining from human rights abuses and war crimes".

You might argue that no outside state should be allowed to intervene in another state's human rights abuses as long as they are contained to that state's territory or only people who are subjects of that state. But clearly Israel doesn't believe this or otherwise the Mossad wouldn't have a history of abductions and assassinations. And it's a good thing too because otherwise we wouldn't look at events like the Rwandan genocide as a horrific failure of the international community and instead just consider it business as usual.

Legally speaking, the ICC clearly has the "right to" do what it is doing. But if you mean morally, again I don't think you believe this unless you believe interventionism is never justified. In other words that would mean you want to go back to the Peace of Westphalia and abolish the notion of universal human rights entirely and allow states to commit genocides, engage in chattel slavery or do all kinds of unspeakable horrors as long as they do so within the confines of their own territory.

I don't think you're saying any of that. I think what you're instead arguing for is nothing more than special pleading: it's different when {the US, Israel} does it.

bigbacaloa
0 replies
12h12m

A more undemocratic, anti human rights perspective is hard to imagine. Only I can hold myself accountable is the essence of authoritarian thinking.

hirsin
1 replies
13h0m

I don't think the US govt gives a hoot for the common soldier except where their warrant would provide precedence for a senator or president to also be arrested.

NomDePlum
0 replies
11h54m

It's politically embarrassing as attempted prosecutions of soldiers in Northern Ireland have shown. It all gets swept under the carpet, on a pretence it's not good for national security. If you prosecute successfully an individual there is a reasonable chance all military personnel involved could be successfully prosecuted is perhaps another reason it won't happen.

Using the military to prosecute aggressive military operations in an area the clear majority are unarmed, unprotected civilians again shows there is virtually no chance of prosecutions being taken.

Add to that the severe limits added to press freedom, to the point it's obvious the plan is there is no independent reporting, the repeated and systematic targeting of hospitals, ambulances, medical and aid workers, treatment of people detained, never mind densely packed civilian areas which in similar ongoing conflicts (Ukraine/Russia) would be directly called out as war crimes without equivocation, but are ignored, then is there even any point attempting to prosecute individual soldiers?

Seeking arrest warrants for those with most direct decision making powers is far more legitimate, necessary even. Demands for limitless, in all senses, military operations help no one longer term.

justinclift
0 replies
10h26m

The US is still actively pursuing one of the well known people (Assange) who dared publishing evidence, further destroying their own reputation. :(

jeroenhd
8 replies
22h7m

The US signature was shaky to begin with (it was never really ratified through the proper channels) and I doubt they would've kept their signatures with the impending invasions following 9/11.

With the so-dubbed "The Hague Invasion Act" I'd say the US has not only withdrawn its signature, it actively threatens anyone trying to hold their citizens accountable to things like war crimes. Officially, they're an observer these days, but practically, I think they're only there to see their enemies get convicted, and nothing else.

candiodari
4 replies
11h46m

Whereas Palestine's signature is fake. I don't know how else to call it. I mean are we now to believe the "state of Palestine" is going to arrest and deliver Sinwar, Deif AND deliver the hostages to Israel just because this guy asks?

And they didn't waste any time in stating they would never actually execute the signed treaty. At least we already know that:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmllykpwgdyo

(Yes, I know what the BBC title says, Hamas statement that they won't follow the treaties they agreed to uphold is there, for their own people. In THE SAME STATEMENT they complain that it isn't applied faster to their opponents)

(Also: obvious conclusion, if Hamas has no intention of holding up treaties they signed, then that makes any peace with them worthless, even if it's a signed treaty. Without a trusted counterparty there is no choice)

moomin
3 replies
11h36m

I think you need to make a distinction here between the Palestinian Authority (which signed it) and Hamas (that supplanted it through violent uprising). The PA still exists and would happily comply, they just don’t have a presence in Gaza.

bigbinary
1 replies
11h17m

Absolutely true; Gaza’s system of government has collapsed since long ago, and the “democratic” election, that many people use to justify the equivocation of the Gaza population and Hamas, involved less than half the population of the enclave and had numerous other issues that make the Hamas rule a farce.

That being said, even those that didn’t vote for Hamas would probably not have elected the PA, as public trust of Palestinians in the PA has eroded due to Mahmoud Abbas’s unwillingness to step down and the perception that the PA is a puppet government.

All this to say that Palestinians lack a trustworthy government, much less a government that could be responsible for turning in the Hamas members the ICC wants to arrest.

candiodari
0 replies
11h2m

If you think like this, then "warcrimes" are bullshit. The whole point of the UN, the Geneva convention, warcrimes legislation, ... is that it would apply 100% in situations where government collapses, in situations where there is nothing but violence, in civil wars (arguably worse than the current situation). That genocide is forbidden AND punished even in the total absense of public trust, in the absense of government, in war, ...

So that's the problem I have with the statement: it's true, absolutely, but if we think like this then human rights aren't human rights, but merely subject to governance. Your statement is true, but is a denial of international law. If your statement is true, you may as well abolish the international criminal court. After all, if a government exists, there's no need for them and if a government doesn't exist (or doesn't apply) then, as you say, the rules don't apply. So what's the point?

Your statement is true, but the world would be a much better place if your statement was false, and therefore we'll at least pretend it is false.

(and, of course, if you think like this, then absolutely anything goes in war)

candiodari
0 replies
11h22m

So? Hamas agreed to abide by international treaties signed by Palestine.

AND they "demand" it is held up against Israel.

Plus the basic point stands. With people who think like this, treaties aren't worth the paper they're written on.

epolanski
1 replies
9h51m

Biden has had a vague position on that. The US assisted and supported the ICJ for the charges against Putin for the alleged Ukrainian kids abductions.

Xelbair
0 replies
9h13m

I wonder why US president assisted and supported it on the case that's beneficial to US..

skissane
0 replies
6h31m

The US signature was shaky to begin with (it was never really ratified through the proper channels) and I doubt they would've kept their signatures with the impending invasions following 9/11.

What you are saying here is a bit confused. Under US domestic law, the President has the unilateral authority to sign whatever treaties the President wishes. Ratification comes after signature, the US never ratified the Statute. So there was nothing actually "shaky" about the signature.

This is a topic which confuses a lot of people. Agreeing treaties under international law is a two-stage process – the first stage, "signature" is in-principle agreement but isn't actually legally binding (except for a limited obligation "not to defeat the object and purpose of the treaty", and it isn't very clear what that even means); "ratification" (sometimes also called "acceptance" or "approval") is fully binding agreement. For less important treaties, the two stages are sometimes collapsed into one ("signature without reservation as to ratification"), but for major treaties the distinction is generally preserved. Also, joining a multilateral treaty subsequent to its entry into force is often a single stage process ("accession"). However, the average person doesn't understand this two-stage process, and is used to everyday contexts where signing a contract is sufficient to make it legally binding.

There are some particular reasons why Americans find this even more confusing than people of most countries do. Many Americans have the idea that the US Constitution requires treaties to be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the US Senate. However, strictly speaking, the President ratifies treaties, not the Senate; the Senate just gives the President permission to do so. Furthermore, US law distinguishes between "treaties" (whose ratification requires two-thirds Senate consent) and "international agreements" (whose ratification doesn't) – but as far as international law is concerned, both are treaties – whether some act of ratification requires consent by the US Senate is an internal American matter with which international law is largely unconcerned.

Actually, US law distinguishes three types of "international agreements" (all of which are treaties as far as international law is concerned) – treaties (President ratifies with consent of two-thirds of Senate), congressional-executive agreements (President ratifies with consent of ordinary majority of both House and Senate), and sole executive agreements (President ratifies unilaterally). It is generally understood that "treaties" are used for foundational legal issues, military alliances, borders, human rights, etc; congressional-executive agreements are primarily used for trade; sole executive agreements are used for more minor matters of international cooperation. However, there is no precise legal rule regarding what type of agreement is to be used for which category–the Supreme Court views it as a "political question" which it expects the President and Congress to sort out between themselves, largely without its input. Under international law (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties article 47), if the President ratifies something, that ratification is still binding under international law on the US, even if US Congress (or even the Supreme Court!) decides the ratification to be illegal or unconstitutional – unless its illegality/unconstitutionality was "manifest" and "objectively evident" to the other states parties at the time the President made it.

bawolff
0 replies
9h0m

In fairness, Israel did have a point that the original judge selection process was unfair to them. Realistically though that is probably not the main reason they didn't sign it and that issue has since been rectified.

teyc
9 replies
21h30m

There were some suggestions in the past that the US’s unbridled support for Israel is harmful to the long term interests of Israel. Over the years I’ve seen less and less intelligent arguments coming from Israeli leadership, particularly in a world where smartphones can turn any citizen into a reporter.

Some days it is apparent that the wrath meted upon the Palestinians has turned into bloodlust. While I understand the grief and anger following such a massacre, there has long been a pattern of wilfully misplaced reaction against stone throwing kids and targeting of journalists and their families. These cannot be attributed to Oct 7.

Now with Israeli funds making its way back to US politics, the crazier the politician the better his chances. With time, the benevolence of the US will be questioned by their allies and make the world a less predictable place.

nebula8804
8 replies
20h54m

Now with Israeli funds making its way back to US politics, the crazier the politician the better his chances. With time, the benevolence of the US will be questioned by their allies and make the world a less predictable place.

What alternative do these other "partners" have? The Ukraine war has exposed how badly atrophied all their military might has become and lets be honest, post Ukraine, its clear that is the most important thing.

The EU still isn't meeting their minimum NATO commitments despite how far behind they are. It would take a massive amount of pain that the EU populations would have to bear in order to turn this around. I suspect all of a sudden EU population will become like the US population caring only about their own short term self interests more than what is "morally right". So the partnerships with the US will stay until the EU is willing to make that painful sacrifice to build out an alternative to the US military.

teyc
7 replies
20h3m

A war only happens when the chances of winning or losing is indeterminate. Ukraine would have achieved a sane political outcome without loss of blood and treasure if the Russians managed to roll in their tanks and replaced the government with a Russian leaning one. This may sound unpalatable it would have restored status quo to the pre-western-funded coup against the Russian-friendly government that was in place.

Geopolitically, the NATO was heading towards obsolescence as Germany and Russian integrated their economies and achieve a lasting peace in the region. The US meddling in Ukraine weakens Europe and maintains the US status as the global hegemon.

CamperBob2
3 replies
19h3m

and maintains the US status as the global hegemon.

The post-1945 globe evidently demands a hegemon. Which would you prefer, the US and its allies, or Russia and China? Those are your options. "None of the above" is not among them.

timka
1 replies
5h55m

It's called United Nations Organization. Although it hasn't been fully implemented. It was planned to have nuclear weapon monopoly and strong joint military forces to stop any aggression. Why didn't that happen? Because it's the US that gained the benefits out of both world wars. And its allies aren't allies but minions. Remember what happened to Charles de Gaulle?

Also note that no one has ever declared a war legally since WW II. Because of the UN and international conventions.

I'd also add that it's not entirely correct to consider countries equal top level actors in the historical process now and in the past. Nowadays so called political nations are technically subjects of international right, of course. But, for instance, in pre-Westphalian world that wasn't the case and these days there is plenty of evidence of transnational actors' influence. For example, Vatican dates back to that era I mentioned. And also who owns most the land in Europe? And how come these von Something German nazis avoided The Nuremberg Trials and ended up as board members in big industrial companies?

So no, the world doesn't need a hegemon in your sense. Taking into account the paralysis of the UN since 1991 it's more likely there will be another take on the ruins that.

CamperBob2
0 replies
4h31m

Maybe so, maybe not, whatever. None of that changes my point: you'll get a 'hegemon' whether you want one or not, and no, it won't be the UN. It will either be a US-led alliance or one led by China. The world is becoming more polarized, not less, and I don't see how that trend can be reversed.

By the same token, at the national level, it's possible that dictatorship will emerge as the only stable model of governance. People everywhere seem to want it. The only principle that actually matters in politics turns out to be "Screw the other guy," and dictators are the best at that. If so, the US's ability to protest and resist its central government will turn out to be maladaptive, giving the advantage to the China-Russia alliance in the long run.

As for the church, they still own the land but not the hearts and minds. Or the nukes. Religion is irrelevant at the international scope. But of course it's still as useful to the rulers of individual nations as ever, because you can't maintain a cult of personality without exploiting the same mental bug that the church originally stumbled across.

teyc
0 replies
18h49m

I believe that US has been an essential partner for a very long time. It demands great leadership but it is something sorely lacking over the past couple of decades.

c-cube
1 replies
18h42m

You sure seem very eager to taste Putin's boot.

teyc
0 replies
17h57m

Apologies for the off topic discussion.

The eastern bloc countries suffered badly under soviet rule. When the Ukraine war started, I’m as eager as anyone to see that the Russians were dealt a black eye.

In retrospect, given the gas shortages that occurred in Europe, and the destruction of the German economy; the large number of deaths that occurred on both sides, and the war zone being turned into a weapons testing ground, I am left wondering who are the real winners and losers?

dindobre
0 replies
10h23m

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact could also be considered an integration of German and Russian geo-political interests to achieve a lasting peace in the region. Just surrender.

pyuser583
5 replies
21h0m

Is Israel a signatory of the ICC treaty? Does the ICC have universal jurisdiction?

xg15
2 replies
20h42m

Israel is not, however Palestine - as a UN observer state - is. This was enough for the ICC to declare jurisdiction.

To my knowledge, this is also the grounds on which the US and UK dispute jurisdiction: They say, no country in this conflict that they recognise is ICC signatory, so the ICC does not have jurisdiction.

(Not a lawyer, but this seems a pretty spurious and self-referential legal argument to me and in any case the UN accepted Palestine as an observer state, so I doubt that it would fly.)

pyuser583
1 replies
20h26m

Does Palestine, as recognized by the UN, include the West Bank?

Because from what I hear, that “Palestine” doesn’t really exist.

There’s Gaza, and there’s the West Bank.

irishloop
0 replies
20h38m

From the NYT:

For now, the announcement is largely symbolic. Israel is not a member of the court and does not recognize its jurisdiction in Israel or Gaza, meaning that Israeli leaders would face no risk of arrest at home.

The US is also not a member

dathinab
0 replies
20h31m

international law, courts, treaties etc. don't really work like that

Like there is no such thing as a "universal" right, law, lawful action or anything. There is just "agreements/policies" countries enforce by the power of their military/economical/geopolitical might not by jurisdiction, through for practical reasons most times there is a _self imposed_ jurisdiction of some form.

Through in most cases (i.e. not war, special military operation) this "upholding" is limited to their territories.

The jurisdiction the ICC has imposed on themself is, more or less, to judge war crimes and genocide by anyone anywhere internationally.

In practice this means anyone anywhere as long as the power of the ICC member states allow them to do so (in a for the member reasonable way).

Practically the only place in which countries can reliable enforce such things is in their territory/people. E.g. this means they don't enforce it when the person committing the crime is an US Citizen because they are not powerful enough to force the US to allow them to do so.

What that means in this case is, that assuming a warrant is issued, they will be arrested iff they step into member state territory. And even then it might depend on the individual power of the member state and the context under which they stepped into the member state.

Through iff ICC members would be far more powerful and united, things could be very different.

E.g. the US imprisoning no US Citizens arrested outside of US territory in Guantanamo was a case of "having enough power to enforce their rules outside of their territory". (But it's also a terrible example given such arrests in general didn't follow the procedure you would expect from a state of law (or the ICC) and we know today involved more then just one or two innocents. Heck if the ICC had the power they would likely have judged that to be a war crime and issued an arrest for the people responsible for it.)

Cody-99
5 replies
22h42m

Khan said the ICC’s prosecution team is also seeking warrants for Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as two other top Hamas leaders — Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri, the leader of the Al Qassem Brigades who is better known as Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’ political leader.

That is it..? Hamas has thousands of militants and hundreds of officials in Gaza and Qatar. At minimum the ICC should be issuing warrants for every Hamas member of al-qassam (their military wing) and Hamas core leadership.

3k Hamas fighters attacked Israel and posted it openly on social media. Half of those died in the initial attack and lots have surely died in the war since but there is no reason not to get arrest warrants for these war criminals who directly posted their war crimes to the internet.

Georgelemental
2 replies
22h34m

Are they also supposed to submit arrest warrants for all the IDF soldiers who committed war crimes and shared them on social media? It's the job of the political/government/military leaders to keep their soldiers in check, and the job of the ICC to keep the leaders in check. (In theory at least)

Cody-99
1 replies
22h24m

Yes..? If someone commits war crimes and posts the evidence of them doing so on the internet one would hope the ICC would take note.

HL33tibCe7
0 replies
21h41m

You are ignorant of the point of the ICC

ugh123
0 replies
22h40m

Probably because those are "soldiers" and not leaders and decision makers.

mkoubaa
0 replies
18h35m

"get all the bad guys" isn't the point of the ICC

octopoc
4 replies
19h47m

This is an opportunity for Israel to reverse course. They can blame everything on Netanyahu, throw him out of office, stop all attacks into Gaza, stop depriving Gaza of food and water, and start deliberately working with respected members of the Gaza community to help build local businesses. They can make an international call to all successful Palestinians around the world to bring their business back to Gaza. Make it like when Israel was formed--a call to build something good for their ethnicity.

Honestly this could be a really great thing for the region. It could be an opportunity to shift blame from an entire ethnicity, the Jews, onto a single member of that ethnicity, in order to let the Jews and Palestinians be at peace with each other.

yyyk
2 replies
17h8m

* There isn't blame on an entire ethnicity regardless of the outcome of this case. I don't think you want to open that pandora box.

* Ironically, Bibi will be temporarily strengthened. No sane Israeli leader would want to depose him and risk being seen as collaborating with the warrant or risk getting a warrant too later on. Over time Bibi will still inevitably be replaced (too many reasons for Israelis to hate him), but this may stretch to 2025.

* Israel allowed aid since the beginning and especially recently. Warrants will help focus the mind here.

* Result of US elections big key here.

yyyk
0 replies
10h45m

'_and commercial goods_.'

There's no right for 'commercial goods'. The only issue in question is food, and trucks with food going in are twice the prewar level (the rest was mostly construction goods used for we know what exactly - that's not gonna go in).

Aerbil313
0 replies
3h43m

I'm not sure that'd be enough to shift the blame from all members of the state of Israel to only the PM. There's just way too many videos floating around the social media of IDF soldiers actively and happily celebrating the genocide in a playful and careless manner, and Israeli civilians wishing only more starvation and pain upon the already starving residents of Gaza.

throw_a_grenade
2 replies
22h36m

I find it meaningful that they're mentioned in the same document/release. Newspeople will obviously shorten that gap even further and put them in the same sentence, separated only by comma (like the CNN article currently linked).

If that doesn't say "your're no better than the other side", I don't know what would. It might be especially disrespectful to the Israeli, who usually play moral high ground, but it's probably also true the other way around.

Titling the official release "... in the situation in the State of Palestine" is a cherry on the top. (https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-... — thanks to sibling comment)

ars
1 replies
20h20m

You find it meaningful, I find it disgusting, and furthermore it calls the entire "court" into question. It's pretty obvious this is not a real court, and it should be ignored by all.

Why did they wait 7 months?

If the Netherlands had any morals they would have ejected these clowns long ago.

tivert
0 replies
19h45m

...and furthermore it calls the entire "court" into question. It's pretty obvious this is not a real court, and it should be ignored by all.

Yeah, it's not a real court, it's just a bunch of "transnational" bureaucrats imitating the forms of a court, without the foundational basis [1], and at great remove from whatever situations they're pretending to judge. At best, it's a political prop.

[1] Which would include things like de-facto power over its claimed jurisdiction, and having law known and respected by the people there.

piokoch
2 replies
7h36m

Well, IDF soldiers themselves were adding to their social media proofs of their war crimes...

VagabundoP
1 replies
6h41m

It is lucky they are so concisiconscientiousous in documenting their own abuses.

I'm sure it will never come back to haunt them... /s

megous
0 replies
6h26m

Yeah nothing better showing their true intentions than IDF soldiers posing and smiling with Palestinian equivalent of "Holocaust 2023" message they just sprayed on the wall, while still holding the can.

ngcc_hk
2 replies
18h0m

If they also do putin, hamas (included), Xia etc … it is all good. But if it is just another one sided attack, then no.

The question really is … whilst it is not totally useless, is it more to demo how weak this is and so dictator can free to do as they are dare. Like bombing other people places or even yours (per claim) and flattening them; would it be more war crime than war fighting in disputed land.

SXX
0 replies
17h49m

While it mostly useless to actally prevent war crimes this hurt dictators freedom of movement as majority of countries in the world would arrest by warrant of ICC. E.g Putin dont really travel abroad much after getting his warrant.

Though Putin's warrant isn't for common war crimes, but for deporting / indoctrination of children as it's something that is super easy to prove.

globalnode
2 replies
9h57m

Khan’s office risks attracting criticism that it places a terror organization and an elected government on an equivalent footing

thats the point isnt it?

edit: although ICC has had plenty of opportunities to punish war crimes from various states in the past, wonder why they decided to make a move now. because of the scale?

oaiey
0 replies
9h49m

War criminal is war criminal. Nothing else factors in. And that they point both out at the same time makes it easier for them to avoid being seen one sided.

megous
0 replies
5h58m

Ongoing attempted starvation of 2.4 million captive population and creation of conditions for famine. Attempted destruction of all means of civilized life for the entire population. I don't think there's been anything like that anytime since ICC was established. Pretty egregious.

cbeach
2 replies
6h36m

The ICC document describes Israel as a "territory" and Palestine as a "State" (capitalised).

Their political bias couldn't be any more obvious.

Among the G20, countries like China and Russia consider Palestine as a "state" but the UK, US, Germany, France, Canada and others do not. Make of that what you will.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-...

feedforward
0 replies
5h46m

The ICC document describes Israel as a "territory" and Palestine as a "State" (capitalised).

"...the territory of Israel and the State of Palestine" - the word and appears after the word territory. It means the territory of both. It is not just talking about the territory of Israel.

Also it refers to the names these countries use for themselves and which the UN uses as well. The official names of the countries are Israel and the State of Palestine. If Israel wants to be called the State of Israel as its official country name it would have to change its name to such, it has not.

Among the G20, countries like China and Russia consider Palestine as a "state" but the UK, US, Germany, France, Canada and others do not.

143 countries recognize the State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is recognized by China and Russia along with other G20 members like Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey. Most of the countries in the world recognize the State of Palestine, the ones who don't are mainly in western Europe like the UK, Germany and France. As you say, make of that what you will.

cess11
0 replies
6h31m

No, it refers to the territory of Israel, and the territory of the State of Palestine.

Did you read the text or just grab the talking point from someone else?

tndibona
1 replies
20h24m

For a quick moment, I thought Netanyahu is wanted by the International Cricket Council for ball tampering.

isametry
0 replies
19h51m

I, for one, realized quite soon that this is well out of International Color Consortium‘s jurisdiction and capacity (however non-compliant the color profile implementations in Gaza might be).

rq1
1 replies
19h13m

The optics of equating a resistance organization on the one hand with a colonial and apartheid state with dysfunctional judicial system and no accountability for any crimes committed by settlers or its military on the other hand by putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the court.

I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Palestinian resistance, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion.

On the other side you have what's a pretty clear case of a large scale terror attack against innocent civilians, indiscriminately bombing schools and hospitals.

In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into US and Germany conduct of delivering weapons enabling the genocide?

rq1
0 replies
18h50m

For comparison, the French resistance was called a terrorist organisation by the Germans, as Algerian FLN was called terrorist organisation by the French… etc. History would be kind of funny if it wasn’t tragic.

And this whole “terrorist” word was jeopardised by Bush. There’s no “terrorism” per se as an emanation of evil.

It’s just an asymmetrical and violent extension of political expression, where dialogue failed to reach a settlement.

Otherwise you’d need to explain the ideological similarities between Al Qaeda and eg. ETA.

karaterobot
1 replies
19h22m

The decision puts Netanyahu in the company of the Russian President Vladimir Putin, for whom the ICC issued an arrest warrant over Moscow’s war on Ukraine

How's that working out? Until proven otherwise, my assumption is the outcome will be roughly the same in most of these cases, especially for Netanyahu and Sinwar.

tijtij
0 replies
15h33m

Putin wanted to visit South Africa for the BRICS summit. South Africa warned him that they would be obligated to attempt an arrest if he did.

gunalx
1 replies
10h29m

Isn't this politics and therefore off topic? Or is it something I missed.

hggh
0 replies
10h5m

Read the guidelines carefully (hint: "off-topic" is inside "What to Submit"). If you think this is off-topic you can flag it.

ggm
1 replies
19h45m

Forgive me if I misremember, but I believe the US refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC over it's own citizens and soldiers, and continues to require that its forces have effective indemnification against actions in economies they are invited into.

They state that actual crimes will be dealt with by JAG, but I think the Okinawan community disputes that they were taken seriously when it comes to domestic violence and sexual assault.

gyudin
0 replies
19h46m

Most interesting part is that Putin on that list for “kidnapping” children, while in fact just providing a temporary refuge. While Netanyahu bombed and killed like 15,000 children and it’s not a war crime for some reason, huh.

YZF
0 replies
14h15m

This video has two retired US military lawyers discussing this news:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mCOi71b6AU

"Responding to Legal Challenges to IDF Operations in Gaza"

It's from a pro-Israeli viewpoint but is informed and has a lot of interesting details and maybe insight into the ICC/ICJ and the process.

EchoReflection
0 replies
1h44m

"Hellish flamewars in deep subthreads are not ok...please don't do this. If you're hotly indignant, step away from the keyboard until that changes. Nobody 'wins' on the internet anyway, and it's not worth destroying this community for. Not to mention your heart." that should be a permanent "required reading"/prologue on every forum (if that forum might be contentious). I guess part of the issue is "who decides what is 'contentious'?" Anyway, thanks for that refreshing reminder.

Dowwie
0 replies
3h58m

Where are the charges against the tribes of Gaza for committing the most savage acts of terrorism imaginable against men, women and children, including babies? All hostilities followed the acts of October 7th. The ICC could have chosen many issues to address but picked this one. For this reason, it cannot be considered a legitimate institution.

CommanderData
0 replies
19h32m

About time. Let's hope he's arrested quickly.