ICC prosecutor seeks arrest warrants against Sinwar and Netanyahu for war crimes
cnn.com
cnn.com
"Respectful" here means respectful to the people who are wrong (in your view) and most respectful to the people who are most wrong (in your view). If you can't do that, that's ok, but please don't post until you can. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Hellish flamewars in deep subthreads are not ok. I'm going to lower the bar for banning accounts that do this, so 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The US put bounties out on Osama Bin Laden. This isn't unprecedented.
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)
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...
- 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.
* 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
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.
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)
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.
There's a hit Israeli song about wiping Gaza making the charts there, there's settlers attacking Palestinian farmers in the West Bank, mobs burning Palestinian vehicles and homes, blocking aid trucks, burning UN property in East Jerusalem etc.
Please can we stop pretending that Israel is somehow a state that can do no wrong and that every criticism of them is simply haters ganging up on them?
Of course every criticism should be targeted at specific individuals, which is exactly what the ICC did.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#/...
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.
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.
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)
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.
I'm sure it will never come back to haunt them... /s
That is, a court ordered warrant is typically executed by a government’s law enforcement. There is no such proactive enforcement mechanism available to the ICC.
Instead, the governments that have ratified the ICC-related treaties have simply agreed to arrest warrant targets if they happen to travel to their jurisdiction.
As such, it seems more like a “travel-ban” or “house arrest” than a warrant. Is that correct?
I do agree that the end result is a sort of "travel ban", but that's no different than if the US issued a warrant for (say) a Chinese citizen living in China. The Chinese government is probably not going to hand that person over, and that person is effectively barred from travel to the US (and likely other countries like Canada that might help the US enforce that warrant if the opportunity presented itself), unless they want to get arrested.
Meng Wanzhou (daughter of the founder of Huawei) bypassed sanctions against Iran
Vancouver airport arrested and put her under house arrest for a few years
A warrant may additionally grant the police extrajudicial powers to enforce the warrant but that's a separate legislative concern. In the case of the ICC the enforcement is left up to individual member states. There may be consequences for not enforcing a warrant when the opportunity presents itself.
If they get a warrant - its just like a warrant in the USA, maybe the cops bother looking for you i.e. go to your house / work / last known address but more often they just wait until you get a traffic ticket or something where you happen to interact with them. If you had a warrant from another state, the local cops would need a pretty good reason to bother actually looking for you.
Often goes slightly further than this. The state issuing the warrant must pay “transport fees” to the state doing the arresting. The arresting state calls the warrant state to see if their transport fees will be authorized. Most of the time, those fees are not authorized by the issuing state. So the suspect is let go, if the police interaction wasn’t otherwise justified in an arrest.
The reasons for why transport fees are generally declined vary, but I’d imagine that as long as the suspect stays out of the issuing state, they can’t commit more crime in that state, so the outstanding warrant is itself an effective deterrent against crime in the issuing state…the suspect generally will avoid returning. Also jails/prisons are overcrowded, dockets are overflowing, etc.
But generally any police interaction which shows a valid warrant in another state, the “local police” will by default attempt an arrest. It’s not “unimportant” to them. Just they can’t do anything with the suspect if they arrest them without approved transport fees so there’s simply no point in completing the arrest.
I learned all this just last week by picking up a homeless fugitive hitchiking along the interstate. But he’d had enough interactions with police in various states and seemed otherwise intelligent enough to be a reliable narrator on the matter.
The main counties around me go pick you up, not relying on the arresting jurisdiction to transport. One county in particular, Macomb, has a bad reputation in that it will drive across the country to pick you up. Traveling pick up buses criss cross the country. The bad part was the sometimes multi-week long trip spent in handcuffs sleeping in shitty hotels eating cheap McDonald's for every meal.
I think it is best to think of it as a warrant because it is a standing order for any member state to arrest them. Whether those member states actually do so is not certain, South Africa for instance has shirked recent ICC arrest warrants multiple times.
South Africa did not with a Sudanese war criminal: "As a signatory to the Rome Statute that governs the jurisdiction and functioning of the Court, South Africa was obliged to arrest al-Bashir when he was in the country, and to extradite him to The Hague to face trial."[1]
Last year, Putin cancelled a visit to South Africa as there's an ICC arrest warrant out for him.
[1] https://theconversation.com/icc-ruling-on-south-africa-and-a...
I'd welcome if he came. :)
However I can't find a reference to that.
Arrest warrants for both sides in the conflict. That actually makes a lot of sense.
I think warrants issued against Sinwar, Al-Masri and Haniyeh are very likely. Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant IMHO are over 50%
Proportationality and intention are important when the ICC interprets what constitutes war crime or crime against humanity. These cases also set up a precedents. Arrest warrant for Netanyahu and Gallant is for:
- Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
- Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
- Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
- Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
- Extermination 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;
- Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h); Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
ICC works in conjunction with national courts. If a country has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong. Or not.
Israel’s judiciary is both functional and independent. Very independent. Of Netanyahu in particular.
And the Israeli judiciary seems to be going along with this.
Source: https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works
> The ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.
No, it does not.
> ICC works in conjunction with national courts
Not in the way you are suggesting.
> If a country has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong
No, the ICC will rule a case inadmissible if a state has investigated and/or prosecuted that specific case (not just if it has some general level of legal functionality), unless the ICC also fines that the investigation or prosecution was not genuine (e.g., was pretextual for the purpose of, say, giving the accused an exonerating document to wave around to protect against ICC prosecution.)
See Article 17 of the Rome Statute.
No. Israel’s courts ratifying alleged war crimes is the Israeli national system being “unwilling or unable to [apply international law] genuinely.”
This would mean that Netanyahu has been charged, tried and eventually acquitted of the same crimes. ICC investigates if the national proceedings are genuine.
To start the process, Israeli prosecutor must prosecute.
> The ICC was established by its state parties as a court of limited jurisdiction. Those limits are rooted in principles of complementarity, which do not appear to have been applied here amid the Prosecutor’s rush to seek these arrest warrants rather than allowing the Israeli legal system a full and timely opportunity to proceed.[0]
---
The ICC defines:
> 1. Complementarity: The principle of complementarity governs the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction. This distinguishes the Court in several significant ways from other known institutions, including the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (the ICTY and the ICTR). The Statute recognizes that States have the first responsibility and right to prosecute international crimes. The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings. The principle of complementarity is based both on respect for the primary jurisdiction of States and on considerations of efficiency and effectiveness, since States will generally have the best access to evidence and witnesses and the resources to carry out proceedings. Moreover, there are limits on the number of prosecutions the ICC, a single institution, can feasibly conduct.[1]
namely,
> The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings.
The US argues that the ICC has not adequately allowed this process to play out through the courts in Israel.
---
The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs states:
> The criteria of unwillingness or inability to carry out proceedings would involve some indication of purposely shielding the accused from criminal responsibility or a lack of intent to bring the person to justice. This may be inferred from political interference or deliberate obstruction and delay, from institutional deficiencies due to political subordination of the legal system, or procedural irregularities indicating a lack of willingness and inability to investigate or prosecute genuinely.[2]
---
Imo the hermeneutics are clear, though it will be up to the lawyers from either side to make arguments in favor of/against.
[0]: https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-internatio...
[1]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/20B...
[2]: https://jcpa.org/article/would-judicial-reforms-in-israel-op....
> it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.
And if you read the last part of the sentence you quoted it should make it pretty clear that it doesn't work like you have interpreted it.
Pretty clearly the U.S. and the South Vietnamese military. Just because you can't tell who is a combatant and who isn't doesn't give you permission to slaughter entire villages.
It is also a war crime, and doesn't even have the fig leaf of an active war to justify it.
If Netanyahu is punished for this, then GWB must face a more severe punishments for his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan which saw far more collateral damage.
If this goes through every western leader past and present can have a warrant out for them at any minute, it really doesn't take much to find 1 suspected violation and a need to arrest and stand trial to see if they are guilty.
Curious: What's "Western" about this particular democracy?
ICC warrant will likely just be ignored.
I am not an expert, but I am under impression that he will be jailed in Israel too once/if loses power.
A high profile Islamic terrorist attacks would shift the narrative, for example. On the other side, if the war cools down a bit people will gradually lose interest in the same way that no one cares about Modi's past actions.
For perspective, I'm with Israel. Though, I'm for saving as many Palestinian lives as humanly possible. Which should be all of them, should the clerics and State Actors stop abusing them via radicalization and the Islamic World works with Israel toward offering appropriate options.
But what I'm speaking about, in terms of prediction, isn't the way that the wind blows. What I'm speaking about is high level State intention.
No one today can seriously believe that State political orientation is a grassroots effect. The reality is that, with the exception of extremely unstable States that are de facto puppets of other Nations, the broad political orientation of modern States is an effect of the allowable movements, opinions, revolutions, propaganda, and migrations that are facilitated by the agencies over decades. Ergo, the eventual orientation of any State toward or away from Israel has to be assumed to be in that State's geopolitical interest as dictated at the highest level.
As we can easily observe, if there was an event and the resultant popular effect was not in the State's interest than, no matter what, the event would be minimized into oblivion by State Press.
Conversely, the Press will manufacture events out of virtual non-events if that assists the State's interest.
Only the State or God will determine whether or not it supports Israel, in any future. That's my starting point for prediction.
"“My colleagues and I look forward to make sure neither Khan, his associates nor their families will ever set foot again in the United States,” Republican Senator Tom Cotton wrote on X."
"The ICC is the world’s first permanent international war crimes court and its 124 member states are obliged to immediately arrest the wanted person if they are on a member state’s territory."
Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/21/no-equivalence-bide...
I don't understand how the US and many other EU governments can be so extremely critical of a court which as far as I know has been considered legitimate by all of them (except the US which apparently removed its signature... anyone knows why?), and whose decisions have always been applauded by all of them (including Putin's arrest [1]), except for this last one.
Quoting from the linked article [1]: "British journalist George Monbiot wrote in a Guardian op-ed that the ICC targeting Putin was an example of the organization's bias in favor of prosecuting crimes by non-Westerners, ...".
Looks like that's the real issue here, doesn't it?
Imagine a leader of a country saying that the judiciary's decision is wrong and that the judge won't be allowed to travel freely anymore because of that. That would be the end of the rule of law. Why is it different in this case?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_a...
Tom Cotton is a clown senator that is an symbol of the dysfunction of the US government of the last few decades. He along with a few frequent imbeciles are the reason there is so much dysfunction. If there was any redeeming factor of the current US system, he would be impeached and removed a long time ago.
As for how far will the US go, well in 2002, Congress passed (and Bush signed) the American Service Members Protection Act, more colloquially known as the Hage Invasion Act. It authorizes the president to use all necessary force including invading the Netherlands if an American servicemember or appointed official is ever taken into ICC custody. This includes officials and servicemen of key allies, including Israel.
So will Betanyahu or Gallant actually be arrested? Almost certainly not. The practical effect of this is political not legal.
The goal of protests, boycotting, ICJ applications, ICC warrants, UN (GA and SC) motions, "Undecided" voting in Democratic primaries and so on are to incrementally pressure the two key players here: Israel and, more importantly, the US. Why? Because the US could end the conflict with a phone call. They could end it with a press release.
BDS (Boycott, divest, sanction) movements were considered successful in isolating and ultimately toppling the Apartheid South African regime in the 1970s and 1980s. Given this success, an awful lot of lobbying has been directed at US politicans to pass so-called "anti-BDS" laws that are laws in ~37 states. For example, to be a teacher in Texas, you need to sign a contract agreeing to never participate in a BDS movement against Israel.
So the practical effect of ICC warrants is just to incrementally isolate and pressure Israel.
There is no easy solution … from camp David to now.
Everyone from the Hague to UC Berkeley administrators is learning one hard truth: agreements with some polities in that part of the world and their ambassadors are not worth very much. But if you pretend that they are then it seems like there are easy solutions.
To Israel. The modern state of Israel simply cannot exist without the largesse and political cover the US provides.
> There is no easy solution
Yes and no. End the genocide. End the apartheid. Nuremberg-like trials to deal with war criminals on both sides. Reconstruction of a single state. 750,000 settlers has made a two-state solution impossible.
We've been here before: post-US civil war and post-apartheid South Africa.
There is the idea that the currently oppressed population will rise up in vilence against their former oppressors. History doesn't back up this view. Our modern examples such as Reconstruction showed the opposite: the rise of the KKK and the rise of violence against former slaves by their former oppressors.
Afghanistan has been described as the graveyard of empires. This region may be vying for that title.
And really the only way we are resolving this is by actually solving the underlying issue, which is that there are a set of people essentially locked up in a prison for 30 years and/or slowly being shot by settlers in the West Bank.
I agree about solving the underlying issues and the injustices that have historically taken place but the above is intended to answer the question and engage in analysis rather than arguing the merits, which is likely an unproductive conversation.
[1]: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/PP410_INVES...
These are unconstitutional laws that unfortunately are easy to pass but difficult to remove. There needs to be more legal challenges to remove these laws. There have been positive efforts to remove these laws although the states find new ways to keep amended versions of the laws on the books which requires further lawsuits to challenge.
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Constitutional_c...
Almost certainly
A) I'm told warrant approval is almost always a rubberstamp.
B) There will be a discrediting campaign, but ICC's future is the least interesting thing to me.
C) I'm not sure this leads to a conviction, but actual trials will probably take years by which time Bibi and co will be out of office. Again not so interesting.
D) Bibi was already done for. But paradoxically this strengthens him domestically temporarily and massively strengths the Right next elections. I'll expand on this below since this is IMHO interesting.
E) It makes attacking Israel a bit more 'legitimate', but in the ME legitimacy for that was already sky-high. War with Lebanon was very high likelihood anyway.
F) Saudi normalization is DOA for this term (always was, but admin was blind to everyone's interests. Qatar would have had to be nuts not to put every possible roadblock here, and Biden admin could never see what was in front of its eyes).
G) Hamas has not so simple problems here. The various ideas for reintegration has hit serious roadblocks, and later on I believe this will cause them bigger problems than Israel which can always change leaders.
---
D is not 'rally around the flag'. It has to do with the opposition is built: its deep links with the 'security state'. The security state is outraged and itself vulnerable to possible warrants. The same logic could have easily justified adding Gantz.
An Israeli Left opposition which can't claim the world likes them more (due to warrant risk) and loses its security credentials (security state links to pre and post Oct failures, warrant risk again) is dead in the water. Which means it needs more time before an election to find its footing again... But on the other hand, it wouldn't like possible ICC isolation either. So a temporary delay before losing in the elections.
Its pretty similar to an indictment in the US (to judges rather than a grand jury); its an unopposed process where the prosecutor knows the standards and chooses when to bring a case to that step based on confidence in being ready to meet the standards. There's not a lot of probability of surprises if the basic work is done competently and in good faith and not with an intent to push the envelope.
> I'm not sure this leads to a conviction, but actual trials will probably take years by which time Bibi and co will be out of office.
Trials won't take start until the individuals being tried are in custody for trial. (They don't have to be at the same time.)
It's a tiny bit higher since IMHO he pushed the envelope on starvation (the reported malnutrition death count is 32 out of over two million people), and on not engaging with Israel (was due to a trip to the country before issuing indictments), but given unopposed nature, his advantage is so large I don't see odds of this being rejected.
>Trials won't take start until the individuals being tried are in custody for trial. (They don't have to be at the same time.)
Yeah, the other comment slagged me on this. The essential 'this isn't resolved for years, by which time they are out of office' is right.
After the arrest warrant goes out, everything stops until people charged are in custody. It's very unlikely that Gallant or Netanyahu will ever be arrested. Their travel will be just limited for the rest of their lives.
My other point - ICC can issue secret warrants, and no denial would be credible due to its very nature... This is poison to Gantz's political career and same for any active general who would want to join the current opposition following service. The current Israeli opposition is just not competitive without generals, and all they've left are certain people who are very... outspoken to put it mildly.
On the other hand, it defuses the situation away from an world war wannabe into something Israel fights alone.
Needless to say, they're backing him, and the ICC can't arrest Netanyahu. At worst, the U.S. government will sanction ICC officials as they did under the Trump administration.
I personally can't believe the ICC is equating the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government. What a shameful organization.
1- https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
2- https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-internatio...
First things first: neither the Polizio di Stato, the Garda, nor the RCMP are actually going to arrest Sinwar or Netanyahu. The practical impact of the warrants will be (at least in the near term) negligible.
Concurrently: unlike the ICC Genocide case, which is difficult and unlikely to succeed, the ICC war crimes warrants are probably broadly going to be seen as strong and compelling. Reporting has Biden and his team maneuvering for months to keep any kind of supply lines open to Gaza; he knows firsthand that some of these charges have validity.
But the USA is Israel's most important ally; further, reporting suggests that Biden's team has been the only thing between the current situation and abyss that would kill 3-5x as many civilians. That pushback only functions because of soft power (Israel would not depend on US arms suppliers for indiscriminate bulk bombing, massed land incursions, or supply blockades).
What else can Biden say in this situation? He cannot both assent to the validity of the ICC charges and continue negotiating with Israel for things like US-built supply piers on Gaza's seafront. You can't really do diplomacy wth a world leader while at the same time saying (or implying) that they belong in the Hague.
There's a general vibe where people want international justice to work in simple moral terms, where everyone just lays the truth as they understand it out, a tribunal sorts out the details, and the chips fall as they may. But international law absolutely doesn't work that way; for similar reasons, Assad won't be charged by the ICC for killing half a million Syrians (Syria is not a signatory to the ICC).
Once you accept that the court is fundamentally political, you're left asking: are the politics of this move effective? Will they hasten an end to the conflict, or save lives?
Either way: once the warrants were announced, I think you could have taken bets on what Biden (or literally any other American president in the last 50 years, or any major party candidate for the presidency) would have said, and all the money would be on exactly this. We're not signatories to the ICC to begin with!
(I think Netanyahu is a criminal; the Hague is fine with me, though I think it's more likely he'll do his time in Maasiyahu after the Israelis convict him once his coalition falls apart).
However, Israel is not the USA's most important ally.
The US is not really an ally of Israel at all. The NATO countries are. Japan and South Korea are. They have US troops and bases. The US does not send troops to fight in Israel's wars. The US just sends money.
He didn't have to say anything about the substance. He could even use them as leverage in negotiations without publicly saying anything about the substance, by conditioning US efforts to get the UNSC to hold them in abeyance (which it explictly can!) conditioned on a cease-fire and concrete steps on aid.
Would it work? Probably not. Would it be better for the US interestd broadly than getting nothing at all while undermining the credibility of an institution that the US, while not a member of, has found practically and diplomatically useful in a number of past cases? Absolutely yes.
> We're not signatories to the ICC to begin with!
We have shut up about, or actively supported, the ICC in many cases, and given the US public nominal goal of a two-state solution demonstrating that international institutions are willing to take on abused on both sides of the conflict without ignoring the legitimate interests or rights of people on either side is something the US ought to be backing rather than burning down.
But of course this is politically impossible for the US. Near half of the US population would throw an absolute fit.
Everything else is domestic politics, and personal convictions for Biden. But Israel will not continue this war if the USA tells them to stop it. They are far too dependent on USA aid for it.
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/13/world/reagan-demands-end-...
Edit: here is the full quote about the events in 1982:
2 P.M. (8 A.M., New York time) -The Israeli Cabinet meets. A message from President Reagan arrives, expressing ''outrage'' and, reportedly threatening to halt the Habib mission. The Cabinet decides to end the raids and order new ones only if they are ''essential.''
4 P.M. (10 A.M., New York time) -President Reagan tries for hour to call Mr. Begin but cannot get through. 4:50 P.M. (10:50 A.M., New York time) - King Fahd of Saudi Arabia calls Mr. Reagan. 5 P.M. (11 A.M., New York time) -A new cease-fire goes into effect in west Beirut. 5:10 P.M. (11:10 A.M., New York time) - Mr. Reagan reaches Mr. Begin for 10-minute telephone call. 5:40 P.M. (11:40 A.M., New York time) - Mr. Begin calls President Reagan to say that a ''complete cease-fire'' had been ordered.
He doesn't have to do diplomacy with them. He could call their bluff. He could unilaterally start delivering food and dare anyone to stop him. If Israel starts killing "3-5x as many civilians" he could declare war on Israel.
All of these are things he could do. Won't. But could.
Um. What?
Biden's team vetoed UN calls for a ceasefire three times.
Biden's team has delivered how many billions of dollars of weapons in the last 8 months?
Biden's team has consistently and repeatedly lied in front of the whole world, saying that they see "no evidence" of genocide. This, during the most documented mass murder in all history. This, despite clear and unequivocal genocidal statements from Israeli leadership, media, and populace.
How many people have resigned from his team now, saying they can't have this much Palestinian blood on their hands any more? To claim that Biden has prevented deaths in the last 8 months is breathtaking. At every juncture he and the team he still has have been complicit.
Israel has three alternatives:
Option 1: Do a real siege (never tried. Gaza has less malnutrition deaths than Cali according to their own figures, and besides everything would have been over months ago if it did. That's the real weakness with the ICC case).
Option 2: Provide aid yourself (expensive).
Option 3: Let other people do it for you and not pay for it.
Obviously the optimal choice is the last one. The real differences between US and Israel are elsewhere (e.g. delusional postwar planning by both sides).
I think that is an unfair statement. Just because they asked for a warrant to be issued for both does not imply that they think both are the same.
They clearly not the same. One is a modern state and one is not.
The actions of both are not so different. Killing civilians is not good. Whether it be guerilla terrorism or bombs and troops
Issues warrants for both sides at the same time is utterly repugnant and calls the entire court into question.
But media, PR and politics don’t play by these rules. Mention two things together and the messages will go through.
A similar example would be Whataboutism, a logical fallacy, but it seems to work very well in politics.
First, that Biden admin and others can't escape culpability for any such claim if it's considered credible. Second, the dubious factual basis (trucks were allowed in all the time; temporary port and air supply obviously with Israel's approval; the very low malnutrition death count according to Gaza health ministry's own reports).
The first made the admin's reply inevitable. The second made it even more likely, but it's a too complex point for PR I guess, so they went with 'equating'.
I agree 100%! Over the past year, Israel has caused orders of magnitude more innocent deaths by terrorist actions (as outlined in the warranted issued here), has a much higher civilian death rate during military operations (Oct 7 was around 60%, while IDF's battles have been higher, with both sides hiding military targets within civilian areas) and should be taken far more seriously, as their support from other national aggressors like the US makes them far more dangerous.
If warrants are issued, I’d bet at least the House votes to sanction the ICC [1]. If Trump wins, I’d bet it passes. (Which is ironic, since every moment of attention on Israel and Palestine is a win for Trump. This war is Biden’s abortion debate. He’s checkmated, with massive vote losses regardless of what he does.)
[1] https://www.axios.com/2024/05/20/icc-netanyahu-arrest-warran...
That is not to say I think Trump would have handled the situation any better. I’m sure it would have been fuel on the fire.
Can we all agree on one single thing though:
The Governments of USA, Germany, UK and Israel would be best informing the world of their definition of genocide as there is definitely a massive difference in opinion of what genocide is. It is super important. If they can explain why and how what is happening doesn’t match the definition of genocide agreed upon in the Genocide Convention of 1948 then maybe the world will stop using the word. But until they can change everyone’s minds, people are going to keep believing it. I think that would solve a lot of this back and forward.
They absolutely are. Really everyone with a non-cynical opinion in this whole mess, on both sides, is deeply unserious. There are no solutions here, at all. Everyone wants something terrible. Push one side and you eventually get to "The Palestinians Deserve What They Get". Push the other and you get to "Jews are Colonizers Who Need to be Driven Out". And BOTH SIDES use the term "genocide", largely incorrectly, to describe those horrors and are SHOCKED AND OFFENDED that anyone would describe their own opinions so.
I've just given up. My general political feelings align mostly with the Palestinians here, if for no other reason than it stops the immediate bleeding faster. But there will be no peace here, not within our lifetimes.
There is no definition of Genocide but only of what you can get away with. These countries are engaged in a proxy war via Israel. They can't replace Israel right now, heck they can't even replace the current leadership. So they just have to explain away and launder the reputation of the operation.
How could something be both? Palestine is either a separate state from Israel or it isn't.
I don't think this is correct. Palestine's status is disputed. Legal status isn't a physical property, it's a social one, so if many people think "A" is "B", then "A" is in some sense genuinely "B".
Considering the conflict in both contexts avoids "Oops, the entire thing is nullified because it's technically Conflict Type 1, not Conflict Type 2."
--
I also found in the legal report the following that partially explains the reasoning https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p... :
War crimes require a nexus to an armed conflict, and for some war crimes this conflict must be international.5 For this reason, it is necessary to assess the situation in Gaza and in Israel to determine whether an armed conflict exists and if so, its nature. 13. The Panel agrees with the Prosecutor’s conclusion that the conflicts in Israel and Gaza comprise an international armed conflict and a non-international armed conflict running in parallel. Hamas is a highly organized non-State armed group, and the hostilities between Hamas and Israel have been sufficiently intense to reach the threshold of a non-international armed conflict. The Panel’s assessment is that the non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas began, at the latest, on 7 October 2023, when Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups launched Operation al-Aqsa Flood against Israel and Israel launched its Operation Iron Swords in response. The Panel has also concluded that there is an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine on the basis either that: a) Palestine is a State in accordance with criteria set out in international law, for which there is a sufficiently strong argument for the purpose of an application to the Court for an arrest warrant, and an international armed conflict arises if a State uses force against a non-state actor on the territory of another State without the latter’s consent; or b) Palestine and Israel are both High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and that pursuant to the text of Common Article 2 of the Conventions, an armed conflict between two High Contracting Parties is international in character; or c) There is a belligerent occupation by Israel of at least some Palestinian territory. 14. The Panel’s assessment is that the international armed conflict began at the latest on 7 October 2023, when Israel first started responding to the Hamas attack on its territory by using force on the territory of Palestine without the latter’s consent.
Rather, A is A for many people, and B is B for many people. Both groups aren't mutually exclusive
( GroupA ∩ GroupB ) != ∅
That’s all insofar as anyone or entity actually respects international law. It comes down to states agreeing that it’s in their best interests to cooperate on a matter. As long as the USA and Europe support Israel and don’t bring to bear any leverage to stop this insanity and form an independent state, the ICC can call Palestine whatever it wants to describe the situation.
Additionally ICC only has juridsiction if Palestine is a state. So the entire thing goes away if Palestine is not a state (since only states can aceede to the rome convention).
I do not think Palestine being a state is the same question as if this conflict is international. I think it may be possible for both Palestine to be a state and this conflict be non international. However IANAL and that is pure speculation.
It's also invading and attacking citizens of Palestine State without consent of its representatives (PA), that's international conflict.
I don’t believe the ICC’s jurisdiction is limited to state-on-state conflicts. The more-curious question is how the ICC is claiming jurisdiction over non-signatory nations.
- who are alleged to have committed crimes on the territory of the signatory nation, or
- who are nationals of the signatory nation
Nor can it be not international due to the vagueness of Israel's borders. Israel has internationally legally recognized borders (the Green Line) and is acting outside them.
This conflict is international.
You can write "russia is genociding ukrainians". You can write 'china is genociding muslims". That isn't hellish flamewar. Guess what is hellish flamewar?
Hamas haven’t retuned the hostages because they believe their own people are dying for the glory of God as martyrs.
Don’t forget the government of Palestine waged war on Israel though ? I mean what did they think was going to happen after October 7 ? A picnic ?
The government of Palestine, who had a responsibility to take care of its people believed every Jew should be wiped off the face for the earth. So I’m not sure what Israel is left to do besides basically demolish the country to ensure its own security.
I actually can see the difference between Russia, China and this personally. It would be like Taiwan attacking China. Which they won’t do because they’re not insane fanatics.
What do you think Israelites should do instead ? Go back to Europe ? Ceasefire so their enemy can regroup and kill more?
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.
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.
https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/artic...
(grain of salt)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
Yeah but part of that half probably supports Gallant, who has split with Netanyahu, but is also charged alongside him.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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".
Edit to add: I tried submitting that link to submit it myself, and can't?
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.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
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.)
Because from what I hear, that “Palestine” doesn’t really exist.
There’s Gaza, and there’s the West Bank.
Most countries which recognise Palestine as a state seem to recognise it in the 1967 borders, i.e. Gaza + West Bank + East Jerusalem.
Not sure about the UN though.
> 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
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.)
The Panel and its academic advisers are experts in international law, including international humanitarian law and international criminal law. Two Panel members are appointed as expert 'Special Advisers' by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Two Panel members are former judges at criminal tribunals in The Hague.
Despite our diverse personal backgrounds, our legal findings are unanimous. We have unanimously determined that the Court has jurisdiction over crimes committed in Palestine and by Palestinian nationals. We unanimously conclude that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, including hostage-taking, murder and crimes of sexual violence. We unanimously conclude that there are raasonable grounds to believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant have commited war crimes and crimes against humanity including starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution and extermination.
I served on this Panel because I believe in the rule of law and the need to protect civilian lives. The law that protects civilians in war was developed more than 100 years ago and it applies in every country in the world regardless of the reasons for a conflict. As a human rights laywer, I will never accept that one child's life has less value than another's. I do not accept that any conflict should be beyond the reach of the law, nor that any perpetrator should be above the law. So I support the historic step that the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has taken to bring justice to victims of atrocities in Israel and Palestine.
Today, my colleagues and I have published an oped and a detailed legal report of the Panel's findings. My approach is not to provide a running commentary of my work but to let the work speak for itself. I hope that witnesses will cooperate with the ongoing investigation. And I hope that justice will prevail in a region that has already suffered too much."
- Amal Clooney
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?
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.
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)
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.
Eh [1]. But not the ICC’s business.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_S...
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.
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.
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.
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...
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).
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.)
(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.)
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.
I spent a while trying to see what you wrote but am not finding it.
Egypt's non-involvement may violate some other principle, but probably not a "war crime".
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?
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's obvious to all that the warrants for the Hamas leaders only exist in order to justify the warrants against Netanyahu and co.
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)
Why did they wait 7 months?
If the Netherlands had any morals they would have ejected these clowns long ago.
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/may/20/iccs-kar...
One of them, incidentally, is Judge Theodor Meron CMG, a holocaust survivor.
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-...
"...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.
Did you read the text or just grab the talking point from someone else?
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.
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?
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.
* 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.
0. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/aid-trucks-begin-m...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Besides, the U.S. government is on Netanyahu's side, so he will never be arrested.
His support is waning on both sides of the political spectrum. Gantz is threatening to quit the war cabinet. I don't think the ICC decision will give Netanyahu much of a boost. If he goes crazy, the Knesset could oust him.
> Besides, the U.S. government is on Netanyahu's side, so he will never be arrested.
I don't think the US has that much influence in this case. They would have to push hard to threaten the Israeli president, and even then I am not sure what would happen. Netanyahu will not be arrested because he will just stay in Israel. Israel will probably not extradite him, even if they agree with the arguments, simply because it would look bad to allow an international court to arrest a former president. However, he could be arrested on corruption or other charges if he loses his position.
The reputational damage to Israel, from being put on the same level as Putin, is significant though.
Hamas would exist if not for the occupation. Or else there will inevitably be a Hamas 2.0
This is exactly like uMkhonto we Sizwe in Apartheid in South Africa, it doesn't exist without Apartheid. Or like Hamas isn't the West Bank.
Treat people like human animals, imprison them, occupy them and expect any other outcome is foolish. Apartheid Israel needs to make the first move that doesn't include killing civilians and stealing land.
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?
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.
We have the Nuremberg Code now, where people including propagandists were hung simply because they should have known better - even though there weren't yet specific laws in place yet.
It's been fascinating to see how fascism can rise so quickly, hidden by the veil of propaganda, different countries around the world at different stages of capture - some where turnkey authoritarianism has recently been executed on like in Canada, policies and infrastructure put in place that allows top down control so easily with so many succumbing to the fear mongering in part due to deep seeded programming.
The NaZi Germans were eventually suppressed, and with the internet this next attempt will hopefully be quickly stopped in its tracks globally - however there are arguably $ trillions in the war chest of the bad actors in the global establishment toeing the same line, of which people like Catherine Austin Fitts have been sounding the alarm for years now - who saw behind the scenes the financial markets et al aligning for this. Unfortunately because so many systems are centralized at the moment, it only takes a very small amount of people to cause chaos and mass destruction-death - whether that's manufacturing consent for people to believe power outages aren't planned and "out of our control - give us $ trillions to upgrade infrastructure [which actually will mostly go to our friends while we continue suffocate society financially and extract as much of the value of your labor-productivity as we can manufacture consent to get from you]" etc.
I hope, pray, that RFK in the US will win the next election - and that Pierre in Canada wins, and pray God is ready to cut the shit of these tyrant wannabes with totalitarian wet dreams - and will prevent their assassinations, etc; else the floodgates of hell are seemingly near ready to be unlatched.
What exactly are they going to be able to do once they manage to grant themselves these warrants?
Also, one does not have to choose sides. We can condemn both sides as barbaric.
Neither Galant nor Netanyahu is currently in an ICC state, but that's not entirely novel territory for international criminal tribunals.
> What exactly are they going to be able to do once they manage to grant themselves these warrants?
If the judges of the court grant the prosecutor’s application, the court will issue warrants and seek cooperation of its 124 member states and any willing cooperating states in enforcing them.
Whether those countries will do the arrests or not will be up to whomever is in political power and if they are toeing the same line or not. Those with arrest warrants then would have to risk traveling.
I expect the request for the Israelis will not be approved.
Hamas will be interesting. Hamas' territory has no functioning judicial system, but does the ICC have jurisdiction?
In any case the "warrants" if issued would only apply to countries who signed the ICC treaty.
Now, why is the court accepting legal challenges on legal issues, and independently of the merits of those issues, from countries like South Africa, who publicly said they would not arrest Putin, who actually DOES have an ICC arrest mandate against him?
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.