> I personally can't believe the ICC is equating the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government.
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.
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.
This may be how things played out after the second world war, but it's a horrible standard to live by. If the ICC has any integrity, they won't take "but they started it" as an excuse.
Aren't you? I thought the Geneva convention and similar treaties all require reciprocity.
The Rome Statute does allow foe the ICC to convict according to the Geneva conventions as well, but the exemptions therein don't necessarily apply.
Second, both Israel and Palestine have signed the main conventions. Israel with reservations, and have not signed AP I and II. Palestine have signed all of them, unconditionally.
Since both are signatories, they are both bound by the conventions even if the other party breaks them.
No, i don't think so.
To quote the fourth geneva convention (fourth convention is the part related to treatment of civilians):
> Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
The fact that it didn't tell you all you need to know about how legitimate this "court" is.
In 2019, the ICC got involved following the 2014 Gaza war and concluded that war crimes were taking place (on both sides, in different ways), but they concluded that they lacked jurisdiction. Investigations has been ongoing ever since.
Short of going full "one world government" or the next best thing, "team america world police" you can't really violate state sovereignty even if someone is doing atrocities so instead you need to convince key players or a critical mass that something should be done. If successful, you can then tighten the screws on that person as fast as you can get all the relevant bureaucracies moving.
There were no "screws needed" to issue an arrest warrant against Hamas months ago. Yet they didn't.
They should have issued arrest warrants years ago against Hamas for deliberately firing into civilian territory. It's an easy case to make, no one at all claims Hamas didn't do that.
But, nope, they did not issue any warrant.
No, they only issued a warrant against Hamas to pretend like they have some balance in trying to issue a warrant against Netanyahu.
It's no longer Netanyahu on trial, it's actually now ICC that is on trial. If the ICC actually grants the warrant against Netanyahu they have proven themselves to be a bunch of clowns with no legitimacy.
We shall see.
Things like what Milosevic or what Janjaweed leaders do are identifiable.
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
International law looks at this differently. There's a huge difference between targeting civilians and striking genuine military targets that have civilian human shields, especially after issuing a warning and taking reasonable precautions. The first is a war crime, the second is actually allowed by Geneva conventions. The phrase “killing civilians” throws these differences out of the window and simply shouldn't be used in intelligent conversion about this topic.
Even in the latter case, the cost to civilian lives has to be proportional to the the military value/lives saved long-term by ending the threat. This is not proportional: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
But unfortunately, the latter case does not account for all that we've seen in the last few months and years. There's been plenty of "targeting civilians" too
Additionally they werent charged on the basis of unporportionality afaik, i think all the charges are based around failing to let in enough food aid, causing a famine.
No, starvation is only one of the alleged offences: "the use of starvation as a method of warfare, together with other attacks and collective punishment against the civilian population of Gaza"
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-...
> The Prosecutor seeks arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, the Israeli Minister of Defense, on the basis that they committed the war crime of ‘intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare’ under article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the ICC Statute. The Prosecutor also seeks to charge the two suspects with various other war crimes and crimes against humanity associated with the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare under articles 7 and 8 of the ICC Statute
Ahh, yes, like when the IDF told Gazan civilians by evacuation order to move to the south of Gaza because they were going to intensify bombing in the north.
And then increased bombing of southern Gaza by 85% in the next 10 days...
Source: https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-war-satellite-data-shows-isr...
I think that is a distinction without a difference
If your siblings are killed or maimed in their home or at a party, do you care?
Killing people is a bad thing
You can personally think international law is wrong, but that probably won't affect what the ICC does very much.
Maybe you could argue Israel is not accidentally doing this, but collateral damage of civilians will almost always happen regardless of how careful attacks are planned. I don't think there has ever been a war that occurred in such a densely packed area that has had no civilian causalities.
I think there is an element in glee at civilian casualties on both sides
Or to put it more broadly what distinguishes a soldier who has killed dozens of enemy soldiers from a school shooter who killed dozens of his peers?
According to your statement they are morally equivalent, society at large would vehemently disagree with you.
There are videos of them celebrating on Oct 7 and crowds attacking the hostages when they're brought into Gaza.
Did they think killing is a bad thing?
I do not know, but not on the face of it
But we can all do better than justify our actions on the basis of "they did it too"
That is school yard logic, and nation states can do better
Silly me, tho. The nation states involved all seem to be devoid of principals
1. In many cases whole Gazen families have bee killed in their homes.
2. I always blame those giving orders. On both sides.
But there is version of this where weapons at the hospital are removed by force, without bombing it.
Version A (what happens now): Israel calls everybody in the vicinity of the hospital, gives them time to evacuate. Then Israel strikes the hospital with a missile without a warhead. Then Israel actually bombs it.
Version B (what you suggest): IDF storms in with guns blazing.
What version, in your opinion, will result in more civilian deaths?
The air force can hit the targets required around the hospital to allow an easier time for ground forces. Reach the hospital, and use those ground forces to secure it.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/15/middleeast/idf-accidentally-k...
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1D9Zaet2ypKD7H6gyxYtU...
One source of many about targeting journalists for over two decades
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/09/middleeast/israel-military-jo...
One source on IDF killing indiscriminately
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/02/middleeast/israel-bo...
And for some extra flavor have a few sources on the IDF posting videos of their abuse of Palestinians
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-09/ty-article-ma...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/idf-posting-abuse-foota...
Are these actions that of the "most moral army"?
These things are easily googlable yet you haven't bothered to do the slightest bit of reading before dismissing the claims outright. Even the US president had said that the attack on the Liberty was 100% intentional while knowing it was a US vessel
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.
I have my issues with the ICC, but they are supposed to enforce international law impartially.