Hacker News Reader

Comment by seu | Hacker News Reader

There's a good reason why "Israel, like the US, Russia and China, is not a member", and why Israel has engaged in spying them (and I would be surprised if the others didn't): they completely disregard any sort of global overwatch on their actions. Each of those states believe they are above everyone else.

View on HN

The countries you listed are basically all the world players that exert outside influence. It's easy for a country like Canada to sit on the sidelines and go along with orgs like the ICC since we're not really under threat, nor is it something we've grown into.

Watch the ICC challenge Canada's sovereignty repeatedly on issues that we hold important, and see how fast our government decides not to recognize their authority.

The ICC is not challenging any country's sovereignty, it's prosecuting criminals whose crimes fall outside the jurisdiction of a single country. The fact that the US has "pressured" the ICC (while not even being a signatory) to not go after Israel, and that Israel has been harassing them, shows that the West is not at all on a higher ground morally than anyone else. They're doing the same thing: killing, waging unjustified wars, spying on and harassing people trying to do good. I am ashamed of what we, the collective West, are doing. The rule of law doesn't mean anything to us if it goes against our interests.

If ICC was doing anything it would have charged the Iranian leadership for example. Yet in practice it's political organization with no morale.

Iran is a signatory but not (yet) a party to the Rome Statute, and as such the ICC does not have jurisdiction in Iran unless explicitly given by Iran (similar to what Ukraine did following the Russian invasion). Palestine is a member, so crimes against humanity committed in the occupied territories are under the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Don’t get me wrong. The Iranian government absolutely should go straight to the Hague for their crimes against the Iranian people. But this whataboutism does not dissolve the crimes of others.

> Watch the ICC challenge Canada's sovereignty repeatedly on issues that we hold important

That's not likely to happen ...

it seems that once Canada embraced the ICC https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_re...

    Canada became the first country in the world to incorporate the obligations of the Rome Statute into its national laws when it adopted the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (CAHWCA) on June 24, 2000. Canada was then able to ratify the Rome Statute on July 9, 2000.

it gained a retroactive free pass on "stuff that happened"

    https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/lawyer-says-international-criminal-court-declines-request-to-open-residential-school-investigation/

    A lawyer who was part of a group lobbying the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate Canada and the Catholic Church over the residential school system says they’ve been turned down.

    “The ICC prosecutor declined to open a preliminary investigation,” says Andrew Phypers, one of a dozen lawyers who wrote the ICC requesting an investigation. “Part of their reasoning was that they felt they were prevented as the deaths occurred before Canada ratified the crimes against humanity law.”

Regardless of the merits of the case, that's a solid "No." on even just having a look.

That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that Israel is convinced that the global scrutiny they experience is so unfair and one-sided that they have to take action ahead of time to try to restore a modicum of balance.

That's kind of ridiculous. Israel has had the support of most of the world for months of war, but at some point it became clear they were just going far over what looked like a proportionate response. And they just kept going, month after month, getting worse and worse... and the outrage from other countries has slowly grown as they kept killing civilians almost indiscriminately. I would say this proves the exact opposite: that Israel, given the history of their people, are given more leeway than basically anyone else by the international community.

I acknowledge that is your interpretation. Others have the interpretation that the support Israel has been given since Oct 7th falls far short of what would be appropriate in the circumstances.

Regarding the accusation of killing civilians indiscriminately: what is the civilian to combatant death ratio, and what level would it have to fall above to count as "indiscriminate"?

> what is the civilian to combatant death ratio, and what level would it have to fall above to count as "indiscriminate"?

I accept the ICC report which says Israel not only killed indiscriminately, it used hunger as a weapon of war. Those accusations were investigated and proven beyond doubt by the people we most trust to investigate such matters.

However, in my humble opinion, any innocent's death caused by war is unjustifiable. I thought so when the Russians started killing civilians in their war (using the same justifications as Israel, by the way), and I still think so when it's Israel killing Palestinians.

It's an "interpretation" but an obviously rubbish one. One doesn't go to such extreme lengths as stalking the Chief Prosecutor, making thinly-veiled threats to their family's safety and so on unless one is perfectly aware of one's precarious fate in the hands of global public opinion -- and perfectly aware also (through knowledge of one's own actions) of the reasons why such scrutiny is legitimate and necessary.

Yes, of course they're aware of their precarious situation vis-a-vis global public opinion. The question is whether that is warranted.

They know perfectly well why it's warranted. That's why they're so desperate.

As in literally every other case of prosecutor intimidation you will find.

They were desperate because they believed (correctly) the court would target their officials. Whether or not it's warranted[1] is a quite independent consideration! For example, in principle a country could be confident that it would not be touched by the ICC, despite deserving to be.

[1] No pun intended!

Frankly, I would expect that many of the States that are members are spying on the ICC internals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com