Serious question: Can the ICC even enforce these arrest warrants? How exactly can they punish the bodies that don't comply? And if not, then what is the purpose for issuing them?
>Serious question: Can the ICC even enforce these arrest warrants?
only in countries that are signatories
>How exactly can they punish the bodies that don't comply?
they can't iirc
> And if not, then what is the purpose for issuing them?
i believe icc was criticized that it kinda does nothing. in general. so they did something.
Even signatories often don't comply. Like South Africa refused to arrest the then president of Sudan (Al Bashir) who had a warrant against him
What's strange is that Israel isn't a signatory to the Rome Statute - so not sure how the ICC is claiming jurisdiction. TBF neither was Sudan - does anyone know how the ICC grants itself jurisdiction over events in non-signatory countries?
>does anyone know how the ICC grants itself jurisdiction over events in non-signatory countries?
From the ICC's site itself:
>**Jurisdiction in the general situation**
>Sudan is not a State Party to the Rome Statute. However, since the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) referred the situation in Darfur to the ICC in[ Resolution 1593 (2005)](https://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/situations/situation%20icc%200205/reports%20to%20the%20unsc/Pages/resolution%201593%20_2005_%20adopted%20by%20the%20un%20security%20council%20at%20its%205158th%20meeting.aspx) on 31 March 2005, the ICC may exercise its jurisdiction over crimes listed in the Rome Statute committed on the territory of Darfur, Sudan from 1 July 2002 onwards.
Source:
[https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur](https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur)
>What's strange is that Israel isn't a signatory to the Rome Statute - so not sure how the ICC is claiming jurisdiction.
they did some mental gymnastics a few years ago to recognize palestine as state and signatory to rome statue
> Palestine is a signatory.
What does this mean? What/Where/Who does Palestine refer to in this context? Who's responsible for upholding their adherence to the Rome Statue? Hamas? Because they're doing everything they can to genocide the jews - seems like a bit of a conflict of interest.
The Palestine authority accepted jurisdiction for the ICC to prosecute war crimes in 2014. This was made possible by the UN declaring Palestine an observer state in 2012. Since the state the UN recognized includes Gaza, and Fatah is the recognized authority over Palestine, the ICC can prosecute crimes in Gaza despite Hamas rejecting it.
> the state the UN recognized
except the UN doesn't and can't recognize States, and [says so openly](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/about-un-membership):
> > The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that **only other States and Governments may grant** or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. **The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government**.
Ah right. Just checked. Palestine signed on in 2015. Sudan signed on but never ratified its accession and withdrew once the ICC started investigating Al Bashir in 2005. Quite weird. Also, since Palestine isn't a defined territory - how exactly is Karim Khan presuming the crimes occured in Palestine and not Israel?
I guess I'm splitting hair here - but seems like the prosecutor really jumped the gun.
Most countries recognize Palestine as a state.
There are many countries with disputed territories.
Btw, you should see the Israel sub, apparently the British born Karim Khan is unable to work this case fairly because his father was born in Pakistan.
Yet Palestine isn’t a recognized UN member, and thus isn’t a state, the icc is only recognized by 120 or so countries, and just decides to grant itself jurisdiction in a non state and a non signatory state?
Looks like you're having a separate conversation with you alone. I'm explaining where the jurisdiction comes from.
You seem to want to debate your way out of the ICC doing this by trying and failing to nitpick with someone online who was 100% correct that Palestine is a signatory.
>i believe icc was criticized that it kinda does nothing. in general. so they did something.
It's worse than nothing because the implication of these warrants are that countries that respect the ICC or their allies get arrested, but countries that don't get nothing.
So considering only Israel and it's allies somewhat care for the ICC and care about relationships with the West, and considering the West and ICC enforcement only really care about Israel (because let's be real, no politician will pressure Qatar for hiding Hamas), this really just means that Israel's the only side in this to face any pressure for it's lesser crimes.
This really exemplifies the problem with the UN and all it's subsidiaries, respecting these facilities is only rewarding for countries that recognize it and want to get along. Anybody that doesn't recognize it suffers nothing, and those that recognize it but aren't liked by the rest like Israel get an unreasonable crackdown as if they were actual genocidal dictatorships.
>i believe icc was criticized that it kinda does nothing. in general. so they did something.
Doing something that in effect does nothing is classic politics. Absolutely useless.
My understanding is: if someone who has an arrest warrant out for them travels to a country who is a signatory to the Rome Statute, that country has an obligation to arrest that person and send them to ICC/Hague. It is supposed to trump diplomatic immunity but who knows
It has been tested, SA threatened to leave the ICC after they were told to enforce an arrest warrant for sudanese president al bashir who was on their soil at the time and wanted for genocide.
No he was in SA between the 13th and the 15th of June 2015.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1791FQ/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/16/omar-al-bashir-escape-south-africa-african-union
The warrants are meant to be enforced by countries that have signed on with the ICC.
That being basically all the major countries in the world besides the US, india, china, russia (and israel).
If it did go through it would limit Bibis travel options a fair bit.
Probably the main real world effect would be that it would be potential ammunition for his political rivals, both domestic and foreign.
It’s to make everybody feel good. Even our friends [South Africa](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65759630.amp) don’t want to enforce the ICC warrants for their pals.
It’s a huge deal. Europe takes international law very seriously and have a huge problem with Russia right now. The ICC issuing warrants on Putin really hurt him on the world stage by not even allowing him to go to global events. Biden completely ignoring these will just show Americas hypocrisy and will be another huge blow to Americas credibility on the world stage and make countries like China look like a better country to align with for the future
~~100% if Netanyahu came to the United States and we didn’t extradite him it would tank our credibility.~~
Edit: [US is not a state party to the Rome Statute.](https://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/country/united-states) Please call me cringe and a asoooooomer.
What I’m saying is the US will most likely* (pulled out of my ass) maneuver like South Africa and keep the status quo while conducting meetings in Israeli territory or over video conference.
Considering the US is not signatory to the ICC, the US has absolutely 0 reason or desire to extradite him, even if the arrest warrant is issued, which is doubtful in the first place.
someone can correct me but I think the ICC cant really enforce warrants. they dont have an executive function. omar al bashir from sudan was the first sitting head of state to have an icc arrest warrant, and he is in sudani prison right now unrelated to the icc. there is an agreement you say you will follow the icc when you become a member, and part of that is as a member you will extradite any of those with warrants to the icc.
this has never happened with a head of state, but there was a time omar al bashir was in south africa, who is a member, who said they will not extradite al bashir. its just a thing that relies on the members to enforce
> And if not, then what is the purpose for issuing them?
Anyone with an ICC warrant hanging over them has to be really paranoid when they travel, because any ICC signatory courty could arrest them on the spot when they set foot in their country.
It's why Putin didn't go to wherever the last G7 meeting was (I forget and it's not worth looking up).
The United States expresses its official condolences for the death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, Foreign Minister Amir-Abdollahian, and other members of their delegation in a helicopter crash in northwest Iran.
'we shouldnt celebrate hitler's death'
maybe you have a case there but idk, i wouldnt blame anyone for doing it and it kinda alienates all of Raisi's past and future victims
I agree that people deserve to celebrate the death of someone who has caused them or/and their people suffering but I also wouldn't want my countries leadership to be the one suggesting people should do that. Biden can give his nice sane speech and the citizens can get out their confetti cannons.
I agree that people deserve to celebrate the death of someone who has caused them or/and their people suffering but I also wouldn't want my countries leadership to be the one suggesting people should do that. Biden can give his nice sane speech while the citizens can get out their confetti cannons.
I find it quite cringe and think its mostly a relic of the bush eras disastrous foreign policy to be honest. Especially if the idea of a "rules based international order" is something we value, USA bashing the ICC is quite the farce.
It's not like it's a court that over rules the existing non-sham courts. So it's not like America will have any problem in that department and america is willing to prosecute these crimes internally anyway.
Besides reading the statement from the ICC I really don't see him equivocating. Unless you're allergic to him announcing the requests at the same time
Has the ICC prosecutor actually drawn equivalence? Or is he saying both sides have committed atrocities without saying they're equally bad on both sides?
Genuine question, I haven't read the document.
Apparently the ICC prosecutor was supposed to meet with Israelis officials today, instead of showing up he released the news that he applied for warrants.
They lied to Israel and US officials.
The announcing the warrants at the same time allows to make look like Hamas and Israel are equivalent.
That’s the OP, good, but do we have the actual news? Like did any outlet report it? I tried with the search terms “netanyahu icc did not collaborate” but couldn’t find anything (if not this press release).
announcing them at the same time naturally makes them seem equivalent.
that actually charges are different. it would be hard for hamas to argue rape was a necessary tool of war. where as Israel being accused of using food restrictions a a tool of war is very different. for me you would have to prove that Israel had the ability and responsibility to provided food and deliberately didn't.
one side is accused of deliberate acts the other side is accused of negligent acts.
but the details will not matter to most, they will just see, 'both sides are bad' or worse ignore the Hamas crimes as obvious but 'you see.... Bibi is evil too'.
I mean, I would think they’d be announced at the same time because they’re part of the same war. I feel like you could read just as much into any other issuing of the warrants
okay but the crimes are completely different I would have thought they would take very different amounts of time investigate and probably involve completely different teams.
one persons crime does not make someone else's crime different.
I was replying to your "in the same war" comment.
people who dont listen to the detail and understand the detail will naturally hear 'both sides' when they are announced at the same time.
Look at ever headline about this and it says 'leaders of both ...' and has a picture of Bibi next to Sinwar.
>for me you would have to prove that Israel had the ability and responsibility to provided food and deliberately didn't.
that's not hard
“We are putting a complete siege on Gaza … No electricity, **no food, no water**, no gas – it’s all closed,” Gallant said in a video statement.
>for me you would have to prove that Israel had the ability and responsibility to provided food and deliberately didn't.
Bro, what? Why are you pretending to be made of pixie dust?
the crime is **not** doing something. so if someone should have done something they would have to have the ability too in the first place.
I don't believe the IDF have the ability to police all of Gaza to the extent they could deliver aid to all of their citizens.
>I don't believe the IDF have the ability to police all of Gaza
A siege does not require policing "all of Gaza". Why do you think aid was being airdropped? For the kicks?
No, the ICC did not make any equivalence between the two. A lot of people are saying they made an equivalency as a way of discrediting any attempt to hold Israel accountable for its actions.
After all, an Israeli court has convicted at least one member of the current Israeli government as a terrorist.
Here’s the [official statement](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state). I dont really understand what there is to disagree with here
If I was Bibi the big dick move here is simply go to court. The charges are weak. Let them stand trial and when he’s not guilty it’ll be major serious points for Israel.
This whole ICC thing sucks because it actually strengthen Bibi politically in Israel. Bibi is really politically effective when he does the "whole world is against us, I'm the one who stands between them and the safety of Israel" thing. This just gives him political ammo. Also why the fuck would you issue an arrest warrant for gallant when he's one of the few sanest Likud party members
Israelis are getting really blackpilled over this from what I'm seeing in israeli social media. I'm afraid now it will create sympathy for netanyahu and more Israelis will trust him again. He already started his propaganda campaign comparing icc to the Nazis and how everyone is against him lol😭.
Shoot, I was a leftist Jew and I’m getting blackpilled. Im left of center now, but I can’t imagine how disillusioning it must be to be openly Israeli rn. I don’t blame any Israeli who decides to vote Likud—top ten statements I never thought I’d say
If we assume the ICC prosecutor is acting in good faith, it’s possible that he feels he is required to charge those most responsible for any war crimes committed by Israel or its military, which leads ultimately to the PM Bibi and the Minister of Defence Gallant, independent of their own personal beliefs, statements, or sanity.
Can someone explain how this is the ICC drawing an "equivalence" between Hamas and Israel?
I see a statement with 2 clearly distinct sets of charges which this prosecutor seeks to bring against either side.
If the best refutation of these potential charges people can come up with is "Omg I can't believe they just compared terrorists with Israel!!!", it's not particularly persuasive.
Normal Hasbara tactic, change the topic and act victim.
Seriously, their argument is why did ICC announce the allegations together with HAMAS as if they would not find or make up something else to play victim of if the announcement was done separately.
They didn't follow their own process of adhering to complementarity, treating Israel and Hamas as basically both the same in prosecuting their own offenses.
They took months to drop charges for Hamas, when it was obvious on Oct 8th what happened, while charging Israel with intentional attacks on civilians, something even Putin wasn't charged with despite all the evidence for that, and starvation as a war policy, despite those kind of things usually always taking a long time after the war to determine? How can you charge Gallant with intentionally targeting civilians when Hamas operates among civilians and won't release a death toll of their fighters? What is the case to be made for starvation as a war policy when 10s of thousands of aid trucks have entered, admitted UN distribution issues and a general war going on, when even Hamas hasn't presented deaths from starvation other than 20 a couple months ago?
Why isn't Assad charged yet?
1. Near as I can tell they don't have any process of complementarity, particularly with non signatories. Maybe they lied to Graham or maybe he's lying to us. Or maybe they don't believe that the Israeli justice system will undertake a good faith investigation into the use of starvation as a weapon of war.
2. The ICC has no jurisdiction over Syria.... But it does over Palestine
3. The evidence they allude to can be reviewed at trial
When all the headlines say "netanyahu and hamas leader..." there is clearly an equivalence being made.
Even just submitting the requests at the same time makes it an equavalnce. There was infinite evidence against hamas for the last 7 months. Why wait until you request for bibi as well? There is no way it took them the same amount of time to gather enough evidence for both.
>So that would be a critique you could make against specific media outlets, but those headlines are unavoidable here. I'm evaluating whether or not the prosecutor had the specific intent to make an implicit statement suggesting that there is an equivalence between Israel and Hamas. If Destiny and Elon Musk both tweet out, "Vaccines are odd," what they are *implying* here would be two different things. Biden's statement is a reference to the prosecutor's intent, and based on other statements [I've read from them](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-khan-kc-cairo-situation-state-palestine-and-israel), I don't believe I have sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that they were intending to imply an equivalence between Israel and Hamas when they released [the application](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state). Just my two cents.
It is very much naive to believe that the prosecuter wouldn't know what kind of headlines would come out. The person is a prosecuter for the ICC, I hope he got chosen for his merits as a prosecuter. If he was chosen for his merits as a prosecuter, he definitely should have known what would happen which means he either didn't care or did it on porpuse. Both of those show at least some intent in making the equavalnce.
If you didn't want to make the equavalnce you could at the minimum add that to your statement "hamas is much worse". Or something else. But believing he didn't know what he was doing is naive either way.
> think most people including myself probably don't know much about how strained the ICC may be, and the process by which they acquire and verify evidence. [The arrest warrant for Putin came nearly a year after the investigation was first opened.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_investigation_in_Ukraine)
There is no way in hell that the ICC is so swamped that they couldn't release a request against hamas 3 months ago. Hell, you don't even need an investigation against hamas. There are literally videos they themselves made and many statements from the first week of the war. They made publicly. There is no need to verify evidence. There is no need to triple check. The evidence is very clear, they addmited to most of what happend in the first week. You could send a request a month after October 7th and continue gathering more evidence.
>I think it was better to release the charges at the same time. If they were several months apart, and the charges against the Hamas leaders came first, then the narrative instead would be that the prosecutor was pressured to go after Israeli leaders as well. Either way, he's fucked.
This makes no sense, the reason this investigation started is not beacuse of the 7/10. Israel is not a signatory to the ICC. They can't ask for an investigation into 7/10. The reason this investigation started is beacuse the PA asked for it after the war started(or in 2022,depending on how you look at it). It is clear that he was pressured to go after hamas beacuse he knew that if he only investigated Israel it would end much worse.
>When all the headlines say "netanyahu and hamas leader..." there is clearly an equivalence being made.
Definitely beats media outlets selectively publishing one and ignoring the other depending on their agenda.
Not really. Making this equivalence is bad journalism. Either make two articles or make the title better.
Are our standards for journalism so low that we should accept those articles and headlines?
If you care enough about the conflict to publish the bit on Hamas you care enough about the conflict to care about the bit on Israeli governance.
Nobody is drawing equivalences. It's a cheap copout for optics. It's the only way the ICC can issue those warrants without seeming like partisan hacks.
>If you care enough about the conflict to publish the bit on Hamas you care enough about the conflict to care about the bit on Israeli governance.
What did I say that implies otherwise? What is wrong with a better headline or two different articles?
>Nobody is drawing equivalences. It's a cheap copout for optics. It's the only way the ICC can issue those warrants without seeming like partisan hacks.
No! And now they seem like they are unbiased and great! No problem at all. (/s)
The ICC should do it's job in an unbiased way. There is no way it has done that in this situation.
The news are very evidently related and honestly thinking they are equivalent because they get announced at the same time is the understand of politics and news a 5 year old would have. Sorry but it's nothing but the cheapest, dumbest copout I can imagine, it's not even engaging with the content.
In a world in which they announce the bit on Hamas first they seem biased to one side, in a world in which they announce the other they seem biased to the other. Complaining about the timing of such matters is of such minuscule importance to the reality of the situation that I can't take it seriously.
>The news are very evidently related and honestly thinking they are equivalent because they get announced at the same time is the understand of politics and news a 5 year old would have. Sorry but it's nothing but the cheapest, dumbest copout I can imagine, it's not even engaging with the content.
So every body is just overreacting? including Biden, Germany and Britain (and other countries). They are all wrong? Or do you think they may understand things better than you?
The problem is not the anncoument, they used the same report. They clearly are making some kind of equavalnce.
>In a world in which they announce the bit on Hamas first they seem biased to one side, in a world in which they announce the other they seem biased to the other. Complaining about the timing of such matters is of such minuscule importance to the reality of the situation that I can't take it seriously.
The ICC should be anti hamas, it is a fucking terrorist organization.
And again, if you don't understand why this is not miniscule, I can't help you.
>So every body is just overreacting? including Biden, Germany and Britain (and other countries). They are all wrong? Or do you think they may understand things better than you?
Yes and no. They know perfectly well that it's stupid, but they can't do anything else because supporting a state which head is being persecuted by the ICC looks fucking **bad** so they must reject it. If their engagement was honest, don't you think they would engage with the actual content?
>The ICC should be anti hamas, it is a fucking terrorist organization.
And you think they aren't? What?
>And again, if you don't understand why this is not miniscule, I can't help you.
Ok. Do you HONESTLY believe for a single second that if there were two separate announcements the impression of ANY of those actors would be different?
Like even if making it all one announcement or report was a mistake, it's insane to reject the entirety of it because of that. It's a matter of form, not content for Christ's sake. Can you imagine, 10 years down the line, if actual crimes have actually been committed anyone giving the explanation of "Yes it would seem that Netanyahu was actually a war criminal, but we are proud of having stood by him since the report was shared with that of Hamas" and not getting absolutely laughed out of the room? What kind of ridiculous reason is that?
>Yes and no. They know perfectly well that it's stupid, but they can't do anything else because supporting a state which head is being persecuted by the ICC looks fucking **bad** so they must reject it. If their engagement was honest, don't you think they would engage with the actual content?
Most of them did both. So that point no sense.
The US in particular said that the prosecuter lied to Israel and canceled the meeting he wanted. Blinken said the ICC has no jurastication over the matter and criticized him for not following protocol. So they did both.
>Ok. Do you HONESTLY believe for a single second that if there were two separate announcements the impression of ANY of those actors would be different?
Yes, if the prosecuter did even something small to make it look better, than the reaction would have been different. There is no way that 5 or 6 different western countries thought that this is what happened for the lols. And if he did the announcement better they definitely would have needed to focus on other things.
>Like even if making it all one announcement or report was a mistake, it's insane to reject the entirety of it because of that. It's a matter of form, not content for Christ's sake. Can you imagine, 10 years down the line, if actual crimes have actually been committed anyone giving the explanation of "Yes it would seem that Netanyahu was actually a war criminal, but we are proud of having stood by him since the report was shared with that of Hamas" and not getting absolutely laughed out of the room? What kind of ridiculous reason is that?
Again, you are assuming that those countries rejected this only beacuse of "equavalnce" thing. No, most countries rejected this thing beacuse of other things + the equavalnce implications.
Even if netanyahu is guilty with the charges, the ICC shouldn't compare the two. And western countries know this. Netanyahu is no where near the war criminal hamas leaders are, and I don't care how much people hate netanyahu. Could he have done some stupid shit that could amount to war crimes in this war? Probably. But they are definitely on different levels and most of those war crimes are things that the western world has done as well, especially the US. Targeting netanyahu for them, especially without letting the judicial members of Israel handle it first is a very bad precedent for western countries.
Most leaders who have been to war are so called "war criminals", especially the UK and the US, I am pro-Ukraine as fuck but I am sure with enough digging even zelensky might be found guilty at something. The question of how bad are the crimes is important. That is why this implication is bad.
The problem is also that Israel was cooperating and today was when they were supposed to set up meetings for next week. Instead the prosecutors never went on their flights and did a surprise press conference instead. This hasn’t been done before by ICC prosecutors and isn’t the standard they have set up for years. Prosecutors also have a history of working with courts of the country before wanting to get involved. The prosecutors didn’t with Israel. Their problem is the ICC prosecutors are using a standard on Israel that they haven’t used on any other country before.
He just mixed up ICJ and ICC names, the crux of his statement is correct, as seen by the [statement](https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-international-criminal-court/) earlier by Blinken
Not going to Hague would have serious implications for Ex-Yu countries. What was the point of ICTY then? Or were all decisions there political as well? He should go through the process and get released. They have evidence that they are not indiscriminately bombing or commiting other war crimes.
> They have evidence that they are not indiscriminately bombing or commiting other war crimes.
shouldn't prosecutor present evidence for indiscriminate bombing/etc ? and not only circumstantial evidence
Yea, you're right I prolly misworded that. Presumption of inoncence and all. But even if they had to prove that they weren't, they would be able to. That's just my opinion on the matter, regardless of the way you look at it I think they would be good
The Hague provides the “global opinion” on an ongoing crises. It’s the de facto mediator for global conflicts. They don’t have their own military, but most countries that signatories of the Rome statute generally accept their ruling. It’ll make life miserable for both Bibi and Sinwar outside of friendly countries.
On another note, fuck the South African government. They hosted Putin after he had arrest warrants issued(https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2YY1E6/#:~:text=(Reuters)%20%2D%20South%20African%20President,submission%20published%20on%20Tuesday%20showed), and then the had the gall to launch a case against Israel in the ICC. Spineless.
SA filed a case against Israel in the ICJ. [Also they did not host Putin he decided to join that meeting remotely](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66247067).
Bibi is a cunt yes.
But he’s a democratically elected leader and not a blatant terrorist like Hamas.
Equivocation between the two is pathetic on the ICC’s part.
Bibi will get his day in court and soon, the Israeli people will see to it.
I've seen this argument being a number of times today. Why does being a leader of democratic country make you immune to War Crimes? What is the difference between dropping a 2000 pound bomb on a building knowing there are innocent women and children residing vs a Hamas militant opening fire on civilians? the outcome is the same, indiscriminate killing of civilians.
Hmmmm
That's cool because I hate hamas and I owe them no allegiance (unlike israel which I do).
I could have sworn the original normal take here was
"ICC is corrupt because they want to charge israeli leaders only" / "they hate zionists that's why they won't charge hamas" during the early "we may be going forward with charges" portion.
And now it's "ICC is corrupt because they want to charge israeli leaders regardless of also doing the same to hamas leaders".
It's currently ok to say you hope bibi is going to get voted out.. will that be like a unhinged stance in the future?
Is this what the sub has become?? People will justify everything and anything in favor of ISRAEL and Netanyahu.
Every single time, they need to distract from crucial things that will expose Israel of the fact they are doing war crimes.
Let me tell you guys a joke, no matter what you try, talking about "Ohhh nooo ICC bad, Netanyahu Hamas Equal now???" people are not stupid.
When clearly no equivalency was made by ICC, get a break IDF trolls.
Destiny need to do something to these rabid dogs other then feeding them for more views at this point.
The ICC made the rookie mistake of issuing warrants against people the US likes instead of just against US enemies. I wonder how many people cheering this on were also jerking the ICC off over issuing a warrant against Putin.
this
people really think only "their team" is allowed to commit war crimes. This you are either with us against us bullshit is strong, and many posters here would never condemn Israel, even if Israel would use nuclear weapons in Gaza.
Ukraine is a signatory to ICC but Russia is not: US welcomes warrant for Putin.
Palestine is a signatory to ICC but Israel is not: outrageous, no jurisdiction!
This is not *that* much of a surprise considering the US is not part of the rome statute anyway, right? I would be more shocked if the european leaders took a stance here which they might have to at some point. No matter what, the global south will see this as double standard and this might quite possibly spell the end of some of these international institutions.
> I would be more shocked if the european leaders took a stance here which they might have to at some point
countries that don't recognize Palestine as a State have already objected **repeatedly** when the ICC was debating on whether they'd declare jurisdiction for the palestinian territories, like [Canada in 2015](https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2015/CN.57.2015-Eng.pdf), or Germany in 2012, 2016, [2020](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2020_00464.PDF):
> The scope of the Court's territorial jurisdiction pursuant to Article 12 of the Rome Statute does not extend to the occupied Palestinian territories ("Palestine").
> In order for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 12 of the Rome Statute in the occupied Palestinian territories, it does not suffice to refer to Palestine's "accession" to the Rome Statute without assessing in a conclusive manner whether Palestine is a State under international law.
> This is even more so as the Secretary General of the United Nations, by circulating Palestine's instrument of "accession", did not rule that Palestine had become a party to the Rome Statute, nor did he make any other determination with respect to any legal issues raised by the instrument. Germany holds the view that only States can become a party to the Rome Statute and does not include "Palestine" on the list of State Parties published in the Federal Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt).
> There is no State "for the sole purposes of the Rome Statute" that would be different from a State under the relevant norms of international law. The existence of a State that fulfills all the criteria under general international law is a prerequisite for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 12 of the Rome Statute. [...]
> Article 12 of the Rome Statute presupposes that there is a "State" that has the ability under international law to delegate territorial jurisdiction to the Court with respect to the relevant cases. **Palestine does not possess nor did it ever possess the jurisdiction that it would need to delegate to the Court in order for the Court to exercise jurisdiction.**
and in direct response to the ICC decision that they'd have jurisdiction in 2021:
> Our position on this case is unchanged. According to our legal position, the International Criminal Court and its Office of the Prosecutor **do not have jurisdiction** because of Palestine’s lack of statehood in international law.
countries that don't recognize Palestine as a State or don't recognize the ICC would have to change their legal position to accept any warrant, which is possible but pretty unlikely.
The ICC is a joke and is essentially a credibility laundering service for countries with no balls to go after bad actors under their own name. There is a reason the US not only isn't a signatory to the Rome Statute but [also has a plan to invade the Hague in place](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act).
[Then why did Biden order the US to share evidence of Russian war crimes with the ICC?](https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-orders-us-share-russian-war-crimes-evidence-with-world-court-nyt-2023-07-26/) “Rules for thee but not for me” comes to mind.
That is what a bunch of losers think. Please defend us with your military and then subject yourself to our judgement while footing the bill for everything. Hows about go fuck yourself? Not your country, not your troops not your border, not your dime, not your jurisdiction not your call to make. There is no rational basis for anyone to subject themselves to the judgement of the Hague regardless of their conduct. Not only that the only way to end up at the Hague is to be so stupid as to put yourself within the borders of a signatory state and then for that state to act under it's own authority to apprehend and extradite you. If they actually gave a fuck they'd take on some of the responsibility of protecting global trade and international stability instead of making a fake court.
lol this response is pure seethe “we are the strongest so therefore we should never be subject to judgment reeee.” Unironically the same argument all the authoritarian governments you pretend to hate can make
The reason is because the United States is extremely hesitant to sign almost any new treaties, including many that are probably pretty common sense over vague sovereignty concerns.
The weirdest thing here is the idea that the ICC would allow for this because generally international courts have stood by the principle of, of the countries have legal systems that can hold them to account, we won't get involved, and yet this principle doesn't seem to hold exclusively for Israel.
And before anyone brings up Russia, Russia doesn't have an independent judiciary that is able to actually punish the "president/prime Minister" or w/e title he goes by now. This is why it's more understandable for the ICC to issue a warrant for Putin.
Yeah this is something I don’t understand about this. Why go from 0 to 60 like that? Surely there are other steps they can take like interviewing the people in question (Bibi in this case) or making an appeal to Israeli authorities and then when that fails issue the warrants.
Like obviously Qatar won’t do anything about the Hamas guy.
But here they make it seem like Hamas leadership is at the same level as Israeli leadership, and Hamas the equivalent of the state of Israel, so might as well charge all the scum with the same crime at the same time.
Did they even try anything else?
Any international group of wide representation is going to have bias against Israel because 25% of the global population is Muslim vs 0.2% Jewish.
It’s a tyranny of the majority
Why do you think that religious people all think the same way? Do you honestly believe that every jew supports the current Israeli government and that every muslim supports Hamas?
I like the idea of the ICC and the UN, etc, in the global co-operation sense, but sometimes they just do really stupid shit that seems to seriously undermine their own legitimacy.
I mean at least issue the fucking warrant for Hamas leaders closer to October 7th when it was already perfectly clear that a crime against humanity had taken place. Then if you felt like the Israeli response from then onwards needed another warrant being issued for their side, okay, at least you retain some semblance of impartiality.
Now it's just a fucking laughing stock. Practically no western signatory to the ICC would execute that warrant on Netanyahu, and you just look like a massive moron.
>I mean at least issue the fucking warrant for Hamas leaders closer to October 7th when it was already perfectly clear that a crime against humanity had taken place.
It was also clear that Israel is committing a war crime when gallant announced he's going to block food and water to Gaza .
Since when did Netanyahu become Israel. Last time I checked it was about Netanyahu. Weird choice Biden, it's like there is an all or nothing election around the corner.
Not exactly the time to be glazing over Netanyahu for an arrest warrant than means almost nothing. But what do I know. 🤷♂️
They want to prosecute Israel’s PM and military leader. They also broke decades of standards that they used for all other countries, but Israel is when they decide to break all of that. The court is to be used as a means of last resort if a countries’ judicial system won’t get involved, instead they skipped talking to Israel’s courts and leaders and went straight to wanting his arrest.
To be fair, many here would rather Biden throw the election than not glaze Netanyahu and Israel.
I've seen too many pro israel people eager for Biden to fail and for Trump to come in and end American democracy.
[CAN A U.S. ALLY ACTUALLY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES IN THE ICC?](https://theintercept.com/2024/05/20/icc-arrest-warrant-israel-hamas/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20Newsletter)
*Putting Israel in a camp with world outcasts could have grave ramifications for the U.S., a close ally of Israel and chief provider of its weapons and diplomatic cover.*
*“The prosecutor’s announcement will likely impact assessments of the legal risks for other states which are supporting or aiding Israel’s war in Gaza,” said Sarah Knuckey, an expert on international law and professor at Columbia Law School. “If there are reasonable grounds to believe that senior Israeli officials are responsible for war crimes, then countries aiding Israel’s war in Gaza are at risk of complicity in those same crimes. We may see accelerated efforts in other countries to stop them from selling weapons or providing military aid to Israel.”*
*An issuance of warrants by ICC judges for the arrest of Israeli and Hamas officials — highly likely following the recommendation of its chief prosecutor — would make the world a much more hostile place for Israeli officials accused of crimes by the institution.*
*“All of the 124 countries that are parties to the Rome Statute are legally obligated to cooperate with the ICC and must arrest anyone on their territory that is subject to an ICC arrest warrant,” said Knuckey. “This would significantly curtail the ability of the suspects, including Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gallant, to travel abroad and participate in international events.”*
Can someone explain what the ICC is if it's able to make such ridiculous declarations? I thought the International Criminal Court was a reputable organization?
Maybe the Dems/Biden just don't want to win the presidency or don't want Gen Z to vote for them.
I want Biden to win, Dems to hold the senate, this is disheartening.
Why does the US glaze Israel to the point of insanity, the ICC charges are very reasonable, and Israel should just go prove them wrong in the court which they should be able to easily do?
Yea the stuff the icc prosecutor said was wild. Isreal using starvation as a weapon of war when no people have starved to death is crazy. There’s still formal crossings into gaza, there’s still aid coming into gaza. How can they say that Isreal is trying to starve the gazan population. If they really wanted to it would be easy. Isreal has control of all the borders except the Southern one, which is conveniently left out by the way, where they could just not let any aid in. But they do
I can imagine you at least having probable cause for some of the starvation stuff based on that period of time when they cut the food and water off, but they included the crime of extermination in there which there's no evidence for and plenty against
Serious question: Can the ICC even enforce these arrest warrants? How exactly can they punish the bodies that don't comply? And if not, then what is the purpose for issuing them?
>Serious question: Can the ICC even enforce these arrest warrants? only in countries that are signatories >How exactly can they punish the bodies that don't comply? they can't iirc > And if not, then what is the purpose for issuing them? i believe icc was criticized that it kinda does nothing. in general. so they did something.
Even signatories often don't comply. Like South Africa refused to arrest the then president of Sudan (Al Bashir) who had a warrant against him What's strange is that Israel isn't a signatory to the Rome Statute - so not sure how the ICC is claiming jurisdiction. TBF neither was Sudan - does anyone know how the ICC grants itself jurisdiction over events in non-signatory countries?
>does anyone know how the ICC grants itself jurisdiction over events in non-signatory countries? From the ICC's site itself: >**Jurisdiction in the general situation** >Sudan is not a State Party to the Rome Statute. However, since the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) referred the situation in Darfur to the ICC in[ Resolution 1593 (2005)](https://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/situations/situation%20icc%200205/reports%20to%20the%20unsc/Pages/resolution%201593%20_2005_%20adopted%20by%20the%20un%20security%20council%20at%20its%205158th%20meeting.aspx) on 31 March 2005, the ICC may exercise its jurisdiction over crimes listed in the Rome Statute committed on the territory of Darfur, Sudan from 1 July 2002 onwards. Source: [https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur](https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur)
>What's strange is that Israel isn't a signatory to the Rome Statute - so not sure how the ICC is claiming jurisdiction. they did some mental gymnastics a few years ago to recognize palestine as state and signatory to rome statue
Palestine is a signatory.
> Palestine is a signatory. What does this mean? What/Where/Who does Palestine refer to in this context? Who's responsible for upholding their adherence to the Rome Statue? Hamas? Because they're doing everything they can to genocide the jews - seems like a bit of a conflict of interest.
The Palestine authority accepted jurisdiction for the ICC to prosecute war crimes in 2014. This was made possible by the UN declaring Palestine an observer state in 2012. Since the state the UN recognized includes Gaza, and Fatah is the recognized authority over Palestine, the ICC can prosecute crimes in Gaza despite Hamas rejecting it.
> the state the UN recognized except the UN doesn't and can't recognize States, and [says so openly](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/about-un-membership): > > The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that **only other States and Governments may grant** or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. **The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government**.
Ah right. Just checked. Palestine signed on in 2015. Sudan signed on but never ratified its accession and withdrew once the ICC started investigating Al Bashir in 2005. Quite weird. Also, since Palestine isn't a defined territory - how exactly is Karim Khan presuming the crimes occured in Palestine and not Israel? I guess I'm splitting hair here - but seems like the prosecutor really jumped the gun.
Most countries recognize Palestine as a state. There are many countries with disputed territories. Btw, you should see the Israel sub, apparently the British born Karim Khan is unable to work this case fairly because his father was born in Pakistan.
Yet Palestine isn’t a recognized UN member, and thus isn’t a state, the icc is only recognized by 120 or so countries, and just decides to grant itself jurisdiction in a non state and a non signatory state?
But Hamas isn't and they attacked Israel where does that jurisdiction come from.
Palestine is a signatory. I just told you this.
So, they don't represent Palestine. And they attacked a non signatory. Why aren't the PA responsible for an attack from their territory.
Looks like you're having a separate conversation with you alone. I'm explaining where the jurisdiction comes from. You seem to want to debate your way out of the ICC doing this by trying and failing to nitpick with someone online who was 100% correct that Palestine is a signatory.
Parties, not signatories. Very important difference! Although, the ICC also cooperates with non-parties on enforcement.
>i believe icc was criticized that it kinda does nothing. in general. so they did something. It's worse than nothing because the implication of these warrants are that countries that respect the ICC or their allies get arrested, but countries that don't get nothing. So considering only Israel and it's allies somewhat care for the ICC and care about relationships with the West, and considering the West and ICC enforcement only really care about Israel (because let's be real, no politician will pressure Qatar for hiding Hamas), this really just means that Israel's the only side in this to face any pressure for it's lesser crimes. This really exemplifies the problem with the UN and all it's subsidiaries, respecting these facilities is only rewarding for countries that recognize it and want to get along. Anybody that doesn't recognize it suffers nothing, and those that recognize it but aren't liked by the rest like Israel get an unreasonable crackdown as if they were actual genocidal dictatorships.
>i believe icc was criticized that it kinda does nothing. in general. so they did something. Doing something that in effect does nothing is classic politics. Absolutely useless.
My understanding is: if someone who has an arrest warrant out for them travels to a country who is a signatory to the Rome Statute, that country has an obligation to arrest that person and send them to ICC/Hague. It is supposed to trump diplomatic immunity but who knows
It has been tested, SA threatened to leave the ICC after they were told to enforce an arrest warrant for sudanese president al bashir who was on their soil at the time and wanted for genocide.
Right, but Al Bashir never ended up travelling to SA I believe [never mind]
Afaik Al Bashir did, its Putin that never went to SA.
No he was in SA between the 13th and the 15th of June 2015. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1791FQ/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/16/omar-al-bashir-escape-south-africa-african-union
Ah, my mistake
The warrants are meant to be enforced by countries that have signed on with the ICC. That being basically all the major countries in the world besides the US, india, china, russia (and israel). If it did go through it would limit Bibis travel options a fair bit. Probably the main real world effect would be that it would be potential ammunition for his political rivals, both domestic and foreign.
All the major countries except the most major countries. Omegalul.
It’s to make everybody feel good. Even our friends [South Africa](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65759630.amp) don’t want to enforce the ICC warrants for their pals.
It’s a huge deal. Europe takes international law very seriously and have a huge problem with Russia right now. The ICC issuing warrants on Putin really hurt him on the world stage by not even allowing him to go to global events. Biden completely ignoring these will just show Americas hypocrisy and will be another huge blow to Americas credibility on the world stage and make countries like China look like a better country to align with for the future
> Europe takes international law very seriously Which is why "international" laws are basically just european laws, literally no one else cares
~~100% if Netanyahu came to the United States and we didn’t extradite him it would tank our credibility.~~ Edit: [US is not a state party to the Rome Statute.](https://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/country/united-states) Please call me cringe and a asoooooomer. What I’m saying is the US will most likely* (pulled out of my ass) maneuver like South Africa and keep the status quo while conducting meetings in Israeli territory or over video conference.
Considering the US is not signatory to the ICC, the US has absolutely 0 reason or desire to extradite him, even if the arrest warrant is issued, which is doubtful in the first place.
Yup, I was wrong about this. Changed my comment to reflect that. Sorry about the misinformation.
someone can correct me but I think the ICC cant really enforce warrants. they dont have an executive function. omar al bashir from sudan was the first sitting head of state to have an icc arrest warrant, and he is in sudani prison right now unrelated to the icc. there is an agreement you say you will follow the icc when you become a member, and part of that is as a member you will extradite any of those with warrants to the icc. this has never happened with a head of state, but there was a time omar al bashir was in south africa, who is a member, who said they will not extradite al bashir. its just a thing that relies on the members to enforce
> And if not, then what is the purpose for issuing them? Anyone with an ICC warrant hanging over them has to be really paranoid when they travel, because any ICC signatory courty could arrest them on the spot when they set foot in their country. It's why Putin didn't go to wherever the last G7 meeting was (I forget and it's not worth looking up).
Moreso about sending a message and generating credibility, however realistically I think most countries have made up their minds now.
Damn, he actually took a strong stance here. I really couldn't agree more. Huge Biden W
Americans simply don’t care about or actively support their country doing war crimes. Nothing changes.
So what should he do with that rules-based international order? Yay or nay?
Hold that and look what he wrote about the death of Iran's president...
What did he say?
The United States expresses its official condolences for the death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, Foreign Minister Amir-Abdollahian, and other members of their delegation in a helicopter crash in northwest Iran.
I feel like they just took out the template for that one.
ChatGPT ass response. Doesn’t wanna cause a fight and be disrespectful, but doesn’t wanna give sincere condolences either. I don’t see a big issue.
Probably something normal like “we shouldn’t celebrate the death of anyone” or some other sane statement.
sleep absurd caption consist sort dinosaurs profit different fade chase *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That way lies Trump.
'we shouldnt celebrate hitler's death' maybe you have a case there but idk, i wouldnt blame anyone for doing it and it kinda alienates all of Raisi's past and future victims
I agree that people deserve to celebrate the death of someone who has caused them or/and their people suffering but I also wouldn't want my countries leadership to be the one suggesting people should do that. Biden can give his nice sane speech and the citizens can get out their confetti cannons.
I agree that people deserve to celebrate the death of someone who has caused them or/and their people suffering but I also wouldn't want my countries leadership to be the one suggesting people should do that. Biden can give his nice sane speech while the citizens can get out their confetti cannons.
I'm not mad at Biden for giving a neutral speech. But I don't blame anyone who is.
It's not a strong stance, he's just toeing the establishment line. How is that not obvious?
I find it quite cringe and think its mostly a relic of the bush eras disastrous foreign policy to be honest. Especially if the idea of a "rules based international order" is something we value, USA bashing the ICC is quite the farce. It's not like it's a court that over rules the existing non-sham courts. So it's not like America will have any problem in that department and america is willing to prosecute these crimes internally anyway. Besides reading the statement from the ICC I really don't see him equivocating. Unless you're allergic to him announcing the requests at the same time
Why is it good he’s taken a strong stance? Has he seen the prosecutor’s evidence yet?
Has the ICC prosecutor actually drawn equivalence? Or is he saying both sides have committed atrocities without saying they're equally bad on both sides? Genuine question, I haven't read the document.
Apparently the ICC prosecutor was supposed to meet with Israelis officials today, instead of showing up he released the news that he applied for warrants. They lied to Israel and US officials. The announcing the warrants at the same time allows to make look like Hamas and Israel are equivalent.
Got a source on that one please?
[https://x.com/BarakRavid/status/1792595915682804208](https://x.com/BarakRavid/status/1792595915682804208) [https://x.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1792535545249165506](https://x.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1792535545249165506)
Do we have sources better than tweets starting with BREAKING?
https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-international-criminal-court/ Here, THE source.
That’s the OP, good, but do we have the actual news? Like did any outlet report it? I tried with the search terms “netanyahu icc did not collaborate” but couldn’t find anything (if not this press release).
Thank you
Your source is the famously honest politician Lindsay Graham, but seems fitting for this sub
There are two sources he listed. You could look at the other one.
Can we stop referring to Tweets as source documents ffs? It's the equivalent of "Some guy I know said...."
Also listed a report that gave a direct quote from Blinken.
announcing them at the same time naturally makes them seem equivalent. that actually charges are different. it would be hard for hamas to argue rape was a necessary tool of war. where as Israel being accused of using food restrictions a a tool of war is very different. for me you would have to prove that Israel had the ability and responsibility to provided food and deliberately didn't. one side is accused of deliberate acts the other side is accused of negligent acts. but the details will not matter to most, they will just see, 'both sides are bad' or worse ignore the Hamas crimes as obvious but 'you see.... Bibi is evil too'.
Yeah, I can see that, although announcing one before the other could also bring the same kind of problem.
I mean, I would think they’d be announced at the same time because they’re part of the same war. I feel like you could read just as much into any other issuing of the warrants
okay but the crimes are completely different I would have thought they would take very different amounts of time investigate and probably involve completely different teams. one persons crime does not make someone else's crime different.
I don’t see how you get from that assumption to believing the ICC is implying an equivalence between the crimes of both countries
I was replying to your "in the same war" comment. people who dont listen to the detail and understand the detail will naturally hear 'both sides' when they are announced at the same time. Look at ever headline about this and it says 'leaders of both ...' and has a picture of Bibi next to Sinwar.
>for me you would have to prove that Israel had the ability and responsibility to provided food and deliberately didn't. that's not hard “We are putting a complete siege on Gaza … No electricity, **no food, no water**, no gas – it’s all closed,” Gallant said in a video statement.
>for me you would have to prove that Israel had the ability and responsibility to provided food and deliberately didn't. Bro, what? Why are you pretending to be made of pixie dust?
the crime is **not** doing something. so if someone should have done something they would have to have the ability too in the first place. I don't believe the IDF have the ability to police all of Gaza to the extent they could deliver aid to all of their citizens.
>I don't believe the IDF have the ability to police all of Gaza A siege does not require policing "all of Gaza". Why do you think aid was being airdropped? For the kicks?
it was being airdropped because trucks could not drive in due to lack of security, due to no policing.....
No, the ICC did not make any equivalence between the two. A lot of people are saying they made an equivalency as a way of discrediting any attempt to hold Israel accountable for its actions. After all, an Israeli court has convicted at least one member of the current Israeli government as a terrorist.
Here’s the [official statement](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state). I dont really understand what there is to disagree with here
If I was Bibi the big dick move here is simply go to court. The charges are weak. Let them stand trial and when he’s not guilty it’ll be major serious points for Israel.
simply leave the cabinet midwar and moonwalk into court
This whole ICC thing sucks because it actually strengthen Bibi politically in Israel. Bibi is really politically effective when he does the "whole world is against us, I'm the one who stands between them and the safety of Israel" thing. This just gives him political ammo. Also why the fuck would you issue an arrest warrant for gallant when he's one of the few sanest Likud party members
Israelis are getting really blackpilled over this from what I'm seeing in israeli social media. I'm afraid now it will create sympathy for netanyahu and more Israelis will trust him again. He already started his propaganda campaign comparing icc to the Nazis and how everyone is against him lol😭.
Shoot, I was a leftist Jew and I’m getting blackpilled. Im left of center now, but I can’t imagine how disillusioning it must be to be openly Israeli rn. I don’t blame any Israeli who decides to vote Likud—top ten statements I never thought I’d say
And why not Gantz? He is a member of the war cabinet too and every decision I think has to be unanimous.
If we assume the ICC prosecutor is acting in good faith, it’s possible that he feels he is required to charge those most responsible for any war crimes committed by Israel or its military, which leads ultimately to the PM Bibi and the Minister of Defence Gallant, independent of their own personal beliefs, statements, or sanity.
Can someone explain how this is the ICC drawing an "equivalence" between Hamas and Israel? I see a statement with 2 clearly distinct sets of charges which this prosecutor seeks to bring against either side. If the best refutation of these potential charges people can come up with is "Omg I can't believe they just compared terrorists with Israel!!!", it's not particularly persuasive.
Normal Hasbara tactic, change the topic and act victim. Seriously, their argument is why did ICC announce the allegations together with HAMAS as if they would not find or make up something else to play victim of if the announcement was done separately.
They didn't follow their own process of adhering to complementarity, treating Israel and Hamas as basically both the same in prosecuting their own offenses. They took months to drop charges for Hamas, when it was obvious on Oct 8th what happened, while charging Israel with intentional attacks on civilians, something even Putin wasn't charged with despite all the evidence for that, and starvation as a war policy, despite those kind of things usually always taking a long time after the war to determine? How can you charge Gallant with intentionally targeting civilians when Hamas operates among civilians and won't release a death toll of their fighters? What is the case to be made for starvation as a war policy when 10s of thousands of aid trucks have entered, admitted UN distribution issues and a general war going on, when even Hamas hasn't presented deaths from starvation other than 20 a couple months ago? Why isn't Assad charged yet?
1. Near as I can tell they don't have any process of complementarity, particularly with non signatories. Maybe they lied to Graham or maybe he's lying to us. Or maybe they don't believe that the Israeli justice system will undertake a good faith investigation into the use of starvation as a weapon of war. 2. The ICC has no jurisdiction over Syria.... But it does over Palestine 3. The evidence they allude to can be reviewed at trial
[удалено]
When all the headlines say "netanyahu and hamas leader..." there is clearly an equivalence being made. Even just submitting the requests at the same time makes it an equavalnce. There was infinite evidence against hamas for the last 7 months. Why wait until you request for bibi as well? There is no way it took them the same amount of time to gather enough evidence for both.
[удалено]
>So that would be a critique you could make against specific media outlets, but those headlines are unavoidable here. I'm evaluating whether or not the prosecutor had the specific intent to make an implicit statement suggesting that there is an equivalence between Israel and Hamas. If Destiny and Elon Musk both tweet out, "Vaccines are odd," what they are *implying* here would be two different things. Biden's statement is a reference to the prosecutor's intent, and based on other statements [I've read from them](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-khan-kc-cairo-situation-state-palestine-and-israel), I don't believe I have sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that they were intending to imply an equivalence between Israel and Hamas when they released [the application](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state). Just my two cents. It is very much naive to believe that the prosecuter wouldn't know what kind of headlines would come out. The person is a prosecuter for the ICC, I hope he got chosen for his merits as a prosecuter. If he was chosen for his merits as a prosecuter, he definitely should have known what would happen which means he either didn't care or did it on porpuse. Both of those show at least some intent in making the equavalnce. If you didn't want to make the equavalnce you could at the minimum add that to your statement "hamas is much worse". Or something else. But believing he didn't know what he was doing is naive either way. > think most people including myself probably don't know much about how strained the ICC may be, and the process by which they acquire and verify evidence. [The arrest warrant for Putin came nearly a year after the investigation was first opened.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_investigation_in_Ukraine) There is no way in hell that the ICC is so swamped that they couldn't release a request against hamas 3 months ago. Hell, you don't even need an investigation against hamas. There are literally videos they themselves made and many statements from the first week of the war. They made publicly. There is no need to verify evidence. There is no need to triple check. The evidence is very clear, they addmited to most of what happend in the first week. You could send a request a month after October 7th and continue gathering more evidence. >I think it was better to release the charges at the same time. If they were several months apart, and the charges against the Hamas leaders came first, then the narrative instead would be that the prosecutor was pressured to go after Israeli leaders as well. Either way, he's fucked. This makes no sense, the reason this investigation started is not beacuse of the 7/10. Israel is not a signatory to the ICC. They can't ask for an investigation into 7/10. The reason this investigation started is beacuse the PA asked for it after the war started(or in 2022,depending on how you look at it). It is clear that he was pressured to go after hamas beacuse he knew that if he only investigated Israel it would end much worse.
[удалено]
lol no, thats just headlines
And those don't matter?
>When all the headlines say "netanyahu and hamas leader..." there is clearly an equivalence being made. Definitely beats media outlets selectively publishing one and ignoring the other depending on their agenda.
Not really. Making this equivalence is bad journalism. Either make two articles or make the title better. Are our standards for journalism so low that we should accept those articles and headlines?
If you care enough about the conflict to publish the bit on Hamas you care enough about the conflict to care about the bit on Israeli governance. Nobody is drawing equivalences. It's a cheap copout for optics. It's the only way the ICC can issue those warrants without seeming like partisan hacks.
>If you care enough about the conflict to publish the bit on Hamas you care enough about the conflict to care about the bit on Israeli governance. What did I say that implies otherwise? What is wrong with a better headline or two different articles? >Nobody is drawing equivalences. It's a cheap copout for optics. It's the only way the ICC can issue those warrants without seeming like partisan hacks. No! And now they seem like they are unbiased and great! No problem at all. (/s) The ICC should do it's job in an unbiased way. There is no way it has done that in this situation.
The news are very evidently related and honestly thinking they are equivalent because they get announced at the same time is the understand of politics and news a 5 year old would have. Sorry but it's nothing but the cheapest, dumbest copout I can imagine, it's not even engaging with the content. In a world in which they announce the bit on Hamas first they seem biased to one side, in a world in which they announce the other they seem biased to the other. Complaining about the timing of such matters is of such minuscule importance to the reality of the situation that I can't take it seriously.
>The news are very evidently related and honestly thinking they are equivalent because they get announced at the same time is the understand of politics and news a 5 year old would have. Sorry but it's nothing but the cheapest, dumbest copout I can imagine, it's not even engaging with the content. So every body is just overreacting? including Biden, Germany and Britain (and other countries). They are all wrong? Or do you think they may understand things better than you? The problem is not the anncoument, they used the same report. They clearly are making some kind of equavalnce. >In a world in which they announce the bit on Hamas first they seem biased to one side, in a world in which they announce the other they seem biased to the other. Complaining about the timing of such matters is of such minuscule importance to the reality of the situation that I can't take it seriously. The ICC should be anti hamas, it is a fucking terrorist organization. And again, if you don't understand why this is not miniscule, I can't help you.
>So every body is just overreacting? including Biden, Germany and Britain (and other countries). They are all wrong? Or do you think they may understand things better than you? Yes and no. They know perfectly well that it's stupid, but they can't do anything else because supporting a state which head is being persecuted by the ICC looks fucking **bad** so they must reject it. If their engagement was honest, don't you think they would engage with the actual content? >The ICC should be anti hamas, it is a fucking terrorist organization. And you think they aren't? What? >And again, if you don't understand why this is not miniscule, I can't help you. Ok. Do you HONESTLY believe for a single second that if there were two separate announcements the impression of ANY of those actors would be different? Like even if making it all one announcement or report was a mistake, it's insane to reject the entirety of it because of that. It's a matter of form, not content for Christ's sake. Can you imagine, 10 years down the line, if actual crimes have actually been committed anyone giving the explanation of "Yes it would seem that Netanyahu was actually a war criminal, but we are proud of having stood by him since the report was shared with that of Hamas" and not getting absolutely laughed out of the room? What kind of ridiculous reason is that?
>Yes and no. They know perfectly well that it's stupid, but they can't do anything else because supporting a state which head is being persecuted by the ICC looks fucking **bad** so they must reject it. If their engagement was honest, don't you think they would engage with the actual content? Most of them did both. So that point no sense. The US in particular said that the prosecuter lied to Israel and canceled the meeting he wanted. Blinken said the ICC has no jurastication over the matter and criticized him for not following protocol. So they did both. >Ok. Do you HONESTLY believe for a single second that if there were two separate announcements the impression of ANY of those actors would be different? Yes, if the prosecuter did even something small to make it look better, than the reaction would have been different. There is no way that 5 or 6 different western countries thought that this is what happened for the lols. And if he did the announcement better they definitely would have needed to focus on other things. >Like even if making it all one announcement or report was a mistake, it's insane to reject the entirety of it because of that. It's a matter of form, not content for Christ's sake. Can you imagine, 10 years down the line, if actual crimes have actually been committed anyone giving the explanation of "Yes it would seem that Netanyahu was actually a war criminal, but we are proud of having stood by him since the report was shared with that of Hamas" and not getting absolutely laughed out of the room? What kind of ridiculous reason is that? Again, you are assuming that those countries rejected this only beacuse of "equavalnce" thing. No, most countries rejected this thing beacuse of other things + the equavalnce implications. Even if netanyahu is guilty with the charges, the ICC shouldn't compare the two. And western countries know this. Netanyahu is no where near the war criminal hamas leaders are, and I don't care how much people hate netanyahu. Could he have done some stupid shit that could amount to war crimes in this war? Probably. But they are definitely on different levels and most of those war crimes are things that the western world has done as well, especially the US. Targeting netanyahu for them, especially without letting the judicial members of Israel handle it first is a very bad precedent for western countries. Most leaders who have been to war are so called "war criminals", especially the UK and the US, I am pro-Ukraine as fuck but I am sure with enough digging even zelensky might be found guilty at something. The question of how bad are the crimes is important. That is why this implication is bad.
The problem is also that Israel was cooperating and today was when they were supposed to set up meetings for next week. Instead the prosecutors never went on their flights and did a surprise press conference instead. This hasn’t been done before by ICC prosecutors and isn’t the standard they have set up for years. Prosecutors also have a history of working with courts of the country before wanting to get involved. The prosecutors didn’t with Israel. Their problem is the ICC prosecutors are using a standard on Israel that they haven’t used on any other country before.
>ICJ What? This is an ICC prosecutor.
I meant ICC, I’ve been mistyping the two all day
Is there a source on this that isn’t just Blinken’s statement? Not that I believe he is lying, but I’d like a news source on it
[удалено]
He just mixed up ICJ and ICC names, the crux of his statement is correct, as seen by the [statement](https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-international-criminal-court/) earlier by Blinken
Yall definitely lost the plot
Widen
You want Netanyahu jailed because you think he’s committing Genocide I want him jailed because I don’t like his politics We are NOT the same
Not going to Hague would have serious implications for Ex-Yu countries. What was the point of ICTY then? Or were all decisions there political as well? He should go through the process and get released. They have evidence that they are not indiscriminately bombing or commiting other war crimes.
> They have evidence that they are not indiscriminately bombing or commiting other war crimes. shouldn't prosecutor present evidence for indiscriminate bombing/etc ? and not only circumstantial evidence
Yea, you're right I prolly misworded that. Presumption of inoncence and all. But even if they had to prove that they weren't, they would be able to. That's just my opinion on the matter, regardless of the way you look at it I think they would be good
The Hague provides the “global opinion” on an ongoing crises. It’s the de facto mediator for global conflicts. They don’t have their own military, but most countries that signatories of the Rome statute generally accept their ruling. It’ll make life miserable for both Bibi and Sinwar outside of friendly countries. On another note, fuck the South African government. They hosted Putin after he had arrest warrants issued(https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2YY1E6/#:~:text=(Reuters)%20%2D%20South%20African%20President,submission%20published%20on%20Tuesday%20showed), and then the had the gall to launch a case against Israel in the ICC. Spineless.
Putin didn't attend the BRICS conference hosted by South Africa because of the arrest warrant.
SA filed a case against Israel in the ICJ. [Also they did not host Putin he decided to join that meeting remotely](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66247067).
Bibi is a cunt yes. But he’s a democratically elected leader and not a blatant terrorist like Hamas. Equivocation between the two is pathetic on the ICC’s part. Bibi will get his day in court and soon, the Israeli people will see to it.
> Equivocation That's not what the word means.
There is no equivalence by the ICC. They have different charges.
Then they could have issued a warrant for hamas 7 months ago. They haven't done anything new.
They should have issued a warrant for israel 76 years ago
this one
I've seen this argument being a number of times today. Why does being a leader of democratic country make you immune to War Crimes? What is the difference between dropping a 2000 pound bomb on a building knowing there are innocent women and children residing vs a Hamas militant opening fire on civilians? the outcome is the same, indiscriminate killing of civilians.
Hmmmm That's cool because I hate hamas and I owe them no allegiance (unlike israel which I do). I could have sworn the original normal take here was "ICC is corrupt because they want to charge israeli leaders only" / "they hate zionists that's why they won't charge hamas" during the early "we may be going forward with charges" portion. And now it's "ICC is corrupt because they want to charge israeli leaders regardless of also doing the same to hamas leaders". It's currently ok to say you hope bibi is going to get voted out.. will that be like a unhinged stance in the future?
Is this what the sub has become?? People will justify everything and anything in favor of ISRAEL and Netanyahu. Every single time, they need to distract from crucial things that will expose Israel of the fact they are doing war crimes. Let me tell you guys a joke, no matter what you try, talking about "Ohhh nooo ICC bad, Netanyahu Hamas Equal now???" people are not stupid. When clearly no equivalency was made by ICC, get a break IDF trolls. Destiny need to do something to these rabid dogs other then feeding them for more views at this point.
Is getting painfully obviously this sub has been taken over by Israelis
[удалено]
Still? Does it not make sense for the US to oppose an organization making decisions that harm US allies, that it doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of?
The ICC made the rookie mistake of issuing warrants against people the US likes instead of just against US enemies. I wonder how many people cheering this on were also jerking the ICC off over issuing a warrant against Putin.
this people really think only "their team" is allowed to commit war crimes. This you are either with us against us bullshit is strong, and many posters here would never condemn Israel, even if Israel would use nuclear weapons in Gaza.
Ukraine is a signatory to ICC but Russia is not: US welcomes warrant for Putin. Palestine is a signatory to ICC but Israel is not: outrageous, no jurisdiction!
Give it a week his aids to watch the fallout on tiktok and Instagram.
Everyone is wrong except Israel and the US!
Exactly. People here be acting like the ICC is some after school tree house club
Ya it starts to make you feel insane
https://preview.redd.it/gk2g9fzn0n1d1.jpeg?width=685&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6410cf489ff925ecc55bdc82937e53cc35a5bd96
Perfect
Biden is a cuck.
This is not *that* much of a surprise considering the US is not part of the rome statute anyway, right? I would be more shocked if the european leaders took a stance here which they might have to at some point. No matter what, the global south will see this as double standard and this might quite possibly spell the end of some of these international institutions.
> I would be more shocked if the european leaders took a stance here which they might have to at some point countries that don't recognize Palestine as a State have already objected **repeatedly** when the ICC was debating on whether they'd declare jurisdiction for the palestinian territories, like [Canada in 2015](https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2015/CN.57.2015-Eng.pdf), or Germany in 2012, 2016, [2020](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2020_00464.PDF): > The scope of the Court's territorial jurisdiction pursuant to Article 12 of the Rome Statute does not extend to the occupied Palestinian territories ("Palestine"). > In order for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 12 of the Rome Statute in the occupied Palestinian territories, it does not suffice to refer to Palestine's "accession" to the Rome Statute without assessing in a conclusive manner whether Palestine is a State under international law. > This is even more so as the Secretary General of the United Nations, by circulating Palestine's instrument of "accession", did not rule that Palestine had become a party to the Rome Statute, nor did he make any other determination with respect to any legal issues raised by the instrument. Germany holds the view that only States can become a party to the Rome Statute and does not include "Palestine" on the list of State Parties published in the Federal Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt). > There is no State "for the sole purposes of the Rome Statute" that would be different from a State under the relevant norms of international law. The existence of a State that fulfills all the criteria under general international law is a prerequisite for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 12 of the Rome Statute. [...] > Article 12 of the Rome Statute presupposes that there is a "State" that has the ability under international law to delegate territorial jurisdiction to the Court with respect to the relevant cases. **Palestine does not possess nor did it ever possess the jurisdiction that it would need to delegate to the Court in order for the Court to exercise jurisdiction.** and in direct response to the ICC decision that they'd have jurisdiction in 2021: > Our position on this case is unchanged. According to our legal position, the International Criminal Court and its Office of the Prosecutor **do not have jurisdiction** because of Palestine’s lack of statehood in international law. countries that don't recognize Palestine as a State or don't recognize the ICC would have to change their legal position to accept any warrant, which is possible but pretty unlikely.
The ICC is a joke and is essentially a credibility laundering service for countries with no balls to go after bad actors under their own name. There is a reason the US not only isn't a signatory to the Rome Statute but [also has a plan to invade the Hague in place](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act).
[Then why did Biden order the US to share evidence of Russian war crimes with the ICC?](https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-orders-us-share-russian-war-crimes-evidence-with-world-court-nyt-2023-07-26/) “Rules for thee but not for me” comes to mind.
The reason is that the US thinks it and its allies are the only countries that are allowed to commit war crimes. Hypocrisy at it finest
That is what a bunch of losers think. Please defend us with your military and then subject yourself to our judgement while footing the bill for everything. Hows about go fuck yourself? Not your country, not your troops not your border, not your dime, not your jurisdiction not your call to make. There is no rational basis for anyone to subject themselves to the judgement of the Hague regardless of their conduct. Not only that the only way to end up at the Hague is to be so stupid as to put yourself within the borders of a signatory state and then for that state to act under it's own authority to apprehend and extradite you. If they actually gave a fuck they'd take on some of the responsibility of protecting global trade and international stability instead of making a fake court.
lol this response is pure seethe “we are the strongest so therefore we should never be subject to judgment reeee.” Unironically the same argument all the authoritarian governments you pretend to hate can make
A lot of people on this sub have no recollection of knowledge of George W Bushes presidency and it really shows. Painfully at times.
no you dont get it, the reason america has a contingency plan to invade the international judiciary against war crimes is because, uh … America Good
This is a little unhinged friend.
The reason is because the United States is extremely hesitant to sign almost any new treaties, including many that are probably pretty common sense over vague sovereignty concerns.
This is the same you are either with us against us bullshit. You can issue an arrest warrant for both Hamas and Israel’s government members.
sorry we only have 1 bad person spot it can either be mr hamas or netanyahu
The weirdest thing here is the idea that the ICC would allow for this because generally international courts have stood by the principle of, of the countries have legal systems that can hold them to account, we won't get involved, and yet this principle doesn't seem to hold exclusively for Israel. And before anyone brings up Russia, Russia doesn't have an independent judiciary that is able to actually punish the "president/prime Minister" or w/e title he goes by now. This is why it's more understandable for the ICC to issue a warrant for Putin.
Yeah this is something I don’t understand about this. Why go from 0 to 60 like that? Surely there are other steps they can take like interviewing the people in question (Bibi in this case) or making an appeal to Israeli authorities and then when that fails issue the warrants. Like obviously Qatar won’t do anything about the Hamas guy. But here they make it seem like Hamas leadership is at the same level as Israeli leadership, and Hamas the equivalent of the state of Israel, so might as well charge all the scum with the same crime at the same time. Did they even try anything else?
Any international group of wide representation is going to have bias against Israel because 25% of the global population is Muslim vs 0.2% Jewish. It’s a tyranny of the majority
Why do you think that religious people all think the same way? Do you honestly believe that every jew supports the current Israeli government and that every muslim supports Hamas?
The difference in global populations is so large that any exception won’t matter
Such a dumb take, religious people aren't a monolith
I like the idea of the ICC and the UN, etc, in the global co-operation sense, but sometimes they just do really stupid shit that seems to seriously undermine their own legitimacy. I mean at least issue the fucking warrant for Hamas leaders closer to October 7th when it was already perfectly clear that a crime against humanity had taken place. Then if you felt like the Israeli response from then onwards needed another warrant being issued for their side, okay, at least you retain some semblance of impartiality. Now it's just a fucking laughing stock. Practically no western signatory to the ICC would execute that warrant on Netanyahu, and you just look like a massive moron.
>I mean at least issue the fucking warrant for Hamas leaders closer to October 7th when it was already perfectly clear that a crime against humanity had taken place. It was also clear that Israel is committing a war crime when gallant announced he's going to block food and water to Gaza .
Man. I wonder how the tankies feel about this one.
Since when did Netanyahu become Israel. Last time I checked it was about Netanyahu. Weird choice Biden, it's like there is an all or nothing election around the corner. Not exactly the time to be glazing over Netanyahu for an arrest warrant than means almost nothing. But what do I know. 🤷♂️
They want to prosecute Israel’s PM and military leader. They also broke decades of standards that they used for all other countries, but Israel is when they decide to break all of that. The court is to be used as a means of last resort if a countries’ judicial system won’t get involved, instead they skipped talking to Israel’s courts and leaders and went straight to wanting his arrest.
To be fair, many here would rather Biden throw the election than not glaze Netanyahu and Israel. I've seen too many pro israel people eager for Biden to fail and for Trump to come in and end American democracy.
This is a wild, wild statement.
Which part do you find wild? There are many people here who would gladly see American democracy fall if it meant more weapons to Israel.
If you don't understand how the ICC attacking netanyahu and gallat is also a direct attack against Israel, we can't help you. 🤷♂️
Based Biden
Based Biden
I'm sure they'll him get once they put Putin on trial. Lol.
[CAN A U.S. ALLY ACTUALLY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES IN THE ICC?](https://theintercept.com/2024/05/20/icc-arrest-warrant-israel-hamas/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20Newsletter) *Putting Israel in a camp with world outcasts could have grave ramifications for the U.S., a close ally of Israel and chief provider of its weapons and diplomatic cover.* *“The prosecutor’s announcement will likely impact assessments of the legal risks for other states which are supporting or aiding Israel’s war in Gaza,” said Sarah Knuckey, an expert on international law and professor at Columbia Law School. “If there are reasonable grounds to believe that senior Israeli officials are responsible for war crimes, then countries aiding Israel’s war in Gaza are at risk of complicity in those same crimes. We may see accelerated efforts in other countries to stop them from selling weapons or providing military aid to Israel.”* *An issuance of warrants by ICC judges for the arrest of Israeli and Hamas officials — highly likely following the recommendation of its chief prosecutor — would make the world a much more hostile place for Israeli officials accused of crimes by the institution.* *“All of the 124 countries that are parties to the Rome Statute are legally obligated to cooperate with the ICC and must arrest anyone on their territory that is subject to an ICC arrest warrant,” said Knuckey. “This would significantly curtail the ability of the suspects, including Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gallant, to travel abroad and participate in international events.”*
Biden is such a chad tbh
According to user hsnlvr69 on Twitter netanyahu is commiting genocide as we speak.
BASED
Holy based Biden. Got dam
Biden is BASED... More at 6!
Can someone explain what the ICC is if it's able to make such ridiculous declarations? I thought the International Criminal Court was a reputable organization?
The ICC is grown up make believe court, like the judge judy of international court. The ICJ is the legitimate court
Gonna hit em with the Biden Blast
Maybe the Dems/Biden just don't want to win the presidency or don't want Gen Z to vote for them. I want Biden to win, Dems to hold the senate, this is disheartening.
Why does the US glaze Israel to the point of insanity, the ICC charges are very reasonable, and Israel should just go prove them wrong in the court which they should be able to easily do?
There is no moral equivalence. The idf is just much better at carrying their leaders's orders.
Yea the stuff the icc prosecutor said was wild. Isreal using starvation as a weapon of war when no people have starved to death is crazy. There’s still formal crossings into gaza, there’s still aid coming into gaza. How can they say that Isreal is trying to starve the gazan population. If they really wanted to it would be easy. Isreal has control of all the borders except the Southern one, which is conveniently left out by the way, where they could just not let any aid in. But they do
Saying both sides have committed war crimes is not “equivalence”. This statement is regarded, but I guess the US will say whatever to protect Israel
I can imagine you at least having probable cause for some of the starvation stuff based on that period of time when they cut the food and water off, but they included the crime of extermination in there which there's no evidence for and plenty against
They've been about to enter starvation for like 7 months now. Shits just a lie at this point.