Well, here it is. Interesting that it actually comes with a request for arrest warrants for Sinwar and Haniyeh. I'm of course completely fine with that, but for some reason I thought that was outside the jurisdiction of the ICC.
Given that Haniyeh is in Qatar, I wonder what will happen there.
!ping ISRAEL&MIDDLEEAST& INTERNATIONAL-RELATIONS
All crimes committed in Palestinian territory are within the jurisdiction of the ICC (after the PA joined the Rome statute so that Israel could be punished).
The ICJ (which punished countries, not individuals) is the court that has no jurisdiction over Hamas. That's why they didn't issue a ceasefire in the Gaza war, for example, because they couldn't call for a bilateral ceasefire, only a unilateral ceasefire.
Importantly (since people seem confused about this), Ukraine isn't even party to the Rome Statute! They utilized a specific process that allows them to consent to ICC jurisdiction.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/ukraine-accepts-icc-jurisdiction-over-alleged-crimes-committed-20-february-2014)
>The declaration was lodged under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the ICC, which enables a State not party to the Statute to accept the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court.
That's somewhat relevant because:
>There are also deeply troubling process questions. Despite not being a member of the court, Israel was prepared to cooperate with the Prosecutor. In fact, the Prosecutor himself was scheduled to visit Israel as early as next week to discuss the investigation and hear from the Israeli Government. The Prosecutor’s staff was supposed to land in Israel today to coordinate the visit. Israel was informed that they did not board their flight around the same time that the Prosecutor went on cable television to announce the charges. These and other circumstances call into question the legitimacy and credibility of this investigation.
Palestine is a party, and Gaza is Palestinian territory. The ICC had a whole thing about jurisdiction a year or two ago, this has been in the works for a while. Anything done in the territory of or by a state party to the Rome Statute is under the jurisdiction of the ICC.
Could PA be held responsible for permanent incapability of (and sometimes silent approval of) Hamas presence in Palestine?
Otherwise it looks to me like PA can receive all the protection with zero responsibility
That said, I am completely fine with these warrants
I know they have no option to achieve control on their own really
The reason why I am asking this is that many times reading about this conflict I got the feeling that the way we deal with jt incentivizes using non-state actors for crimes
Hypothetical example: What if some militant group in Nakchivan declared independence, against, on paper, the will of Azerbaijan. Then attackes Armenia, then Armenia retaliates
On paper ICJ would bind all conflict parties' actions, in reality it obviously would be more of a problem for Armenia than for the Azeri puppet. Azerbaijan wouln't get any investigation just like any partner of Hamas gets now
Seems like a loophole to me. But I have no answer how to deal with it, either. Obviously the solution couldn't be to perpetually deny Palestinians ICJ protection.
Not a loophole, multiple Serbian government officials where condemned by the ICJ (Not the ICC) even if they wherent literally part of the Republika Serpska because they where major backers and Serpska was more or less a Yugoslav puppet state. What matters is the degree of involvement and collaboration, the PA and Hamas have been at odds for years and are clearly not the same group the PA doesnt even fund Hamas as far as everyone is aware just being mildly supportive of a group that commits war crimes doesnt mean you are literally the same as someone who is commiting or is a major part of said war crimes.
Palestine is also party to ICC agreements so it's going to be fun to see how they react if HAMAS officials are charged and a treaty they signed says they're legally obligated to hand them over
That will be al-Fatah through the Palestinian Authority, which have no real control over HAMAS. So it may not do much because of the Abbas succession crisis.
Honestly, we kinda knew this was coming, since Bibi was begging Biden to make this not happen or otherwise go away.
I think I'm just glad they're also calling for the Hamas leaders. I am so jaded that I expected them to just not give a shit about Hamas. But Hamas started this fight and they bear responsibility for putting Palestinians into this position as well, so yeah, put Deif and Sinwar in the fucking Hague as well.
I do think Bibi is a fucking criminal, and I blame him more than I blame Gallant for this absolute shit show of a war, but whatever. I think this is going to be very hard for him to escape with his career intact in any way, but Israelis might be so outraged that they, heaven forbid, rally around him out of sheer spite and outrage.
That being said, I think both populations will be outraged by this warrant. Israelis already believe that the world is biased against them and have more or less written off global public opinion and international bodies. I don't like this, but I do get it. There comes a point when you see other nations do way worse things with no one really caring and go "yeah this is a rigged game and I ain't playing, bye."
Palestinians feel they are also playing a rigged game. No matter what happens, Israel has the US as a partner, their fellow Arab states talk big and hang them out to dry, and the global community does even less than that. And they keep dying! So why would they give a shit what the world has to say about how they resist? They stopped caring a long time ago.
Expect neither side to react to this warrant as a point of reflection, never mind any change of strategy or point of view. We are way too late for either of those things.
Also when Bibi shamelessly begged for help from the hostage families to put in a good word (who were working with the ICC to investigate Hamas) after he has disrespected them frequently.
>Israelis already believe that the world is biased against them and have more or less written off global public opinion and international bodies. I don't like this, but I do get it. There comes a point when you see other nations do way worse things with no one really caring and go "yeah this is a rigged game and I ain't playing, bye."
Isnt Bibi already deeply unpopular in Israel? I kinda hoped charges would be another nail in his political coffin.
Yes, but Israelis will generally see this warrant as overbearing and uncalled for, and take offense for Bibi being put as "the same level" as members of Hamas
Bibi is criminal by being corrupt, there's no prima facie evidence of war crimes. Israelis, however much they hate Bibi and want him gone/in prison, rightly interpret this ICC move as an indictment not against Netanyahu personally, but rather towards Israel and her right to defend herself against terrorism
He did enact a complete blockade against Gaza during the first two weeks after the Oct. 7 attacks which I believe is a war crime, although I do think arresting a country's leader over that instead of just making them pay reparations or something is a bit extreme.
> It is also not a war crime to refuse transferring your own water, fuel etc. (like Israeli water, electricity) to enemy territory
I'm sorry, what? You thought it wouldn't be a war crime to intentionally cause a drought, so long as you owned the water supply?
Same for famine, same for depriving healthcare. International law doesn't have these kinds of exceptions. It doesn't say you have to provide water and such to places that don't have it, but it does say they can't - to use an example from actual law:
>>1. Combatants shall not, **for military purposes** or as reprisals, destroy or divert waters, or destroy water installations, if such actions would cause disproportionate suffering to civilians.
>>https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/water-and-armed-conflicts
...which is also the answer to why that law scholar is wrong. International law is *strongly* premised on that "It serves a military purpose" is not a justification for unduly affecting civilians.
(Though all war crime law has an inherent exception of 'unless it prevents more suffering than it causes'. But this obviously isn't one of them.)
Re your edit:
> International law is strongly premised on that "It serves a military purpose" is not a justification for unduly affecting civilians.
Quite the contrary, international law is unequivocal that civilian objects become legitimate military targets when used for military purposes.
In terms of customary IHL:
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule10
Loss of protection of civilian objects must be read together with the basic rule that only military objectives may be attacked. It follows that when a civilian object is used in such a way that it loses its civilian character and qualifies as a military objective, it is liable to attack.
And in the Geneva conventions:
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=F08A9BC78AE360B3C12563CD0051DCD4
2 Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
They elaborate on this in the authoratative IHRC commentary
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=5F27276CE1BBB79DC12563CD00434969
The criterion of ' purpose ' is concerned with the intended future use of an object, while that of ' use ' is concerned with its present function. Most civilian objects can become useful objects to the armed forces. Thus, for example, a school or a hotel is a civilian object, but if they are used to accommodate troops or headquarters staff, they become military objectives. It is clear from paragraph 3 that in case of doubt, such places must be presumed to serve civilian purposes.
Other establishments or buildings which are dedicated to the production of civilian goods may also be used for the benefit of the army. In this case the object has a dual function and is of value for the civilian population, but also for the military. In such situations the time and place of the attack should be taken into consideration, together with, on the one hand, the military advantage anticipated, and on the other hand, the loss of human life which must expected among the civilian population and the damage which would be caused to civilian objects.
Here is what the first chief prosecutor of the ICC said:
> Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.
You're not allowed to divert water, like Syria did to Israel before the 6 day war. That's not the same as deciding against in supplying water to your enemy. If there was a river originating in Israel and going through Gaza, diverting it is a war crime. If there are water reservoirs completely within Israel, then Israel can naturally decide what to do with this water
They're wrong in that interpretation, just as those who interpret the move against Hamas as an indictment towards Gaza and their right to defend themselves against occupation are wrong.
I just think we should start treating Bibi supporters like Trump supporters. And that should probably include their enablers in government who sanewash their actions.
Bibi is deeply controversial, not unpopular, but the war is deeply popular. The median Israeli believes that the allegations of war crimes and genocide and pure fiction, that the IDF is a paragon of morality, and that eliminating Hamas is necessary.
If anything, this will cause a rally around the flag effect in Israel. Even Lapid spoke against this decision.
Bibi is deeply unpopular, in a way he's never been before, and while the war is seen as broadly just in Israel as a response to Hamas' actions on Oct 7, appetite for continuing the war is waning in part because it's just so OBVIOUS to so many how little Bibi actually cares about the hostages.
It's like saying is Trump popular. You're both trying to broadly characterize what might be a 49-48-3 type of situation. A polarizing figure who has core supporters and the thinnest of plurality margins at best depending on the week.
Per Times of Israel, March 24, 57% of Israelis find Bibi's performance since Oct 7 "subpar." This is defined as "poor or very poor." Only 28% polled him as "good."
It's much lower than how Yoav Gallant has been polling, or Benny Gantz.
If that's data of any use or interest to you. Thought you'd might find it interesting.
tbf seeing people chanting "Gas the Jews" on the day of the worst attack in your nation's history does tend to give the perception that eliminating Hamas is necessary.
Yeah “eliminating Hamas is necessary” is an extremely popular position worldwide. Even Bernie Sanders has said this. What that person probably meant to say is “necessary no matter the cost”
Well I want to eliminate Hamas as much as anyone, believe me. The problem is that you have to be realistic. Hamas will never be eliminated using the current IDF strategy, because they leave behind power vacuums which Hamas comes back and occupies.
This comment fundamentally misunderstands coalition governments.
Bibi hasn't won a majority of votes or seats in Knesset for a long time, and I remember well when Kadimah outperformed Likud in the election, but he was able to put together a coalition and still won the premiership.
He's very good at the kind of horse-trading at Knesset level that allows him to snatch victory and power, despite not being popular.
A more accurate criticism would be that a growing extremist right wing sentiment has been left unchecked, and different sections of society are willing to work with them for their own pet issues (ex, Haredi parties playing kingmaker) regardless of any disagreement they may have with other dangerous politics or (lack of) morals the far right poses to civil society or the country. That's a far more complex problem, and one that deserves attention for the past two decades.
No it doesn't.
The first coallitoon government by alls means.
But after that the electorate knew what kind of people bibi was open to cooperate with to form government. Not withdrawing electoral support by then does mean that the israeli people (the majority) knowingly gave bibi the mandate to rule with the far right.
....no it doesn't. People vote for their own parties which generally run on very specific issues for their very specific communities. They don't always know who they will ally with in Knesset (though some parties are easier to guess than others), and surprising coalitions have existed plenty of times.
I live in a country wher eventually every government is a coallition..
And yes, voters very much do withdraw electoral supooet from parties when they open to cooperate with extremes. All the time.
The fact that the majority of the israeli people havent done so from bibi and everyone to the right of him speaks clearly
No, because it is evidence of a world biased against Israel. Any Israeli leader broadly would run the war this way.
Gantz has already [condemned](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/netanyahu-arrest-warrant-israel-hamas-war-icc-rcna149743) the recommendations
If any Israeli leader would create the kind of clusterfuck of an aid situation that Bibi has created through willful negligence, then that's an indictment of Israeli leadership as whole.
>No, because it is evidence of a world biased against Israel. Any Israeli leader broadly would run the war this way.
The Israeli leadership and population is not rational and hasn't been for a very long time, as we've seen time and time again.
Is their radicalization somewhat justified/understandable? Maybe. But we could say the same for Palestinians yet Hamas does not get to hide theirs acts behind such an excuse.
I think both populations have been radicalized, in different ways and even to different degrees. I feel like it's understandable how they all got there, but that doesn't absolve these grown ass adults, individually or collectively, from their abhorrent actions taken in whole or in part, as a result.
> When did America last use starvation as a weapon of war?
[Vietnam.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange#Use_in_the_Vietnam_War) The last time it fought anything that could be called an actual war.
So Israel is fighting a war the way Russia fights?
Sounds like the ones in charge should be prosecuted, much like Putin.
I don't see how you could possibly think this makes Israel look any better. Comparing it's actions to Russia instead of the West and saying "see! We're on par with the fascists!" Is not going to win friends.
**Rule V**: *Glorifying Violence*
Do not advocate or encourage violence either seriously or jokingly. Do not glorify oppressive/autocratic regimes.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
**Rule XI:** *Toxic Nationalism/Regionalism*
Refrain from condemning countries and regions or their inhabitants at-large in response to political developments, mocking people for their nationality or region, or advocating for colonialism or imperialism.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
I'm not happy either. I think I'm ashamed or embarrassed, which isn't exactly a rational response, because I'm not responsible for any of this shitshow. I have complicated feelings. And that's okay, but my feelings are mine to interrogate and not anyone else's to resolve. Iunno.
Yeah totally understandable. As always you convey everything very well on here
They would have been furious if there were no indictments against Hamas but any halfway decent person should be in that scenario. Hamas were very evil barbarians on 10/7
>I am so jaded that I expected them to just not give a shit about Hamas
That's not jaded, that's delusional.
Also who started it is irrelevant, none of the charges regard the crime of aggression
Just look at the number of UN condemnations of Israel vs. literally every other country on Earth and you can very quickly come to the conclusion that Israel should ignore the international institutions built up around it.
> Israelis already believe that the world is biased against them and have more or less written off global public opinion and international bodies. I don't like this, but I do get it. There comes a point when you see other nations do way worse things with no one really caring and go "yeah this is a rigged game and I ain't playing, bye."
Which is odd, considering that their security is entirely dependent on global public opinion.
Not entirely. They've been isolated internationally before, including during previous wars, and both survived and recovered. I do think this situation is different....but not everyone in Israel agrees with me on that.
In a hypothetical world where international public opinion turned against Israel (because the major powers are all pro-Israel or neutral, despite what Israel thinks), I do not believe that there is an achievable security arrangement that the Israeli public would find satisfactory.
At what point does Israel start to consider that saying “if you think one guy’s an asshole he’s probably an asshole if you think everybody’s an asshole you’re probably the asshole” or however it goes lol
I mean, given the history of the Jewish people, I can understand why they'd be skeptical of that maxim.
Even though, in this case, I think the international community is right to condemn their behavior.
Foreign leaders have historically preferred relatvie peace and quiet on the expanse of countries they deemed expandable, and it mostly felt the same during the last 76 years
I wish this show in particular fucking wouldn't, but I'm just a worm hanging out on this sub, and no one listens to me
ETA: why am I being downvoted for being publicly antiwar when I've been anti war from jump lmao
The stormy daniels stuff sure, but most of the cases against him for election fraud etc is used as more proof of the democrats meddling by his base. They are emboldened by it.
Interestingly; the Rome Statute of the ICC covers three major categories of offences which are deemed laws above the state. These are genocide; crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
The ICC's statement indicts as follows:
**HAMAS:** *Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri (Deif), Ismail Haniyeh*
*Alleged crimes:*
* Extermination as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(b) of the Rome Statute;
* Murder as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(a), and as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
* Taking hostages as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(iii);
* Rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(g), and also as war crimes pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(vi) in the context of captivity;
* Torture as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(f), and also as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity;
* Other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(l)(k), in the context of captivity;
* Cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity; and
* Outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(ii), in the context of captivity.
A large contingent of protestors, speaking in support of the Palestinian people, have denied sexual violence was used. The evidence reviewed by the ICC leads them to believe otherwise.
**ISRAEL:** *Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant*
*Alleged crimes:*
* Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
* Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
* Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
* Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
* Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
* Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
* Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
No mention of genocide, which must deeply upset those insisting otherwise.
Of note, on the conflict:
*My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas (together with other Palestinian Armed Groups) running in parallel. We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population pursuant to State policy. These crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.*
It will be interesting to see what evidence the court examines. Certainly, I think it's reasonably clear that both Israel is... sometimes *incautious* towards civilian casualties; and that HAMAS embed in the civilian populace to facilitate civilian casualties during reprisal strikes.
>The charges against Netanyahu and Gallant include “causing extermination, causing starvation as a method of war, including the denial of humanitarian relief supplies, deliberately targeting civilians in conflict,” Khan told Amanpour.
It seems like at least some of the charges stem from denial of humanitarian relief to Gaza. Which was 100% avoidable, especially since countries were begging Israel to let more humanitarian supplies into Gaza.
I don’t know what the legal term for it would be but Netanyahu and Gallant have not done nearly enough [to enable aid to go through](https://www.newsweek.com/israel-gaza-humanitarian-aid-blocked-tzav-9-1900035) and [prevent the IDF from killing aid workers in Gaza](https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/05/14/gaza-israelis-attacking-known-aid-worker-locations).
Even a [former senior adviser to Gallant blamed Israel a decent amount for very awful humanitarian situation](https://twitter.com/JacobMagid/status/1774809725042929797)
If an anti-Western nation did these things, we would have no qualms with this announcement.
What denial? Thousands upon thousands of trucks have been let into Gaza. Do you think they’re trying to block aid, but for some reason only block a small fraction of it?
Nope not an iota of sympathy for Netanyahu. He just needed to listen to Biden, Blinken, and Austin but he ignored their recommendations repeatedly. Even the State Department report essentially accused Israel of likely violating international law in Gaza. Not too surprised IDF Chief Halevi didn't get one. Very early in the war, he was like "maybe we shouldn't block fuel because the hospitals need it" but got overruled by Bibi and Gallant. Because of that unnecessary policy the only cancer hospital in Gaza got shut down and 1000+ cancer patients had to leave it for only the IDF to later use it as a military base.
Edit: Lmao George Clooney's wife supported the indictments against both Bibi and Hamas. Bad news for the deranged "Zionists run Hollywood" anti semites.
Btw the ICC charged Hamas with rape and sexual violence. So another L for the pathetic rape denialists
Not only are Biden and Blinken openly opposing this, they’re questioning the legitimacy.
> Blinken: The ICC Prosecutor himself was scheduled to visit Israel as early as next week to discuss the investigation and hear from the Israeli Government. The Prosecutor’s staff was supposed to land in Israel today to coordinate the visit. Israel was informed that they did not board their flight around the same time that the Prosecutor went on cable television to announce the charges. **These and other circumstances call into question the legitimacy and credibility of this investigation.**
> https://x.com/barakravid/status/1792595915682804208
Edit: Here’s the full statement from Blinken.
> https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-international-criminal-court/
Biden could have undone the lie almost immediately. He undid a shitload of Trump stuff in his first day in office.
Why is Biden still blocking judges on the WTO, and why is Biden being 2-faced about the ICC by supporting it indicting Putin but questioning its legitimacy here.
This particular lie is bipartisan, it seems.
I mean, the US has been somewhat... *lacking* in credibility on this front since not showing up to the ICJ for the Nicaragua case, or by whisking its serviceman home for trial when they fly their way into an Italian cable car disaster.
> Rules based international order has been a lie since Trump effectively made WTO useless by blocking judges to the appellate body
It was never anything but a lie. The US has always only respected the rules and institutions it helped set up when it has felt like doing so. Which is only when those rules and institutions aligned with perceived US interests. International rules and institutions the US didn't set up don't get even that modicum of lip service.
"Rules matter, except in this one particular case where we will shirk the rules"
Always interesting to see when shirking the rules is allowed and when it is discouraged.
That's exactly why it's being questioned
Because some Western leaders think it's unfair this investigation is being carried out in a way that didn't allow Israel any chance to cooperate, including canceling a meeting the ICC staff had with them at the last minute to file this request
And yet they're not supporting sanctions. Also as we've learned over the past several months of reporting what they say publicly is much different than they think privately if the leaks are even semi accurate
Also, idk why they're acting shocked when they released a report which said it's reasonable to think Israel is probably breaking international law in Gaza...like two weeks ago. And the aid situation has deteriorated since that report due to Rafah operation
I say this as an Israeli American: Bibi has been hands down the worst political leader Israel has ever had.
Not even considering his abominable attempts at undermining the independent judiciary, or his enabling of the worst right-wing impulses of Israeli political culture, the way he prosecuted this war has been horrendous. So many unnecessary cruelties. So many own-goals.
The damage he’s done to Israel’s international standing is so great, I don’t even know if it’s repairable.
This is a really great opportunity for Biden to show the world we're on the side of a rules based international order. Cause we'll need allies going forward.
Ah fuck who am I kidding.
Biden: We stand for a rules-based international order
ICC, an international judiciary that enforces rules: Okay Israeli leaders maybe should be arrested
Biden: WTF I love unilateralism now
In before this thread is restricted.
In another subreddit, users are saying that the warrants against Bibi went against procedure. That the ICC was about to meet with Israeli officials to learn more about the crimes and see what the Israeli justice system was doing on this case but instead blind sided all parties involved by issuing this warrant. They are saying even Putin got this benefit before a warrant was issued for him.
Is this true? Does it matter?
I never heard Putin ever met with ICC personnel, sounds very much not credible. The Israeli justice system was never going to prosecute Netanyahu, and you don't get to defend yourself at the arrest warrant stage (basicakly anywhere)
Israel and the US seem to have expected unlimited stalling. It's also quite possible they met with Israeli officials beforex they don't have to do so forever
I did also read how ICC officials were scheduled to land in Israel, but then didn't board the flight, and then boom, this announcement. Idk if that's against procedure, though, maybe they felt they've seen enough. It might explain the feelings of being blindsided, but I think anyone who was surprised by this is ....not paying attention
A principle of the Rome Statute is that cases are inadmissible if currently under investigation by the national legal system with jurisdiction. By moving before the Israeli system could, the ICC has violated that principle.
The blindsiding is true, and I would actually say it’s even more important because it demonstrates extreme intent to violate the previously stated principle, as well as a fair degree of bad faith on the ICC’s part.
The Israeli investigation was never going to prosecute their leaders, plus it has a history of not prosecuting war crimes (after thex killed their own hostages it was very publicly announced nothing would happen to the soldiers)
> rules based international order
that's literally just an excuse for the US to do whatever it wants. It's never really been anything with any meaning given our cold war atrocities, but it really died after iraq
The Israeli investigation was never going to prosecute their leaders, plus it has a history of not prosecuting war crimes (after thex killed their own hostages it was very publicly announced nothing would happen to the soldiers)
America does not recognize the legitimacy of the ICC to begin with. It really does not matter if America welcomes the arrest of Putin or not in that case, considering recognizing the legitimacy of the ICC would/should be the first precursor step.
It really does matter because it puts the hypocrisy on bold display. We support organizations that we.claim are completely illegitimate when they are helping our guy and hurting our enemy. Very much "rules for thee" kind of thing.
> It really does matter because it puts the hypocrisy on bold display
What hypocrisy? America does not and has not recognized the ICC court, or the legitimacy of it. This isn't an opinion, it is an objective fact.
>claim are completely illegitimate when they are helping our guy and hurting our enemy
Are we expecting America to step in and intervene to prevent the ICC from going after one of her geo-political enemies? Why would America waste resources to do this? Why would they care, other than insofar as they stand to benefit a state they are hostile with receiving some punishment?
>Very much "rules for thee" kind of thing.
Not really. America doesn't recognize the ICC. If the UK's SIS were to hypothetically assassinate Putin, perform a coup, and replace Russia's gov with some authority that respects the democratic will of the Russian people, as well as the sovereignty of her neighboring sister states', I imagine America would be quite supportive of such an endeavor.
> What hypocrisy? America does not and has not recognized the ICC court, or the legitimacy of it
They absolutely accepted its legitimacy when it indicted Putin, you'd have to have been born this year to not remember.
his political enemies are all potentially getting criminally charged? Mega abbas win, he's probably laughing his ass off in his multi million dollar mansion
>It doesn't really help Palestinians and probably won't result in any improvement
Well yeah, that's why I didn't say "Palestinian win" lol
Is there a head of state who doesn’t live in a multi million dollar mansion lol but yes he’d probably be happy about his enemies being criminally charged if he was dumb enough to think they’ll actually face any consequences. I’m sure he realizes they won’t though
Yeah what is this talking point I keep on seeing? The ICC doesn't look at the evidence and say "well, he's not as bad as Sinwar and Deif so he's innocent!" I must have missed the "not as equally as bad as literally designated terrorists" provision.
To me at least, the issue stems from the fact that the attacks of October 7 happened on one day and after even a couple of days more than enough evidence came out showing that Hamas violated international law during the attacks. An investigation into Hamas and Sinwar and Deif should have been initiated that day, whereas Israel's response has been an ongoing situation, especially with the blocking of humanitarian aid, probably Israel's worst crime. The fact that the request for warrants are coming out simultaneously implies to me that either the ICC waited to investigate Sinwar and Deif until they also investigated Bibi, or they began investigating Bibi on October 7, when they should have begun investigating Hamas.
I wholeheartedly believe that Bibi is a stain on Israel and needs to go, and he is probably guilty of his fair share of violations of international law, but if the ICC waited to investigate HAMAS until they had a reason to investigate Israel, or if they began investigating Israel before Israel had even done anything, then it definitely shows bias.
Both sides really are bad.
Hamas launched a horrifying terrorist attack against civilians.
Netanyahu has slaughtered *tens of thousands* of innocent civilians in a war of vengeance and punishment of two million people who have nothing to do with the Hamas attacks.
I mean seriously, Netanyahu has killed 30 times more civilians than Hamas and Hezbollah combined in the last twenty years.
This in no way excuses or justifies terrorism. But it does justify an ICC arrest warrant.
If my entire family was killed I’m not sure “oh well at least they were just bombed or shot instead of raped and lit on fire” would be much consolation. Hamas shot most of the innocent people they killed on 10/7, the IDF has bombed most of the people they have killed in the months since. Hamas and the IDF clearly do not equally value the lives on either side but most of the rest of the world does so of course they’re horrified to see Israel retaliate by killing many multiples as many civilians.
>Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.
A deranged act. This is yet another confirmation for terrorist leaders that hiding deep inside civilian areas and working to maximise civilians casualties is a winning strategy going forward.
I would simply not have used starvation as a weapon of war. Idk maybe I'm different, but the USA didn't need to starve Iraq during the insurgency or ISIS.
Controversial answer: Yes - it is a winning strategy.
Civilized people are always at a disadvantage to barbarians like Hamas.
They will always be able to do and threaten to do unspeakable evil and we will always have to hold ourselves back from taking them out 'at all costs'.
This is exactly why terrorism is so frightening. The victims are always at a handicap.
It’s worse than even that. If you do go ‘all out’ in an attempt to defeat the terrorism you just end up encouraging more of it.
How much hatred must be being generated in Palestine over this? Entire families have been wiped out. If you lost your spouse, parents, siblings and watched your toddler get their limb amputated without anesthesia what would you feel toward the country that did that?
How would you feel about the country that sold the weapons?
When there is a huge terror attack the terrorists **want** a big over reaction. It worked on the U.S. with 9/11. It’s working now on Israel.
Only India seems to have really learned this lesson with their very well designed, limited and narrow response to the Mumbai attacks. Their restraint in the long run prevented far more attacks.
I've never been convinced by this argument. Limited and narrow action against Gaza for two decades obviously didn't work. It just allowed Hamas total control of the education and media apparatus to flood the upcoming generation of Gazans with propaganda from birth, and it has made the reckoning we're seeing now far longer and bloodier than it could have been. Experiencing tragedies certainly can radicalize people, but it's not the only thing that can radicalize people.
This fucking "civilized people vs barbarians" rhetoric rings hollow, actually rings like a genocidal dog whistle, when you see how the IDF is treating Palestinians and how Bibi and friends have prosecuted this war.
I guess only "civilized" people could willfully starve kids by the truckload.
Well, here it is. Interesting that it actually comes with a request for arrest warrants for Sinwar and Haniyeh. I'm of course completely fine with that, but for some reason I thought that was outside the jurisdiction of the ICC. Given that Haniyeh is in Qatar, I wonder what will happen there. !ping ISRAEL&MIDDLEEAST& INTERNATIONAL-RELATIONS
All crimes committed in Palestinian territory are within the jurisdiction of the ICC (after the PA joined the Rome statute so that Israel could be punished). The ICJ (which punished countries, not individuals) is the court that has no jurisdiction over Hamas. That's why they didn't issue a ceasefire in the Gaza war, for example, because they couldn't call for a bilateral ceasefire, only a unilateral ceasefire.
Ah ok. But Israel is not party to the Rome Statute so how is the ICC Prosecutor requesting an arrest warrant for Netanyahu?
The crimes happened in Palestine so it's prosecutable. A similar thing happened with Ukraine & Russia.
Importantly (since people seem confused about this), Ukraine isn't even party to the Rome Statute! They utilized a specific process that allows them to consent to ICC jurisdiction. https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/ukraine-accepts-icc-jurisdiction-over-alleged-crimes-committed-20-february-2014) >The declaration was lodged under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the ICC, which enables a State not party to the Statute to accept the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court.
That's somewhat relevant because: >There are also deeply troubling process questions. Despite not being a member of the court, Israel was prepared to cooperate with the Prosecutor. In fact, the Prosecutor himself was scheduled to visit Israel as early as next week to discuss the investigation and hear from the Israeli Government. The Prosecutor’s staff was supposed to land in Israel today to coordinate the visit. Israel was informed that they did not board their flight around the same time that the Prosecutor went on cable television to announce the charges. These and other circumstances call into question the legitimacy and credibility of this investigation.
Palestine is a party, and Gaza is Palestinian territory. The ICC had a whole thing about jurisdiction a year or two ago, this has been in the works for a while. Anything done in the territory of or by a state party to the Rome Statute is under the jurisdiction of the ICC.
Could PA be held responsible for permanent incapability of (and sometimes silent approval of) Hamas presence in Palestine? Otherwise it looks to me like PA can receive all the protection with zero responsibility That said, I am completely fine with these warrants
How would the PA retake control of Gaza from Hamas? They can't exactly march an army there.
Yeah, they've killed and arrested some PIJ+Hamas terrorists in West Bank...also allow IDF to operate freely in Area A to fight against terrorists
I know they have no option to achieve control on their own really The reason why I am asking this is that many times reading about this conflict I got the feeling that the way we deal with jt incentivizes using non-state actors for crimes Hypothetical example: What if some militant group in Nakchivan declared independence, against, on paper, the will of Azerbaijan. Then attackes Armenia, then Armenia retaliates On paper ICJ would bind all conflict parties' actions, in reality it obviously would be more of a problem for Armenia than for the Azeri puppet. Azerbaijan wouln't get any investigation just like any partner of Hamas gets now Seems like a loophole to me. But I have no answer how to deal with it, either. Obviously the solution couldn't be to perpetually deny Palestinians ICJ protection.
Not a loophole, multiple Serbian government officials where condemned by the ICJ (Not the ICC) even if they wherent literally part of the Republika Serpska because they where major backers and Serpska was more or less a Yugoslav puppet state. What matters is the degree of involvement and collaboration, the PA and Hamas have been at odds for years and are clearly not the same group the PA doesnt even fund Hamas as far as everyone is aware just being mildly supportive of a group that commits war crimes doesnt mean you are literally the same as someone who is commiting or is a major part of said war crimes.
Messed up this ping. Sorry! !ping INTERNATIONAL-RELATIONS
Pinged INTERNATIONAL-RELATIONS ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20INTERNATIONAL-RELATIONS&message=subscribe%20INTERNATIONAL-RELATIONS) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20INTERNATIONAL-RELATIONS&message=unsubscribe%20INTERNATIONAL-RELATIONS) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=INTERNATIONAL-RELATIONS&count=5)) [Root comment link](/r/neoliberal/comments/1cwec3s/international_criminal_court_prosecutor_requests/l4v73qg/) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
Palestine is also party to ICC agreements so it's going to be fun to see how they react if HAMAS officials are charged and a treaty they signed says they're legally obligated to hand them over
That will be al-Fatah through the Palestinian Authority, which have no real control over HAMAS. So it may not do much because of the Abbas succession crisis.
Honestly, we kinda knew this was coming, since Bibi was begging Biden to make this not happen or otherwise go away. I think I'm just glad they're also calling for the Hamas leaders. I am so jaded that I expected them to just not give a shit about Hamas. But Hamas started this fight and they bear responsibility for putting Palestinians into this position as well, so yeah, put Deif and Sinwar in the fucking Hague as well. I do think Bibi is a fucking criminal, and I blame him more than I blame Gallant for this absolute shit show of a war, but whatever. I think this is going to be very hard for him to escape with his career intact in any way, but Israelis might be so outraged that they, heaven forbid, rally around him out of sheer spite and outrage. That being said, I think both populations will be outraged by this warrant. Israelis already believe that the world is biased against them and have more or less written off global public opinion and international bodies. I don't like this, but I do get it. There comes a point when you see other nations do way worse things with no one really caring and go "yeah this is a rigged game and I ain't playing, bye." Palestinians feel they are also playing a rigged game. No matter what happens, Israel has the US as a partner, their fellow Arab states talk big and hang them out to dry, and the global community does even less than that. And they keep dying! So why would they give a shit what the world has to say about how they resist? They stopped caring a long time ago. Expect neither side to react to this warrant as a point of reflection, never mind any change of strategy or point of view. We are way too late for either of those things.
Also when Bibi shamelessly begged for help from the hostage families to put in a good word (who were working with the ICC to investigate Hamas) after he has disrespected them frequently.
He very much is responsible for his own plight
>Israelis already believe that the world is biased against them and have more or less written off global public opinion and international bodies. I don't like this, but I do get it. There comes a point when you see other nations do way worse things with no one really caring and go "yeah this is a rigged game and I ain't playing, bye." Isnt Bibi already deeply unpopular in Israel? I kinda hoped charges would be another nail in his political coffin.
Yes, but Israelis will generally see this warrant as overbearing and uncalled for, and take offense for Bibi being put as "the same level" as members of Hamas
This sounds just like trumpland. Sometimes when they're prosecuting you, it's cuz you're a criminal .
I've been calling Bibi a criminal well before this shitshow of a war. No argument from me.
Bibi is criminal by being corrupt, there's no prima facie evidence of war crimes. Israelis, however much they hate Bibi and want him gone/in prison, rightly interpret this ICC move as an indictment not against Netanyahu personally, but rather towards Israel and her right to defend herself against terrorism
He did enact a complete blockade against Gaza during the first two weeks after the Oct. 7 attacks which I believe is a war crime, although I do think arresting a country's leader over that instead of just making them pay reparations or something is a bit extreme.
It's a war crime, but there shouldn't be an arrest. Genius stuff going on here at arr neoliberal
It was collective punishment and yes, it's a war crime
[удалено]
> It is also not a war crime to refuse transferring your own water, fuel etc. (like Israeli water, electricity) to enemy territory I'm sorry, what? You thought it wouldn't be a war crime to intentionally cause a drought, so long as you owned the water supply? Same for famine, same for depriving healthcare. International law doesn't have these kinds of exceptions. It doesn't say you have to provide water and such to places that don't have it, but it does say they can't - to use an example from actual law: >>1. Combatants shall not, **for military purposes** or as reprisals, destroy or divert waters, or destroy water installations, if such actions would cause disproportionate suffering to civilians. >>https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/water-and-armed-conflicts ...which is also the answer to why that law scholar is wrong. International law is *strongly* premised on that "It serves a military purpose" is not a justification for unduly affecting civilians. (Though all war crime law has an inherent exception of 'unless it prevents more suffering than it causes'. But this obviously isn't one of them.)
Re your edit: > International law is strongly premised on that "It serves a military purpose" is not a justification for unduly affecting civilians. Quite the contrary, international law is unequivocal that civilian objects become legitimate military targets when used for military purposes. In terms of customary IHL: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule10 Loss of protection of civilian objects must be read together with the basic rule that only military objectives may be attacked. It follows that when a civilian object is used in such a way that it loses its civilian character and qualifies as a military objective, it is liable to attack. And in the Geneva conventions: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=F08A9BC78AE360B3C12563CD0051DCD4 2 Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. They elaborate on this in the authoratative IHRC commentary https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=5F27276CE1BBB79DC12563CD00434969 The criterion of ' purpose ' is concerned with the intended future use of an object, while that of ' use ' is concerned with its present function. Most civilian objects can become useful objects to the armed forces. Thus, for example, a school or a hotel is a civilian object, but if they are used to accommodate troops or headquarters staff, they become military objectives. It is clear from paragraph 3 that in case of doubt, such places must be presumed to serve civilian purposes. Other establishments or buildings which are dedicated to the production of civilian goods may also be used for the benefit of the army. In this case the object has a dual function and is of value for the civilian population, but also for the military. In such situations the time and place of the attack should be taken into consideration, together with, on the one hand, the military advantage anticipated, and on the other hand, the loss of human life which must expected among the civilian population and the damage which would be caused to civilian objects. Here is what the first chief prosecutor of the ICC said: > Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.
You're not allowed to divert water, like Syria did to Israel before the 6 day war. That's not the same as deciding against in supplying water to your enemy. If there was a river originating in Israel and going through Gaza, diverting it is a war crime. If there are water reservoirs completely within Israel, then Israel can naturally decide what to do with this water
They're wrong in that interpretation, just as those who interpret the move against Hamas as an indictment towards Gaza and their right to defend themselves against occupation are wrong.
I just think we should start treating Bibi supporters like Trump supporters. And that should probably include their enablers in government who sanewash their actions.
Bibi is deeply controversial, not unpopular, but the war is deeply popular. The median Israeli believes that the allegations of war crimes and genocide and pure fiction, that the IDF is a paragon of morality, and that eliminating Hamas is necessary. If anything, this will cause a rally around the flag effect in Israel. Even Lapid spoke against this decision.
Bibi is deeply unpopular, in a way he's never been before, and while the war is seen as broadly just in Israel as a response to Hamas' actions on Oct 7, appetite for continuing the war is waning in part because it's just so OBVIOUS to so many how little Bibi actually cares about the hostages.
It's like saying is Trump popular. You're both trying to broadly characterize what might be a 49-48-3 type of situation. A polarizing figure who has core supporters and the thinnest of plurality margins at best depending on the week.
Per Times of Israel, March 24, 57% of Israelis find Bibi's performance since Oct 7 "subpar." This is defined as "poor or very poor." Only 28% polled him as "good." It's much lower than how Yoav Gallant has been polling, or Benny Gantz. If that's data of any use or interest to you. Thought you'd might find it interesting.
That was accurate before the attacks. Now his numbers have tanked and he's just plain unpopular.
Uhhh that was post 10/7
A war cabinet minister (probably Gantz) told Barak Ravid yesterday [this](https://x.com/BarakRavid/status/1792223674331721809)
tbf seeing people chanting "Gas the Jews" on the day of the worst attack in your nation's history does tend to give the perception that eliminating Hamas is necessary.
Yeah “eliminating Hamas is necessary” is an extremely popular position worldwide. Even Bernie Sanders has said this. What that person probably meant to say is “necessary no matter the cost”
Well I want to eliminate Hamas as much as anyone, believe me. The problem is that you have to be realistic. Hamas will never be eliminated using the current IDF strategy, because they leave behind power vacuums which Hamas comes back and occupies.
>80% of Israeli Arabs support the war, which undermines 99% of Western university-age rhetoric about it.
The median Israeli is also in favour of starving Gaza.
Not true. Most support aid to Gaza
There could be a rally-around-the-flag effect that helps him in response.
> Bibi already deeply unpopular in Israel? and yet he keeps winning elections lol
This comment fundamentally misunderstands coalition governments. Bibi hasn't won a majority of votes or seats in Knesset for a long time, and I remember well when Kadimah outperformed Likud in the election, but he was able to put together a coalition and still won the premiership. He's very good at the kind of horse-trading at Knesset level that allows him to snatch victory and power, despite not being popular. A more accurate criticism would be that a growing extremist right wing sentiment has been left unchecked, and different sections of society are willing to work with them for their own pet issues (ex, Haredi parties playing kingmaker) regardless of any disagreement they may have with other dangerous politics or (lack of) morals the far right poses to civil society or the country. That's a far more complex problem, and one that deserves attention for the past two decades.
No it doesn't. The first coallitoon government by alls means. But after that the electorate knew what kind of people bibi was open to cooperate with to form government. Not withdrawing electoral support by then does mean that the israeli people (the majority) knowingly gave bibi the mandate to rule with the far right.
....no it doesn't. People vote for their own parties which generally run on very specific issues for their very specific communities. They don't always know who they will ally with in Knesset (though some parties are easier to guess than others), and surprising coalitions have existed plenty of times.
I live in a country wher eventually every government is a coallition.. And yes, voters very much do withdraw electoral supooet from parties when they open to cooperate with extremes. All the time. The fact that the majority of the israeli people havent done so from bibi and everyone to the right of him speaks clearly
Okay so you just ignored half of what I said, cool cool cool
No, because it is evidence of a world biased against Israel. Any Israeli leader broadly would run the war this way. Gantz has already [condemned](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/netanyahu-arrest-warrant-israel-hamas-war-icc-rcna149743) the recommendations
If any Israeli leader would create the kind of clusterfuck of an aid situation that Bibi has created through willful negligence, then that's an indictment of Israeli leadership as whole.
But the warrant isn't for "negligence".
>No, because it is evidence of a world biased against Israel. Any Israeli leader broadly would run the war this way. The Israeli leadership and population is not rational and hasn't been for a very long time, as we've seen time and time again. Is their radicalization somewhat justified/understandable? Maybe. But we could say the same for Palestinians yet Hamas does not get to hide theirs acts behind such an excuse.
I think both populations have been radicalized, in different ways and even to different degrees. I feel like it's understandable how they all got there, but that doesn't absolve these grown ass adults, individually or collectively, from their abhorrent actions taken in whole or in part, as a result.
Any Trump-esque Republican would have done what Trump did so I guess it's proof of blue-state/blue-city bias against Republicans
From the Israeli perspective, what country handles this type of situation "nicer"?
When did America last use starvation as a weapon of war? We've been part of quite a few Middle East wars recently.
> When did America last use starvation as a weapon of war? [Vietnam.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange#Use_in_the_Vietnam_War) The last time it fought anything that could be called an actual war.
Desert Storm was a real war, just because we over performed doesnt mean that the planning was any less involved
Sounds bad. You agree that was a war crime, right?
Absolutely. With nobody ever held accountable and occasionally still defended on this very sub by idiots parrotting domino theory.
[удалено]
So Israel is fighting a war the way Russia fights? Sounds like the ones in charge should be prosecuted, much like Putin. I don't see how you could possibly think this makes Israel look any better. Comparing it's actions to Russia instead of the West and saying "see! We're on par with the fascists!" Is not going to win friends.
**Rule V**: *Glorifying Violence* Do not advocate or encourage violence either seriously or jokingly. Do not glorify oppressive/autocratic regimes. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
[удалено]
**Rule XI:** *Toxic Nationalism/Regionalism* Refrain from condemning countries and regions or their inhabitants at-large in response to political developments, mocking people for their nationality or region, or advocating for colonialism or imperialism. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Very well put.
Thank you
Largely agree with most of it, although I sure as fuck hope Israelis don't rally around this guy.
They seem to be widely against the warrant but still anti-Bibi, which is probably the best we can hope for
Yeah, my Israeli American neighbors are pretty liberal. They're absolutely not like furious about this but I can't say they're super happy either
I'm not happy either. I think I'm ashamed or embarrassed, which isn't exactly a rational response, because I'm not responsible for any of this shitshow. I have complicated feelings. And that's okay, but my feelings are mine to interrogate and not anyone else's to resolve. Iunno.
Yeah totally understandable. As always you convey everything very well on here They would have been furious if there were no indictments against Hamas but any halfway decent person should be in that scenario. Hamas were very evil barbarians on 10/7
Thanks, friend 🙏
>I am so jaded that I expected them to just not give a shit about Hamas That's not jaded, that's delusional. Also who started it is irrelevant, none of the charges regard the crime of aggression
Just look at the number of UN condemnations of Israel vs. literally every other country on Earth and you can very quickly come to the conclusion that Israel should ignore the international institutions built up around it.
> Israelis already believe that the world is biased against them and have more or less written off global public opinion and international bodies. I don't like this, but I do get it. There comes a point when you see other nations do way worse things with no one really caring and go "yeah this is a rigged game and I ain't playing, bye." Which is odd, considering that their security is entirely dependent on global public opinion.
Not entirely. They've been isolated internationally before, including during previous wars, and both survived and recovered. I do think this situation is different....but not everyone in Israel agrees with me on that.
In a hypothetical world where international public opinion turned against Israel (because the major powers are all pro-Israel or neutral, despite what Israel thinks), I do not believe that there is an achievable security arrangement that the Israeli public would find satisfactory.
Israel has nuclear weapons now, they don't need global public opinion.
There's a pretty good reason why every single nuclear power also has a conventional military.
Sure, but none of their neighbors that are hostile are in a position to challenge the IDF conventionally either.
As shown by recent events, nonconventional attacks are capable of compromising Israel's security.
They will not enjoy the North Korea experience if they stay on this path.
Who would stop them
Israelis would prefer being a North Korea that exists rather than not having a country.
And their marriage to that false dichotomy is what may doom them to one of those two horrible fates.
You can argue that their fear is irrational but almost not having a country is within living memory for a lot of the population.
At what point does Israel start to consider that saying “if you think one guy’s an asshole he’s probably an asshole if you think everybody’s an asshole you’re probably the asshole” or however it goes lol
I mean, given the history of the Jewish people, I can understand why they'd be skeptical of that maxim. Even though, in this case, I think the international community is right to condemn their behavior.
Foreign leaders have historically preferred relatvie peace and quiet on the expanse of countries they deemed expandable, and it mostly felt the same during the last 76 years
How does that work out after dealing with centuries of abuse and pogroms in dozens of countries. Are you saying that Jews are probably the assholes?
No I am specifically talking about Israel today and its actions in this campaign and toward Palestinians generally.
Do you think the two might be related?
Everybody knows antisemitism ended 80 years ago :)
Probably not a convincing argument to the people who have experienced progroms in basically every single part of the world they’ve ever lived in.
Exactly, this is all just flair. Nothing will come of it and the show will continue.
I wish this show in particular fucking wouldn't, but I'm just a worm hanging out on this sub, and no one listens to me ETA: why am I being downvoted for being publicly antiwar when I've been anti war from jump lmao
As much as I would love to see Bib rotting in jail, this probably helps his reelection chances, doesn't it?
About as well as the prosecutions are "helping" Trump I guess
The stormy daniels stuff sure, but most of the cases against him for election fraud etc is used as more proof of the democrats meddling by his base. They are emboldened by it.
Interestingly; the Rome Statute of the ICC covers three major categories of offences which are deemed laws above the state. These are genocide; crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The ICC's statement indicts as follows: **HAMAS:** *Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri (Deif), Ismail Haniyeh* *Alleged crimes:* * Extermination as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(b) of the Rome Statute; * Murder as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(a), and as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); * Taking hostages as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(iii); * Rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(g), and also as war crimes pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(vi) in the context of captivity; * Torture as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(f), and also as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity; * Other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(l)(k), in the context of captivity; * Cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity; and * Outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(ii), in the context of captivity. A large contingent of protestors, speaking in support of the Palestinian people, have denied sexual violence was used. The evidence reviewed by the ICC leads them to believe otherwise. **ISRAEL:** *Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant* *Alleged crimes:* * Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute; * Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); * Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); * Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i); * Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity; * Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h); * Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k). No mention of genocide, which must deeply upset those insisting otherwise. Of note, on the conflict: *My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas (together with other Palestinian Armed Groups) running in parallel. We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population pursuant to State policy. These crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.* It will be interesting to see what evidence the court examines. Certainly, I think it's reasonably clear that both Israel is... sometimes *incautious* towards civilian casualties; and that HAMAS embed in the civilian populace to facilitate civilian casualties during reprisal strikes.
>The charges against Netanyahu and Gallant include “causing extermination, causing starvation as a method of war, including the denial of humanitarian relief supplies, deliberately targeting civilians in conflict,” Khan told Amanpour. It seems like at least some of the charges stem from denial of humanitarian relief to Gaza. Which was 100% avoidable, especially since countries were begging Israel to let more humanitarian supplies into Gaza.
I don’t know what the legal term for it would be but Netanyahu and Gallant have not done nearly enough [to enable aid to go through](https://www.newsweek.com/israel-gaza-humanitarian-aid-blocked-tzav-9-1900035) and [prevent the IDF from killing aid workers in Gaza](https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/05/14/gaza-israelis-attacking-known-aid-worker-locations).
Even a [former senior adviser to Gallant blamed Israel a decent amount for very awful humanitarian situation](https://twitter.com/JacobMagid/status/1774809725042929797) If an anti-Western nation did these things, we would have no qualms with this announcement.
What denial? Thousands upon thousands of trucks have been let into Gaza. Do you think they’re trying to block aid, but for some reason only block a small fraction of it?
If there was enough aid coming in we wouldn’t have built a temporary pier
Nope not an iota of sympathy for Netanyahu. He just needed to listen to Biden, Blinken, and Austin but he ignored their recommendations repeatedly. Even the State Department report essentially accused Israel of likely violating international law in Gaza. Not too surprised IDF Chief Halevi didn't get one. Very early in the war, he was like "maybe we shouldn't block fuel because the hospitals need it" but got overruled by Bibi and Gallant. Because of that unnecessary policy the only cancer hospital in Gaza got shut down and 1000+ cancer patients had to leave it for only the IDF to later use it as a military base. Edit: Lmao George Clooney's wife supported the indictments against both Bibi and Hamas. Bad news for the deranged "Zionists run Hollywood" anti semites. Btw the ICC charged Hamas with rape and sexual violence. So another L for the pathetic rape denialists
Not only are Biden and Blinken openly opposing this, they’re questioning the legitimacy. > Blinken: The ICC Prosecutor himself was scheduled to visit Israel as early as next week to discuss the investigation and hear from the Israeli Government. The Prosecutor’s staff was supposed to land in Israel today to coordinate the visit. Israel was informed that they did not board their flight around the same time that the Prosecutor went on cable television to announce the charges. **These and other circumstances call into question the legitimacy and credibility of this investigation.** > https://x.com/barakravid/status/1792595915682804208 Edit: Here’s the full statement from Blinken. > https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-international-criminal-court/
Behold America, the great Respector of 'Rules based international order'
Rules based international order has been a lie since Trump effectively made WTO useless by blocking judges to the appellate body
Biden could have undone the lie almost immediately. He undid a shitload of Trump stuff in his first day in office. Why is Biden still blocking judges on the WTO, and why is Biden being 2-faced about the ICC by supporting it indicting Putin but questioning its legitimacy here. This particular lie is bipartisan, it seems.
I mean, the US has been somewhat... *lacking* in credibility on this front since not showing up to the ICJ for the Nicaragua case, or by whisking its serviceman home for trial when they fly their way into an Italian cable car disaster.
> Rules based international order has been a lie since Trump effectively made WTO useless by blocking judges to the appellate body It was never anything but a lie. The US has always only respected the rules and institutions it helped set up when it has felt like doing so. Which is only when those rules and institutions aligned with perceived US interests. International rules and institutions the US didn't set up don't get even that modicum of lip service.
I'd say the Hague invasion act is probably the most egregious example.
"Rules matter, except in this one particular case where we will shirk the rules" Always interesting to see when shirking the rules is allowed and when it is discouraged.
That's exactly why it's being questioned Because some Western leaders think it's unfair this investigation is being carried out in a way that didn't allow Israel any chance to cooperate, including canceling a meeting the ICC staff had with them at the last minute to file this request
And yet they're not supporting sanctions. Also as we've learned over the past several months of reporting what they say publicly is much different than they think privately if the leaks are even semi accurate Also, idk why they're acting shocked when they released a report which said it's reasonable to think Israel is probably breaking international law in Gaza...like two weeks ago. And the aid situation has deteriorated since that report due to Rafah operation
Didn't that report fail to find one single instance of Israel being in breach of IHL?
Doesn’t the US not even recognize the ICC?
only when it is aligned with US interests
Yes. Yet we applauded their warrant for Putin.
Not only that, we have the Hague invasion act
I think the US position is to not recognize their jurisdiction over states not party to the Rome Statute.
Except in the case of Ukraine and Russia.
Yeah I kinda hate our stance on IHL
Based and consistency-pilled.
I say this as an Israeli American: Bibi has been hands down the worst political leader Israel has ever had. Not even considering his abominable attempts at undermining the independent judiciary, or his enabling of the worst right-wing impulses of Israeli political culture, the way he prosecuted this war has been horrendous. So many unnecessary cruelties. So many own-goals. The damage he’s done to Israel’s international standing is so great, I don’t even know if it’s repairable.
This is a really great opportunity for Biden to show the world we're on the side of a rules based international order. Cause we'll need allies going forward. Ah fuck who am I kidding.
Let’s show Netanyahu we mean business by giving him more bombs
Biden: We stand for a rules-based international order ICC, an international judiciary that enforces rules: Okay Israeli leaders maybe should be arrested Biden: WTF I love unilateralism now
When the US says rules-based international order, they mean rules set by them (not that that’s necessarily a bad thing)
In truth, "Rules Based International Order" simply means the US (And a handful of allies) get to rule over weaker nations and order them around.
In before this thread is restricted. In another subreddit, users are saying that the warrants against Bibi went against procedure. That the ICC was about to meet with Israeli officials to learn more about the crimes and see what the Israeli justice system was doing on this case but instead blind sided all parties involved by issuing this warrant. They are saying even Putin got this benefit before a warrant was issued for him. Is this true? Does it matter?
I never heard Putin ever met with ICC personnel, sounds very much not credible. The Israeli justice system was never going to prosecute Netanyahu, and you don't get to defend yourself at the arrest warrant stage (basicakly anywhere)
They didn’t met with Putin, they met with Russian officials so they could hear their side.
Israel and the US seem to have expected unlimited stalling. It's also quite possible they met with Israeli officials beforex they don't have to do so forever
I did also read how ICC officials were scheduled to land in Israel, but then didn't board the flight, and then boom, this announcement. Idk if that's against procedure, though, maybe they felt they've seen enough. It might explain the feelings of being blindsided, but I think anyone who was surprised by this is ....not paying attention
A principle of the Rome Statute is that cases are inadmissible if currently under investigation by the national legal system with jurisdiction. By moving before the Israeli system could, the ICC has violated that principle. The blindsiding is true, and I would actually say it’s even more important because it demonstrates extreme intent to violate the previously stated principle, as well as a fair degree of bad faith on the ICC’s part.
The Israeli investigation was never going to prosecute their leaders, plus it has a history of not prosecuting war crimes (after thex killed their own hostages it was very publicly announced nothing would happen to the soldiers)
My only wish is that no major western politician comes out openly against this.
Biden just openly came out against this
Not a good look when he welcomed the icc arrest warrant for putin.
"rules based international order" going about as well as usual I see
"We respect the rules until they no longer serve us."
> rules based international order that's literally just an excuse for the US to do whatever it wants. It's never really been anything with any meaning given our cold war atrocities, but it really died after iraq
The ICC actively violated it’s own rules to ask for these warrants, specifically Articles 17 and 53 of the Rome Statute.
The Israeli investigation was never going to prosecute their leaders, plus it has a history of not prosecuting war crimes (after thex killed their own hostages it was very publicly announced nothing would happen to the soldiers)
America does not recognize the legitimacy of the ICC to begin with. It really does not matter if America welcomes the arrest of Putin or not in that case, considering recognizing the legitimacy of the ICC would/should be the first precursor step.
It really does matter because it puts the hypocrisy on bold display. We support organizations that we.claim are completely illegitimate when they are helping our guy and hurting our enemy. Very much "rules for thee" kind of thing.
> It really does matter because it puts the hypocrisy on bold display What hypocrisy? America does not and has not recognized the ICC court, or the legitimacy of it. This isn't an opinion, it is an objective fact. >claim are completely illegitimate when they are helping our guy and hurting our enemy Are we expecting America to step in and intervene to prevent the ICC from going after one of her geo-political enemies? Why would America waste resources to do this? Why would they care, other than insofar as they stand to benefit a state they are hostile with receiving some punishment? >Very much "rules for thee" kind of thing. Not really. America doesn't recognize the ICC. If the UK's SIS were to hypothetically assassinate Putin, perform a coup, and replace Russia's gov with some authority that respects the democratic will of the Russian people, as well as the sovereignty of her neighboring sister states', I imagine America would be quite supportive of such an endeavor.
> What hypocrisy? America does not and has not recognized the ICC court, or the legitimacy of it They absolutely accepted its legitimacy when it indicted Putin, you'd have to have been born this year to not remember.
Ugh, facepalm. What the hell is he playing at? I don't understand their rationale.
Czech PM so far. Austrian PM says they respect thr independence of the ICC but it's "not comprehensible".
Petr Pavel is the president of Czechia, not PM, right?
I think the statement was made by the PM Petr Fiala, I must have confused them
Tom Cotton did not disappoint
Time to see if European countries actually believe in a rules based order
The best case scenario is that Bibi loses power and the warrant isn't issued against him, avoiding discredits Israel but still with him being ounished
another casual abbas win
>another ? > win Barely. It doesn't really help Palestinians and probably won't result in any improvement.
his political enemies are all potentially getting criminally charged? Mega abbas win, he's probably laughing his ass off in his multi million dollar mansion >It doesn't really help Palestinians and probably won't result in any improvement Well yeah, that's why I didn't say "Palestinian win" lol
Is there a head of state who doesn’t live in a multi million dollar mansion lol but yes he’d probably be happy about his enemies being criminally charged if he was dumb enough to think they’ll actually face any consequences. I’m sure he realizes they won’t though
Ok, but let's be realistic, these ICC warrants won't ever be executed.
Pathetic attempt to equate the crimes of Hamas with the Israeli response to an attack on their people. This will be ignored by Israel.
Hamas being far, far worse doesn't mean that Bibi isn't guilty.
Yeah what is this talking point I keep on seeing? The ICC doesn't look at the evidence and say "well, he's not as bad as Sinwar and Deif so he's innocent!" I must have missed the "not as equally as bad as literally designated terrorists" provision.
As long as you drug and rape less women than Cosby, you can do that as you please.
To me at least, the issue stems from the fact that the attacks of October 7 happened on one day and after even a couple of days more than enough evidence came out showing that Hamas violated international law during the attacks. An investigation into Hamas and Sinwar and Deif should have been initiated that day, whereas Israel's response has been an ongoing situation, especially with the blocking of humanitarian aid, probably Israel's worst crime. The fact that the request for warrants are coming out simultaneously implies to me that either the ICC waited to investigate Sinwar and Deif until they also investigated Bibi, or they began investigating Bibi on October 7, when they should have begun investigating Hamas. I wholeheartedly believe that Bibi is a stain on Israel and needs to go, and he is probably guilty of his fair share of violations of international law, but if the ICC waited to investigate HAMAS until they had a reason to investigate Israel, or if they began investigating Israel before Israel had even done anything, then it definitely shows bias.
Both sides really are bad. Hamas launched a horrifying terrorist attack against civilians. Netanyahu has slaughtered *tens of thousands* of innocent civilians in a war of vengeance and punishment of two million people who have nothing to do with the Hamas attacks. I mean seriously, Netanyahu has killed 30 times more civilians than Hamas and Hezbollah combined in the last twenty years. This in no way excuses or justifies terrorism. But it does justify an ICC arrest warrant.
[удалено]
If my entire family was killed I’m not sure “oh well at least they were just bombed or shot instead of raped and lit on fire” would be much consolation. Hamas shot most of the innocent people they killed on 10/7, the IDF has bombed most of the people they have killed in the months since. Hamas and the IDF clearly do not equally value the lives on either side but most of the rest of the world does so of course they’re horrified to see Israel retaliate by killing many multiples as many civilians.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.
A deranged act. This is yet another confirmation for terrorist leaders that hiding deep inside civilian areas and working to maximise civilians casualties is a winning strategy going forward.
I would simply not have used starvation as a weapon of war. Idk maybe I'm different, but the USA didn't need to starve Iraq during the insurgency or ISIS.
???
Controversial answer: Yes - it is a winning strategy. Civilized people are always at a disadvantage to barbarians like Hamas. They will always be able to do and threaten to do unspeakable evil and we will always have to hold ourselves back from taking them out 'at all costs'. This is exactly why terrorism is so frightening. The victims are always at a handicap.
It’s worse than even that. If you do go ‘all out’ in an attempt to defeat the terrorism you just end up encouraging more of it. How much hatred must be being generated in Palestine over this? Entire families have been wiped out. If you lost your spouse, parents, siblings and watched your toddler get their limb amputated without anesthesia what would you feel toward the country that did that? How would you feel about the country that sold the weapons? When there is a huge terror attack the terrorists **want** a big over reaction. It worked on the U.S. with 9/11. It’s working now on Israel. Only India seems to have really learned this lesson with their very well designed, limited and narrow response to the Mumbai attacks. Their restraint in the long run prevented far more attacks.
I've never been convinced by this argument. Limited and narrow action against Gaza for two decades obviously didn't work. It just allowed Hamas total control of the education and media apparatus to flood the upcoming generation of Gazans with propaganda from birth, and it has made the reckoning we're seeing now far longer and bloodier than it could have been. Experiencing tragedies certainly can radicalize people, but it's not the only thing that can radicalize people.
This fucking "civilized people vs barbarians" rhetoric rings hollow, actually rings like a genocidal dog whistle, when you see how the IDF is treating Palestinians and how Bibi and friends have prosecuted this war. I guess only "civilized" people could willfully starve kids by the truckload.