[HN Gopher] ICC seeks arrest warrants against Sinwar and Netanya...
___________________________________________________________________
ICC seeks arrest warrants against Sinwar and Netanyahu for war
crimes
Author : spzx
Score : 337 points
Date : 2024-05-20 11:27 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnn.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnn.com)
| bhaney wrote:
| The ICC is seeking arrest warrants from the ICC for people who
| don't care what the ICC says, and one of them isn't even in a
| country that's a member of the ICC?
|
| What exactly are they going to be able to do once they manage to
| grant themselves these warrants?
| loceng wrote:
| Any countries part of the ICC then have the ability to arrest
| anyone with warrants.
|
| Whether those countries will do the arrests or not will be up
| to whomever is in political power and if they are toeing the
| same line or not. Those with arrest warrants then would have to
| risk traveling.
| throwup238 wrote:
| Not anyone. As long as he's in power he's protected by
| diplomatic protocol. No one is going to break international
| law and risk their reputation and ability to host diplomats
| for an ICC warrant. Just makes his predicament more desperate
| long term though.
| jeltz wrote:
| But what will happen is that many countries would say no to
| official visits.
| somenameforme wrote:
| This is also what I thought when they issued the warrant
| against Putin, but it does not seem to be the case. There's
| a _lot_ of inscrutable legal precedent regarding diplomatic
| immunity and high crimes, of which there is none higher
| than genocide. This is exactly why Putin did not make a
| personal appearance in South Africa for the BRICS summit.
| South Africa felt that they would be legally obligated to
| arrest him due to the ICC warrant, and that was all over a
| far lesser charge of unlawfully deporting children.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _As long as he's in power he's protected by diplomatic
| protocol_
|
| Not true. That's why Putin shied from visiting South Africa
| [1].
|
| [1] https://apnews.com/article/putin-brics-summit-south-
| africa-i...
| richrichie wrote:
| Mere existence of arrest warrants for war crimes against a
| serving Israeli prime minister has great symbolic value. This
| will have big impact on media discourse not controlled by the
| Israeli lobby.
|
| Also, one does not have to choose sides. We can condemn both
| sides as barbaric.
| bhaney wrote:
| > We can condemn both sides as barbaric
|
| I agree entirely but I'm not really trying to make any
| political statement here. I'm purely interested in the
| mechanical aspect of how this court works and how it can
| manage to accomplish anything in this situation. It seems to
| me that this story isn't much worth following, because
| nothing of consequence will happen if these warrants end up
| being served.
| jeltz wrote:
| It makes the people with arrest warrants much less welcome
| to visit other countries. While they still may not actually
| arrest a leader of state many countries would say no to a
| visit to not risk a media scandal by having an accused war
| criminal visit.
| bhaney wrote:
| > It makes the people with arrest warrants much less
| welcome to visit other countries
|
| Yeah, that's fair. I guess I'm just kind of unimpressed
| that that's the worst punishment something called the
| "International Criminal Court" can inflict on leaders
| that they've judged to be _war criminals_.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| Since this is an actual court, I'd say it's important to
| differentiate between "has judged as being war criminals"
| and "has _charged_ with being war criminals". There are
| hopefully more penalties for someone who has been tried
| and found guilty.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| I don't understand what you are looking for. There is no
| unified world government. There is no sovereign entity
| that controls all nations. That means any and all
| international interaction is roughly consensual.
|
| If the US genocides a significant portion of their own
| populace, and nobody could muster up an army large enough
| to physically stop them, and nobody could blockade their
| trade enough to hurt them, then why would the US stop?
|
| Accountability requires someone to execute the
| "punishment" or whatever. If you want international
| accountability, you REQUIRE an independent entity which
| all nations treat as a global government, one which as
| the ability to militarily slap anyone who doesn't fall in
| line. The UN isn't that, on purpose.
|
| First problem: Where is the office for that world
| government? There is largely no land that is "outside"
| other countries.
|
| The US literally experienced this "How do you get
| fiefdoms to cede their power to a common government"
| problem in 1787, and overcoming it took promising slave
| owners that they wouldn't outlaw slavery for at least 20
| years, and hand out a massive power structure benefit to
| the states that had significant slavery. Of course the
| invention of the cotton gin just a few years later would
| destroy that possible outcome and set us on the path for
| the civil war.
|
| If you invent a world government that could punish a
| country that was unruly, how do you convince the US or
| China to submit to it ENTIRELY? How do yo prevent this
| world government from simply being a tool of the US or
| China?
| ysofunny wrote:
| you're trying to use mechanical thinking on a level where
| symbols are often more powerful than mechanisms
| scarby2 wrote:
| This is a hot take these days. The world seems to need to
| take a side on everything and most of the Palestine
| supporters fail to condemn Hamas and the Israel supporters
| don't tend to criticize Israel.
|
| Broadly I think Israel has the right ambition (the
| destruction of Hamas) but are going about it in a terrible
| manner and it will now backfire on them spectacularly.
| jeltz wrote:
| I agree that Israel is going about it in a terrible manner
| but I also do not think that the destruction of Hamas is a
| reasonable goal. How can you do that without genocide?
| exe34 wrote:
| you shoot anyone holding a gun that doesn't wear your
| uniform?
| rusk wrote:
| Doctors and Nurses don't carry guns?
| exe34 wrote:
| is this a question? I'm not sure what you're trying to
| ask.
| rusk wrote:
| Well presumably they don't wear your uniform
| exe34 wrote:
| my uniform?
| worik wrote:
| > you shoot anyone holding a gun that doesn't wear your
| uniform?
|
| Most casualties have been civilians.
| octopoc wrote:
| Most of them haven't been armed either, so presumably
| shooting everyone holding a gun not wearing your uniform
| is still a viable option.
| exe34 wrote:
| do you know of any protracted war where this hasn't been
| the case? or even any urban war where the ratio of
| civilian casualties to combatants is as low as this
| current war?
| jeltz wrote:
| Hamas can just drop their guns and get new ones later.
| pdonis wrote:
| Hamas is not a population, it's a terrorist organization.
| There is no need to kill every Palestinian in order to
| destroy Hamas.
| jeltz wrote:
| Ok, then tell me how you do it. Or how well it worked for
| the us to destroy the Taliban.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> then tell me how you do it_
|
| The way Israel is doing it. There is no pretty, hygienic
| way to fight an existential conflict, which is what this
| is.
| Levitz wrote:
| Okay, say Israel enters Rafah, do whatever they want in
| there. Say they do a whole another pass over Gaza.
|
| Do you think the rest of the population just stands by?
| You can't treat people like Israel treats Palestinians
| and not have terrorism. It's really that simple. Any
| serious plan by Israel to achieve peace of any sort with
| Palestinians involves massive concessions compared to the
| actual state of things and I can't imagine for a second
| anything like that would happen.
| its_ethan wrote:
| It's almost like we're stumbling into how this is one of
| the trickiest geopolitical issues in the last hundred
| years...
|
| There's an inverse to what you're saying (which I don't
| disagree with) which is that if Israel does nothing in
| response to Hamas aggression, and just lets Hamas + it's
| allies keep bulling, Israeli's will die and their
| citizenry will be radicalized to do something in
| response.
|
| This has been the pattern in this region since literally
| day 1 of Israel being acknowledged as a country. It's two
| irreconcilable groups locked into a situation where
| neither can meaningfully (or "safely") de-escalate; a
| clean solution is really unlikely to emerge.
| golergka wrote:
| Is it? The vast majority of Palestinians wish all the
| Israelis dead, and are happy to kill random Israeli
| civilians when they take the wrong road and accidentally
| end up in the Palestinian town. That's not some fringe
| lunatics, that's common people on the street.
| dang wrote:
| > _The vast majority of Palestinians wish all the
| Israelis dead, and are happy to kill_
|
| That crosses into the sort of slur we don't allow here--
| regardless of which group is being spoken of. No more of
| this, please.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Many governments have been defeated in war without
| genocides.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Refusing to take a side is not a position of moral strength
| or authority. You _should_ be a partisan against genocide.
| exe34 wrote:
| that's right! Hamas broke the ceasefire on October 7th,
| and if the Israelis laid down their weapons, they would
| be slaughtered. they can't afford to leave Hamas in
| charge. they don't want control of gaza, but it doesn't
| seem like there's any alternative to military occupation
| if they want to stop the incursions for good.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Supporters of Hamas are calling for a genocide and doing
| everything they can to get one. But then they say the
| other side is doing that.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Which genocide? The one that _parts_ of Israel, mostly
| Likud, wants and isn 't doing a very good job of (I was
| told millions would have starved by now), or the one that
| Hamas emphatically wants, and is supported by the vast
| majority of Palestinians, but they are technologically
| incapable of performing?
|
| Plenty Israelis want a two state solution where
| Palestinians are not harmed. How many Palestinians want a
| two state solution where Jews live free? Why don't
| Palestinians get visibly upset when a Hamas rocket meant
| for Israel blows up Palestinians?
|
| Bibi should rot in prison. So should the leader of Hamas.
| But who is willing to run Palestine without shooting
| rockets at Israel, and how long will they stay in power
| before they are overthrown by people who want to go back
| to shooting rockets at Israel?
|
| There can't be a peace as long as Palestinians want the
| eradication of Israel, much as there can't be peace as
| long as Likud wants to eradicate Palestine. But if we
| tell Israel it can't do anything, but do not limit Hamas
| in the same way, all you are doing is allowing Israelis
| to die for the convenience of ignoring an actually
| difficult geopolitical problem.
|
| "Just stop shooting at Palestinians" will certainly end
| the suffering of Palestinians, but is objectively trading
| 30k Palestinians dead now with a few Israelis dead every
| year.
|
| And this isn't even getting to the insane levels of Anti-
| semitism that hide themselves under a cloak of "just
| supporting Palestinians". If you know any jewish people
| who aren't evenly Israeli, ask them how safe they feel
| nowadays.
| throw_a_grenade wrote:
| > "Just stop shooting at Palestinians" will certainly end
| the suffering of Palestinians, but is objectively trading
| 30k Palestinians dead now with a few Israelis dead every
| year.
|
| There's shooting and there's shooting. 30k Palestinians
| in Gaza Strip are in the war zone so in a way it's not a
| much surprise they're dying, but there are Palestiniani
| on the West Bank, who are being murdered by Israeli
| (settlers backed by IDF). Last I checked the death toll
| is around 500 (https://apnews.com/article/settler-attack-
| palestinians-west-...), which puts it within the ballpark
| of 7 October Hamas' strike.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_tag_attack_policy
|
| This is absolutely "Just stop shooting at Palestinians",
| and I think they have every right to resist such
| occupation.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> are going about it in a terrible manner_
|
| How could Israel defend itself against Hamas in a manner
| that wasn't "terrible"? What non-terrible options do they
| have?
| octopoc wrote:
| I mean they're all terrible at this point, but Israel has
| been digging this hole for a while, it's not going to be
| easy to get out. Doesn't mean it's not worth trying to
| stop digging.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> Israel has been digging this hole for a while_
|
| No, Israel has been trying to defend itself against
| Hamas, a terrorist organization which has explicitly
| declared that its objective is to destroy Israel. What
| options does it have to do that that would meet with your
| approval, or even grudging acquiescence?
|
| There is no stable middle ground here. That's what much
| of the commentary on this situation seems to be missing.
| This is an existential conflict between Israel and Hamas
| (note that I said "Hamas", not "the Palestinians"--
| they're not the same): the only stable endpoint is that
| one or the other ceases to exist. And Hamas is the side
| that chose to make it that way. So I'm really struggling
| to see what possible options Israel has other than what
| they are doing.
| harimau777 wrote:
| > What options does it have to do that that would meet
| with your approval, or even grudging acquiescence?
|
| They could form a state with equal rights, including
| right of return, for Jews and Palestinians.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| That would be the end of Israel as a functioning state
| (Jewish or not)
|
| You really think a country can double it's population
| overnight bringing even more division without it
| crumbling? You'll just end up with another Lebanon.
|
| A two state solution is the only thing that can make
| sense short/medium term. Longer term after decades of
| peace you can open the borders and create perhaps a union
| of sort.
|
| A one state solution is detached - it's just not a viable
| option, and even if you believe it's the right thing to
| do it just doesn't seem wise.
| octopoc wrote:
| A single state solution is the only long term solution.
| Unless we accept that ethnostates are good for everyone.
| Israel will have a hard time bringing in the
| Palestinians, but the US created reservations and the
| native American population isn't trying to kill everyone
| else. Israel needs to learn by doing it that diversity is
| their strength.
|
| Prosperity can do a lot towards killing the shared
| stories that cause people to want to go kill the people
| in the neighboring country. Grandpa's story about losing
| his home won't be as stirring when you're not being
| bombed and starved by the same group of people who stole
| Grandpa's home. Especially when they give back Grandpa's
| home.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| I'm all for prosperity, which is why I think trying to
| merge two cultures over overnight will just result in
| chaos and violence. Especially since the groups are
| around the same size and the territory is tiny - if you
| actually think about the practically of such a solution
| you'll realize it's not viable.
|
| Do you really think the new nation wouldn't just delve
| into chaos Lebanon style? Might as well just sentence
| everyone to eternal conflict.
|
| How is starting with two states and later on creating a
| union type entity not better for everyone?
|
| Let's say you had to approach this as an engineering
| problem of merging two very different
| branches/companies/etc, how would you approach it?
|
| And re US, they basically committed genocide and ended up
| absorbing a minority, the situation in Israel is
| different as it's similar sized populations on a fraction
| of the land.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> the US created reservations and the native American
| population isn 't trying to kill everyone else._
|
| Not now, but there was a long period during which native
| Americans were seriously pushing back and a lot of people
| on both sides were killed.
| harimau777 wrote:
| They could have not supported Hamas as a strategy for
| dividing Palestinians.
|
| They could make meaningful steps towards a one or two
| state solution in order to undercut Hamas' power.
| pdonis wrote:
| These same proposals were given decades ago when it was
| the PLO Israel was having to deal with. Israel followed
| them, at the behest of the international community. They
| didn't work--we know this because it's now decades later
| and the same problems still exist. Isn't the classic
| definition of insanity trying the same thing over and
| over again but expecting different results?
| jeltz wrote:
| So the better thing to do was to strengthen Hamas? Hamas
| is an enemy Israel helped create.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> Hamas is an enemy Israel helped create._
|
| In the sense that Israel failed to reach a stable
| endpoint to this conflict once before, in 2009, yes, I
| suppose this is true. They should have destroyed Hamas
| then, and they didn't. Which would suggest that Israel
| should finish the job this time.
| harimau777 wrote:
| It's pretty well established that tactics that produce
| widespread civilian casualties just create the next
| generation of insurgents. In that respect, Israel's
| current actions seem to match the definition of insanity.
| somenameforme wrote:
| Like you would any other crime. Investigate, insert
| moles, offer "extremely large" bounties + protection for
| arrests leading to conviction, and so on. The current
| situation is not only an ineffective means of combating
| Hamas, but is likely growing their numbers. The reason
| these sort of conflicts never end is because each time
| you bomb an area with innocents, you may or may not kill
| your target, but you definitely just turned all the
| friends, family, and so on of the innocents killed into
| new "real" enemies.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> Like you would any other crime._
|
| The criminal model does not work for war. This is a war.
|
| _> each time you bomb an area with innocents, you may or
| may not kill your target, but you definitely just turned
| all the friends, family, and so on of the innocents
| killed into new "real" enemies._
|
| So when Hamas fires rockets into Israel, killing
| innocents, or sends a terror squad into Israel, killing
| innocents (and kidnapping others), it makes more Hamas
| enemies. Yes, indeed.
| jcranmer wrote:
| Counterterrorism is necessarily a difficult and fraught
| process. Ultimately, it's political; military force is
| useful only so far as it can convince people there is no
| better way than your political aims.
|
| Looking at the example of successful counterterrorism
| conclusions, such as The Troubles in Northern Ireland or
| Colombia's efforts against FARC, the general pathway to
| success is to build up successful alternative political
| institutions that have the legitimacy to disarm the
| terrorist groups, which also means to a degree making
| some concessions towards the political aims of
| terrorists, and perhaps also requires co-opting the more
| moderate terrorists into legitimate political parties.
|
| Notably not on that list is such things as targeting
| enemy leaders with artillery rounds. Indiscriminate
| damage is one of the best ways to fuel an upsurge in
| terrorist violence; what Israel is doing now looks in
| many ways like what the British did in Northern Ireland
| to _start_ The Troubles rather than what it did to end
| them.
| pdonis wrote:
| I agree that Northern Ireland and Colombia v. FARC are
| useful examples. However, they both share one key
| property that the Israel-Hamas conflict does _not_ have:
| the international community fully supports the existence
| of both the UK and Colombia as legitimate nation-states.
| That is not true for Israel; there is a large and vocal
| segment of the international community that does not want
| Israel to exist, and that segment has enough political
| clout that it cannot be ignored.
| jcranmer wrote:
| The segment of the international community that matters
| is fully on board with Israel's existence. The largest
| country to not formally recognize Israel is Indonesia.
| Largely only Iran is intransigent about Israel's
| nonexistence; the Arab countries have in the recent past
| explicitly endorsed proposals to recognize Israel in
| exchange for durable progress on Palestinian statehood.
|
| (Which, really, is one of the principal causes of the
| current situation: Netanyahu has in the past sought to
| undermine the ability of the Palestinian Authority to
| effectively govern Palestine--including covert support
| for Hamas--so as to be able to claim that there's no
| partner for peace to avoid having to make any progress on
| the statehood issue.)
| pdonis wrote:
| _> The segment of the international community that
| matters is fully on board with Israel 's existence._
|
| I disagree. US policy in this area, for instance, is
| being significantly influenced by the fact that there are
| protests at major universities in support of Hamas, and
| elected politicians who are advocating the same thing.
| (And by that I mean explicitly supporting the Hamas
| objective of destroying Israel.)
|
| _> the Arab countries have in the recent past explicitly
| endorsed proposals to recognize Israel_
|
| In other words, they don't _currently_ support Israel 's
| existence, but they might decide to if enough of their
| demands are met. Which concedes my point.
|
| The reason this matters is that the UK and Colombia were
| only able to even _consider_ the options they ended up
| taking to resolve their conflicts because they knew that
| no matter what, their existence as nation states was not
| in question. Israel does not have that assurance, and
| that means they do not feel able to consider those kinds
| of options.
|
| Or, to put it another way, as I have said in several
| other posts elsewhere in this discussion, this conflict
| is an existential conflict for Israel. Northern Ireland
| was not an existential conflict for the UK, and FARC was
| not an existential conflict for Colombia. That makes a
| huge difference.
| mordae wrote:
| The trouble is that Israel government does not really have
| the ambition to destroy Hamas. Their ambition under ultra
| conservative lobby is to grab more Palestinian land, using
| inevitable backlash as an excuse to dismiss any complaints.
|
| If the whole world stepped in, captured every Hamas
| militant and left, it wouldn't take more than a couple of
| years and somebody else would take up the arms against the
| Israeli occupants.
|
| We'd have to do that AND then protect the Palestinians from
| militant Zionists for half a century at least to actually
| have any chance to solve the situation.
|
| And since EU doesn't give a shit, US is unable to stand up
| to antidefamation league, rest of the Islamic countries
| enjoys blaming Israel but don't actually do anything,
| Palestinians are good as dead.
| feedforward wrote:
| > Broadly I think Israel has the right ambition (the
| destruction of Hamas)
|
| Well a few months ago Netanyahu sent the head of the Mossad
| to Qatar asking them to fund Hamas ( https://www.nytimes.co
| m/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q... ). So these
| endless massacres of Palestinian civilians by Israel (and
| effectively by the USA too) are happening for a pretty
| capricious reason, if that even is the reason, and I think
| it isn't.
| excalibur wrote:
| > This will have big impact on media discourse not controlled
| by the Israeli lobby.
|
| It already has. Biden was quick to condemn it and further
| alienate his base: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-
| news/2024/05/20/internatio...
| belter wrote:
| The ICC is not doing that. A prosecutor is requesting the court
| to approve them.
|
| Now, why is the court accepting legal challenges on legal
| issues, and independently of the merits of those issues, from
| countries like South Africa, who publicly said they would not
| arrest Putin, who actually DOES have an ICC arrest mandate
| against him?
| ben_w wrote:
| > from countries like South Africa, who publicly said they
| would not arrest Putin,
|
| I thought they either outright said they would arrest Putin,
| or at least equivocated just enough to convince Putin to not
| want to find out if they would or not?
|
| Did they later clarify "no we won't"?
| belter wrote:
| "South Africa grants Putin and Brics leaders diplomatic
| immunity for summit" -
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/30/south-
| africa-g...
|
| "...South Africa has issued blanket diplomatic immunity to
| all leaders attending an August summit, meaning Vladimir
| Putin might be able to travel to Johannesburg and not fear
| the country acting on an international criminal court
| warrant for his arrest..."
|
| It's the ultimate hypocrisy on South Africa to undermine
| the same court where is currently arguing, and a major
| legal failure on the court to accept South Africa claims.
| mannyv wrote:
| My understanding is that the ICC is only supposed to do this
| for countries/areas without a functioning and functionally
| independent judicial system.
|
| I expect the request for the Israelis will not be approved.
|
| Hamas will be interesting. Hamas' territory has no functioning
| judicial system, but does the ICC have jurisdiction?
|
| In any case the "warrants" if issued would only apply to
| countries who signed the ICC treaty.
| toast0 wrote:
| The ICC claims jurisdiction [1], which is enough for it to
| issue warrants and hold trials and issue judgements. The
| question is always if the warrants will be executed and the
| judgements enforced, as the ICC cannot enforce its rulings
| itself.
|
| At the time of the declaration accepting jursdiction of the
| ICC by the State of Palestine[2], there was a unity
| government of Palestine, so it feels like maybe.
|
| In April 2012, the ICC declined to assert jurisdiction over
| Palestine, as it was not recognized as a State by the UN [3],
| but in November 2012, Palestine was granted the status of a
| non-member observer State, which seems to satisfy the ICC.
|
| [1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine [2] https://www.icc-
| cpi.int/sites/default/files/iccdocs/PIDS/pre... [3]
| https://www.icc-
| cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/9B6...
| mannyv wrote:
| At some point the claim of jurisdiction has to be
| adjudicated, as it states here:
|
| "The Chamber provided a legal answer based on the strict
| interpretation of the Rome Statute. It emphasised that the
| issue of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court would
| have to be further examined when the Prosecutor submits an
| application for the issuance of a warrant of arrest or
| summons to appear. The Chamber declined to address the
| arguments regarding the Oslo Accords in the context of the
| present proceedings and indicated that these issues may be
| raised at a later stage of the proceedings."
|
| https://www.icc-
| cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/p...
|
| Did the legal government of Palestine do the initial
| request in 2015? That would have been Hamas, since Hamas
| was the last elected government of Palestine. I would be
| surprised if Hamas acceded to the ICC's jurisdiction.
|
| Can a non-state actor be accorded the same rights as a
| state under the Rome accords? Is the "government of
| Palestine" an actual entity?
|
| If an entity other than the authorized government accepts
| jurisdiction of the ICC, does that count?
|
| I mean, this isn't even getting the actual meat of the case
| and it's already a mess.
| toast0 wrote:
| At the time of the letter, Hamas and Fatah were in a
| unity government [1], although that's maybe disputable
| too. If Wikipedia is accurate and complete, Hamas claimed
| at the end of November 2014, that the unity government
| had expired; but then in June 2015, Hamas rejected the
| dissolution of the unity government.
|
| But yeah, you're right, my summary was overly brief ---
| the earlier ruling was more that there's a reasonable
| question of if they have jurisdiction, so investigations
| can proceed. As opposed to before where the court ruled
| that it didn't have jurisdiction, and couldn't proceed.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Hamdallah_Government
| mannyv wrote:
| From the same article:
|
| "Like the former emergency governments after June 2007,
| which were installed by presidential decree, this unity
| government was in fact illegal, as it was not approved by
| the Legislative Council.[2][3] Without the cooperation of
| all parties, however, it was not possible to get the
| necessary quorum to put a vote.[20]"
| toast0 wrote:
| IMHO, it's pretty hard to tell what's legal and not, when
| all of the elected officials are way past their elected
| terms, and the bodies are not in session.
|
| Article 43 seems to give pretty wide berth for the
| President to operate when the Legislative Council is not
| in session, and if the Legislative Council is never
| expected to be in session, there's no mechanism to reign
| that in.
|
| > Article (43) The President of the National Authority
| shall have the right in exceptional cases, which can not
| be delayed, and while the Legislative Council is not in
| session, to issue decisions and decrees that have the
| power of law. However, the decisions issued shall be
| presented to the Legislative Council in the first session
| convened after their issuance, otherwise they will cease
| to have the power of law. If these decisions were
| presented as mentioned above, but were not approved, then
| they shall cease to have the power of law.
|
| To be honest, not a lot of countries have laws that
| contemplate continuance of government in case elections
| are not held.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > My understanding is that the ICC is only supposed to do
| this for countries/areas without a functioning and
| functionally independent judicial system.
|
| That seems to be a misunderstanding based on an improper
| generalization of Article 17 of the Rome Statute: the kind of
| inadmissibility you refer to applies not based on general
| capacity of the state but of action in the specific case:
|
| ---[Art 17]
|
| 1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article
| 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible
| where:
|
| (a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State
| which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling
| or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or
| prosecution;
|
| (b) The case has been investigated by a State which has
| jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to
| prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted
| from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to
| prosecute;
|
| (c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct
| which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the
| Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;
|
| (d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further
| action by the Court.
|
| 2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case,
| the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of
| due process recognized by international law, whether one or
| more of the following exist, as applicable:
|
| (a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the
| national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the
| person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes
| within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article
| 5;
|
| (b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings
| which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to
| bring the person concerned to justice;
|
| (c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted
| independently or impartially, and they were or are being
| conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is
| inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to
| justice.
|
| 3. In order to determine inability in a particular case, the
| Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial
| collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system,
| the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary
| evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its
| proceedings.
|
| ---[end]
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The ICC is seeking arrest warrants from the ICC for people
| who don't care what the ICC says, and one of them isn't even in
| a country that's a member of the ICC?
|
| Neither Galant nor Netanyahu is currently in an ICC state, but
| that's not entirely novel territory for international criminal
| tribunals.
|
| > What exactly are they going to be able to do once they manage
| to grant themselves these warrants?
|
| If the judges of the court grant the prosecutor's application,
| the court will issue warrants and seek cooperation of its 124
| member states and any willing cooperating states in enforcing
| them.
| loceng wrote:
| dang, perhaps updating link to the official ICC statement would
| be ideal: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-
| karim-... ?
|
| Edit to add: I tried submitting that link to submit it myself,
| and can't?
| loceng wrote:
| "More than four months ago, the prosecutor of the International
| Criminal Court asked me to assist him with evaluating evidence of
| suspected war crimes and crimes against humanity in Israel and
| Gaza. I agreed and joined a panel of international legal experts
| to undertake this task. Together we have engaged in an extensive
| process of evidence review and legal analysis including at the
| International Criminal Court in The Hague.
|
| The Panel and its academic advisers are experts in international
| law, including international humanitarian law and international
| criminal law. Two Panel members are appointed as expert 'Special
| Advisers' by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.
| Two Panel members are former judges at criminal tribunals in The
| Hague.
|
| Despite our diverse personal backgrounds, our legal findings are
| unanimous. We have unanimously determined that the Court has
| jurisdiction over crimes committed in Palestine and by
| Palestinian nationals. We unanimously conclude that there are
| reasonable grounds to believe that Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar,
| Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh have committed war crimes and
| crimes against humanity, including hostage-taking, murder and
| crimes of sexual violence. We unanimously conclude that there are
| raasonable grounds to believe that Israeli Prime Minister
| Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant have
| commited war crimes and crimes against humanity including
| starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution and
| extermination.
|
| I served on this Panel because I believe in the rule of law and
| the need to protect civilian lives. The law that protects
| civilians in war was developed more than 100 years ago and it
| applies in every country in the world regardless of the reasons
| for a conflict. As a human rights laywer, I will never accept
| that one child's life has less value than another's. I do not
| accept that any conflict should be beyond the reach of the law,
| nor that any perpetrator should be above the law. So I support
| the historic step that the Prosecutor of the International
| Criminal Court has taken to bring justice to victims of
| atrocities in Israel and Palestine.
|
| Today, my colleagues and I have published an oped and a detailed
| legal report of the Panel's findings. My approach is not to
| provide a running commentary of my work but to let the work speak
| for itself. I hope that witnesses will cooperate with the ongoing
| investigation. And I hope that justice will prevail in a region
| that has already suffered too much."
|
| - Amal Clooney
| dang wrote:
| All: if you're going to comment in this thread, please review the
| site guidelines
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Make sure
| that your comment is following them, and that you are posting in
| the intended spirit: intellectually curious, respectful
| conversation.
|
| "Respectful" here means respectful to the people who are wrong
| (in your view) and _most_ respectful to the people who are _most_
| wrong (in your view). If you can 't do that, that's ok, but
| please don't post until you can. _Comments should get more
| thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more
| divisive_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
|
| Hellish flamewars in deep subthreads are not ok. I'm going to
| lower the bar for banning accounts that do this, so please don't
| do this. If you're hotly indignant, step away from the keyboard
| until that changes. Nobody 'wins' on the internet anyway, and
| it's not worth destroying this community for. Not to mention your
| heart.
| blackhawkC17 wrote:
| The ICC just gave Netanyahu more strength. Israelis would likely
| rally around their leader. Netanyahu will be emboldened to do
| maximum damage on his way out. What more does he have to lose at
| this point?
|
| Besides, the U.S. government is on Netanyahu's side, so he will
| never be arrested.
| Georgelemental wrote:
| Unfortunately I think this is correct. All the people cited in
| this warrant request are fully guilty of the crimes of which
| they are accused--but a peace deal that lets the murderers off
| scot-free is preferable to more endless war.
|
| The reputational damage to Israel, from being put on the same
| level as Putin, is significant though.
| tda wrote:
| Leaving out personal opinions, I would love to hear some
| thoughtful speculation on how this might pa out. Will the ICC
| actually approve the warrants? How far will the US and/or Israel
| go to threaten or discredit the ICC leadership? Will Egypt or
| other neighbours respond? What is the reaction in China? Will
| Europe and the Netherlands stand by the ICC unconditionally?
| blackhawkC17 wrote:
| Biden has already called the indictment "outrageous." [1]. The
| U.S. Secretary of State has also spoken out against the
| indictment [2].
|
| Needless to say, they're backing him, and the ICC can't arrest
| Netanyahu. At worst, the U.S. government will sanction ICC
| officials as they did under the Trump administration.
|
| I personally can't believe the ICC is equating the actions of
| Hamas and the Israeli government. What a shameful organization.
|
| 1- https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
| releases...
|
| 2- https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-
| internatio...
| bawolff wrote:
| > I personally can't believe the ICC is equating the actions
| of Hamas and the Israeli government.
|
| I think that is an unfair statement. Just because they asked
| for a warrant to be issued for both does not imply that they
| think both are the same.
| strulovich wrote:
| It does mean that in the realm of logic.
|
| But media, PR and politics don't play by these rules.
| Mention two things together and the messages will go
| through.
|
| A similar example would be Whataboutism, a logical fallacy,
| but it seems to work very well in politics.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| While I understand your point about the optics of it,
| optics should play no role in determining whether
| somebody is guilty of war crimes. When optics are a
| primary factor, war crime laws are a tool the powerful
| use to punish the weak.
|
| I have my issues with the ICC, but they are supposed to
| enforce international law impartially.
| worik wrote:
| > does not imply that they think both are the same.
|
| They clearly not the same. One is a modern state and one is
| not.
|
| The actions of both are not so different. Killing civilians
| is not good. Whether it be guerilla terrorism or bombs and
| troops
| golergka wrote:
| > Killing civilians is not good.
|
| International law looks at this differently. There's a
| huge difference between targeting civilians and striking
| genuine military targets that have civilian human
| shields, especially after issuing a warning and taking
| reasonable precautions. The first is a war crime, the
| second is actually allowed by Geneva conventions. The
| phrase "killing civilians" throws these differences out
| of the window and simply shouldn't be used in intelligent
| conversion about this topic.
| worik wrote:
| Really?
|
| I think that is a distinction without a difference
|
| If your siblings are killed or maimed in their home or at
| a party, do you care?
|
| Killing people is a bad thing
| golergka wrote:
| Then you disagree with international law and common
| sense. If my siblings are killed with a rocket that
| targeted a hospital turned a weapon silo, I would blame
| those who put the weapons there, not those who launched
| the rocket.
| phatfish wrote:
| Obviously Hamas are responsible for the hospital becoming
| a target.
|
| But there is version of this where weapons at the
| hospital are removed by force, without bombing it.
| mhb wrote:
| Yeah, but it's a magical version in an imaginary realm.
| ImJamal wrote:
| Does anybody look at it like that though? If a sibling of
| yours was accidentally killed in a car accident would you
| consider that to be the equivalent as somebody
| deliberately running down your sibling? While the end
| result is the same the intent is different.
|
| Maybe you could argue Israel is not accidentally doing
| this, but collateral damage of civilians will almost
| always happen regardless of how careful attacks are
| planned. I don't think there has ever been a war that
| occurred in such a densely packed area that has had no
| civilian causalities.
| bawolff wrote:
| International law thinks there is a significant
| difference between different types of death in war, and
| that is the basis of these proceedings.
|
| You can personally think international law is wrong, but
| that probably won't affect what the ICC does very much.
| Georgelemental wrote:
| > There's a huge difference between targeting civilians
| and striking genuine military targets that have civilian
| human shields
|
| Even in the latter case, the cost to civilian lives has
| to be proportional to the the military value/lives saved
| long-term by ending the threat. This is not proportional:
| https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
|
| But unfortunately, the latter case does not account for
| all that we've seen in the last few months and years.
| There's been plenty of "targeting civilians" too
| bawolff wrote:
| As far as i understand, Israel disputes much of this (not
| that civilians have died, but that it has been non
| porpotional). ICC is innocent until proven guilty, so its
| going to take more evidence than anonoymous leaks to get
| a guilty verdict.
|
| Additionally they werent charged on the basis of
| unporportionality afaik, i think all the charges are
| based around failing to let in enough food aid, causing a
| famine.
| Georgelemental wrote:
| > i think all the charges are based around failing to let
| in enough food aid, causing a famin
|
| No, starvation is only one of the alleged offences: "the
| use of starvation as a method of warfare, together with
| other attacks and collective punishment against the
| civilian population of Gaza"
|
| https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-
| karim-...
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > especially after issuing a warning and taking
| reasonable precautions
|
| Ahh, yes, like when the IDF told Gazan civilians by
| evacuation order to move to the south of Gaza because
| they were going to intensify bombing in the north.
|
| And then increased bombing of southern Gaza by 85% in the
| next 10 days...
|
| Source: https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-war-satellite-
| data-shows-isr...
| AnarchismIsCool wrote:
| It's a PR play ultimately, they can't just say "Netanyahoo
| is a war criminal, K thx bai". That would call the court's
| judgement into question for a lot of people. If massacring
| civilians and aid workers is a war crime, then yeah, he's a
| war criminal, but they have to also address the elephant in
| the room, that Hamas is also wantonly committing war crimes
| and is calling for even more even though they're
| significantly less powerful in this dynamic.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| I don't like this "but Hamas is worse" rethoric. War
| crimes are ware crimes, you're not allowed to commit them
| because the other side is worse than you.
|
| This may be how things played out after the second world
| war, but it's a horrible standard to live by. If the ICC
| has any integrity, they won't take "but they started it"
| as an excuse.
| kbelder wrote:
| >you're not allowed to commit them because the other side
| is worse than you.
|
| Aren't you? I thought the Geneva convention and similar
| treaties all require reciprocity.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Under the Geneva conventions, yes, but the Rome statute
| only copies select passages of the Geneva convention, and
| I don't believe the "we can commit war crimes as long as
| you don't promise not to commit war crimes" is part of
| what's copied.
|
| The Rome Statute does allow foe the ICC to convict
| according to the Geneva conventions as well, but the
| exemptions therein don't necessarily apply.
| ars wrote:
| So why did it take them 7 months to issue a warrant? It
| should have been issued on Oct 8.
|
| The fact that it didn't tell you all you need to know
| about how legitimate this "court" is.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| For the same reason they didn't issue a warrant against
| the Israel government over the past twenty years: the
| conflict spiraled out of control months ago.
|
| In 2019, the ICC got involved following the 2014 Gaza war
| and concluded that war crimes were taking place (on both
| sides, in different ways), but they concluded that they
| lacked jurisdiction. Investigations has been ongoing ever
| since.
| mc32 wrote:
| A big complication is that on the one hand you have an
| identifiable army, on the other hand you have something
| akin to a militia/guerrilla where combatants and non-
| combatants are hard to ID often because one person can be
| both. When you have a resistance it get further muddied
| because like in WWII France, the resistance was
| civilians. So you can be a civilian and a combatant.
|
| Things like what Milosevic or what Janjaweed leaders do
| are identifiable.
| ars wrote:
| It took them 7 MONTHS! To issue an arrest warrant for some
| blatantly obvious crimes.
|
| Issues warrants for both sides at the same time is utterly
| repugnant and calls the entire court into question.
| tptacek wrote:
| The Biden situation is predictable and calls into question
| the strategy behind the ICC arrest warrants.
|
| First things first: neither the Polizio di Stato, the Garda,
| nor the RCMP are actually going to arrest Sinwar or
| Netanyahu. The practical impact of the warrants will be (at
| least in the near term) negligible.
|
| Concurrently: unlike the ICC Genocide case, which is
| difficult and unlikely to succeed, the ICC war crimes
| warrants are probably broadly going to be seen as strong and
| compelling. Reporting has Biden and his team maneuvering for
| months to keep any kind of supply lines open to Gaza; he
| knows firsthand that some of these charges have validity.
|
| But the USA is Israel's most important ally; further,
| reporting suggests that Biden's team has been the only thing
| between the current situation and abyss that would kill 3-5x
| as many civilians. That pushback only functions because of
| soft power (Israel would not depend on US arms suppliers for
| indiscriminate bulk bombing, massed land incursions, or
| supply blockades).
|
| What else can Biden say in this situation? He cannot both
| assent to the validity of the ICC charges and continue
| negotiating with Israel for things like US-built supply piers
| on Gaza's seafront. You can't really do diplomacy wth a world
| leader while at the same time saying (or implying) that they
| belong in the Hague.
|
| There's a general vibe where people want international
| justice to work in simple moral terms, where everyone just
| lays the truth as they understand it out, a tribunal sorts
| out the details, and the chips fall as they may. But
| international law absolutely doesn't work that way; for
| similar reasons, Assad won't be charged by the ICC for
| killing half a million Syrians (Syria is not a signatory to
| the ICC).
|
| Once you accept that the court is fundamentally political,
| you're left asking: are the politics of this move effective?
| Will they hasten an end to the conflict, or save lives?
|
| Either way: once the warrants were announced, I think you
| could have taken bets on what Biden (or literally any other
| American president in the last 50 years, or any major party
| candidate for the presidency) would have said, and all the
| money would be on exactly this. We're not signatories to the
| ICC to begin with!
|
| (I think Netanyahu is a criminal; the Hague is fine with me,
| though I think it's more likely he'll do his time in
| Maasiyahu after the Israelis convict him once his coalition
| falls apart).
| mandmandam wrote:
| > reporting suggests that Biden's team has been the only
| thing between the current situation and abyss that would
| kill 3-5x as many civilians
|
| Um. What?
|
| Biden's team vetoed UN calls for a ceasefire three times.
|
| Biden's team has delivered how many billions of dollars of
| weapons in the last 8 months?
|
| Biden's team has consistently and repeatedly lied in front
| of the whole world, saying that they see "no evidence" of
| genocide. This, during the most documented mass murder in
| all history. This, despite clear and unequivocal genocidal
| statements from Israeli leadership, media, and populace.
|
| How many people have resigned from his team now, saying
| they can't have this much Palestinian blood on their hands
| any more? To claim that Biden has _prevented_ deaths in the
| last 8 months is breathtaking. At every juncture he and the
| team he still has have been complicit.
| tptacek wrote:
| What's your point? I agree with some of this but disagree
| with most of it, but either way, it doesn't intersect
| with anything I wrote.
| mandmandam wrote:
| I honestly have no idea how you're not seeing the point.
| I quoted your text and responded to it.
|
| Which of the facts I stated do you disagree with? I'm
| sure I can find you a source for any of them.
| adw wrote:
| I believe that 'tptacek's point could be summarized as
| "the facts are, in a real sense, not material to this
| conversation, as we are operating entirely with the
| domain of realpolitik rather than morality".
|
| Biden, in _theory_, could say to Israel that "continued
| arms supplies are contingent on surrendering Netanyahu
| and Gallant to The Hague immediately", but a) it's not at
| all clear that that would work, b) in the near term it
| probably causes Israel to make the situation on the
| ground in Gaza even worse, and c) it would come with
| serious domestic political repercussions in an election
| year.
|
| I hate all of that too, and it doesn't speak well of us
| as a society or species, but what _should_ happen and
| what _would_ happen are two very different things.
| mandmandam wrote:
| > tptacek's point could be summarized as "the facts are,
| in a real sense, not material to this conversation
|
| Tptacek is demonstrating this well by editing the part of
| the comment I quoted, then acting confused. However, I
| don't subscribe to the idea that facts are not material
| to discussions involving claims of fact.
|
| The claim Biden is _preventing_ deaths in Gaza while
| sending the bombs that are killing them and vetoing
| ceasefire resolutions left right and center, even against
| the will of his own voters, would require stronger
| evidence than has been provided.
|
| Also, international law, including the Genocide
| Convention, is binding on all signatory states.
| 'Realpolitik' is not a defense for complicity in
| genocide.
|
| However, let's look at your abc points, ignoring
| international law for the moment:
|
| a) it's not at all clear that that would work
|
| We've skipped past the issue, which is that we shouldn't
| be sending arms at all at this point. We also have other
| leverage which hasn't been used yet - sanctions, trade
| restrictions, etc.
|
| b) in the near term it probably causes Israel to make the
| situation on the ground in Gaza even worse
|
| This has merit - Israel did threaten to use more unguided
| bombs if the arms flow stopped. Too bad Biden's people
| vetoed the UN ceasefire resolutions _three times_ ,
| against the will of basically the entire planet. What
| about the realpolitik of that loss in our global
| standing?
|
| c) it would come with serious domestic political
| repercussions in an election year.
|
| Believe it or not, and despite tptacek's claims above
| that most people don't care, polls in fact show that
| significantly more registered Democrats disapprove of
| Biden's handling of the situation in Gaza (sending arms)
| than approve, and that this is affecting their vote [0].
|
| > "This issue is a stone-cold loser for Biden," said
| Douglas Schoen, a pollster and strategist who reviewed
| the Reuters/Ipsos poll results. "He's losing votes from
| the left, right and center."
|
| 0 - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-divide-
| gaza-war-...
| lupusreal wrote:
| You seem to be saying in your above comment that Biden's
| only possible choice is to appease Israel to hopefully
| get some humanitarian concessions from them. This is
| probably true due to the reality of American domestic
| politics, but if we ignore that then other choices are
| obvious. Treat Israel as we once treated South Africa.
| Force regime change by isolating them.
| tptacek wrote:
| Yes, that is what I am saying. Cutting off arms sales to
| Israel will not prevent a supply blockade of Gaza or a
| Rafah invasion, both of which are issues that the US has
| publicly campaigned on --- we don't know what other red
| lines the US has set up, or how much worse this could yet
| become. Contrary to popular belief, it's not at all clear
| that Israel is dependent on the US militarily; we're a
| small part of their defense budget.
|
| I think domestic politics are certainly a factor, but not
| a big one in an ICC case, because Americans, to a first
| approximation, do not give a shit about the ICC; further,
| we aren't a party to the ICC, so it's not as if the
| administration is being asked to do something or help
| adjudicate.
|
| I want to say again that I think this particular case is
| well-founded. But an ICC warrant against the leader of a
| non-signatory is fundamentally a political act, and while
| I don't take issue with the stated intent of that act, I
| don't get the theory of change behind it.
|
| I put it to you directly: what good comes of this while
| Netanyahu remains in power?
| lupusreal wrote:
| > _Yes, that is what I am saying. Cutting off arms sales
| to Israel will not prevent a supply blockade of Gaza or a
| Rafah invasion_
|
| It would if Israel has any sense of self preservation at
| all. They need the support of the American government
| more than they need Gazan land.
| tptacek wrote:
| I think that's unlikely to be true. I think it's a self-
| serving western myth that Israel, with one of the largest
| economies and the best trained and resourced military in
| the region (see the Arab States performance vs. the IRGC
| in Syria and Yemen for counterexamples) is a US-dependent
| proxy. The west tried to ice Russia out of supplies for
| the Ukranian invasion, and that didn't work despite near-
| unanimity. Israel will just buy bombs from China, which
| is their next largest trading partner after us. We will
| lose all influence over Israeli policy, at least until
| [insert US partisan political argument here].
|
| (I also think it's not at all clear that serious
| policymakers in Israel "want Gazan land", let alone need
| it; the messianic nutballs bolstering Netanyahu's
| coalition are, to put it mildly, not representative of
| mainstream Israel policy thinking.)
|
| A reminder that we're just talking about this stuff here;
| this is HN, not the UN Security Council. If we're going
| to have threads like this here, we're going to have to
| accept that we're having curious conversations, not high-
| stakes deliberations. So: I can be wrong about all of
| this stuff, and I'm glad to hear why. But we're not going
| to solve Israel/Gaza on a thread.
|
| (You didn't say anything to prompt that disclaimer, it's
| just a stress reaction from previous threads).
| bawolff wrote:
| > Israel will just buy bombs from China
|
| Or just make them themselves. That seems fully within
| their capabilities if push comes to shove.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| I think the biggest thing the US is doing for Israel is
| discouraging regional actors from getting involved. If
| the US took no position here either way, the conflict
| would probably turn into a proxy war pretty quickly.
| Whether you think that's good or not depends on your
| viewpoint. I personally prefer that the states in the
| area, even if they don't necessarily directly represent
| the Palestinians, negotiate the conflict because they
| have to deal with the fallout on their own
| borders/politics.
|
| Being able to purchase weapons from the US also gives
| them significant political latitude internally. When a
| significant amount of your economy and government
| spending goes to making weapons, you're going to affect
| domestic budgets, which will make coalition building much
| harder especially in a country with as many small parties
| as Israel. We see this in Russia as well but because
| Russia is not democratic when it comes to defense
| allocation, it simply throws its dissidents in jail or
| encourages them to leave.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > (I also think it's not at all clear that serious
| policymakers in Israel "want Gazan land", let alone need
| it; the messianic nutballs bolstering Netanyahu's
| coalition are, to put it mildly, not representative of
| mainstream Israel policy thinking.)
|
| And yet are regularly re-elected. And have been for
| decades.
| hexane360 wrote:
| H.W. Bush brought Israel in line:
| https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-hw-bush-israel-
| palesti...
|
| Reagan did it with a single phone call:
| https://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/13/world/reagan-demands-
| end-...
| tptacek wrote:
| Bush's settlement policies didn't work at all. West Bank
| settlements drastically increased in the years following
| that showdown. Can you look at a graph and spot the point
| where Bush "brought Israel in line"?
|
| (I kind of like Bush 1, at least as a competent operator
| with some discernible principles, and think Israeli
| settlement of the West Bank is abhorrent).
| dralley wrote:
| >Biden's team vetoed UN calls for a ceasefire three
| times.
|
| "Calls for ceasefire" that didn't include "calls to
| release the hostages", to say nothing of the fact that
| Hamas leadership had already been shouting they would
| "repeat October 7th again and again until the final
| destruction of Israel" and so on.
| Animats wrote:
| > But the USA is Israel's most important ally.
|
| However, Israel is not the USA's most important ally.
|
| The US is not really an ally of Israel at all. The NATO
| countries are. Japan and South Korea are. They have US
| troops and bases. The US does not send troops to fight in
| Israel's wars. The US just sends money.
| tptacek wrote:
| Right, my point is that we're most important external
| input to Israel's decision-making process, not that we
| depend on them (beyond the political fact that the US
| electorate broadly supports Israel as an enterprise, and
| ranks the Gaza war at the bottom of important issues).
| jcranmer wrote:
| As I saw someone else put it, this will probably be
| studied in decades to come as a case study in "why not to
| piss off your superpower ally."
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| "The US does not send troops to fight in Israel's wars.
| The US just sends money"
|
| That's what Ukraine is begging for.
| phatfish wrote:
| Luckily Ukraine can focus on something other than
| "begging" the US now, as the politics got sorted on the
| US side, for the moment.
| lupusreal wrote:
| If it weren't for a large portion of the American public
| having religious motivation (evangelical protestantism) to
| support Israel _unconditionally, no matter what_ , then the
| US would be able to exert considerable pressure on Israel,
| for instance by threatening to cut off Israel as Israel has
| been cutting off Gaza. No more arms shipments, no more UN
| Security Council vetos of any anti-Israel resolution, etc.
|
| But of course this is politically impossible for the US.
| Near half of the US population would throw an absolute fit.
| tptacek wrote:
| Evangelicals are a small component of the electorate
| relative to Israel's support (they're like a quarter of
| the population, and, of course, they're locked in
| completely to the opposition party; Democrats don't
| meaningfully campaign for evangelical votes.)
| Qwertious wrote:
| Democrats are only half of congress, though - Republican
| support is needed to pass bills, currently.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| But unconditional support for Israel is a rare topic with
| mostly bipartisan agreement from the leadership class.
| The disagreement from the public is very likely more
| correlated with age than with the party someone supports.
| jcranmer wrote:
| > Near half of the US population would throw an absolute
| fit.
|
| But a large chunk of the population is already throwing a
| fit, and given the spread in views among different age
| groups, that's a growing chunk of the population.
| tptacek wrote:
| If by this you mean they're throwing a fit over Israel
| and Gaza, no, I don't think polling bears this out at
| all. Even within the context of the schools themselves,
| protesters are small minorities of the students and
| faculty. A large chunk of the media is throwing a fit, to
| be sure!
|
| I think the best way to sum up public opinion from what
| we know given polling and on-the-ground numbers is that
| Americans just don't much care about this. We care. But
| as is so often the case, caring about this issue makes us
| the weird ones.
| lupusreal wrote:
| The situation is ripe for a new political party that
| isn't wed to zionism. Opposition to zionism is growing on
| both the left and the right, particularly among young
| people, but neither had a party to represent this.
| Qwertious wrote:
| I'm hoping that the last year or so will finally deliver
| a replacement for American FPTP - the Republicans are
| split between RINOs and MAGA devouts, and the democrats
| are split too between the centrist and progressives too.
|
| I don't know if it'll actually happen, but this is
| probably the most likely path towards it, if there is
| one.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| The RINOs are moving towards the welcoming arms of
| Democrats and the "progressives" don't have a home
| anywhere as they are barely even tolerated in the
| Democratic party.
| octopoc wrote:
| Normally you'd think at least one of the parties would
| adapt to appeal to the younger generations. Unfortunately
| I think there is some truth to the idea that Israeli
| influence is very strong in D.C., so neither party has so
| much as offered an olive branch to the young.
| im3w1l wrote:
| > What else can Biden say in this situation? He cannot both
| assent to the validity of the ICC charges and continue
| negotiating with Israel for things like US-built supply
| piers on Gaza's seafront. You can't really do diplomacy wth
| a world leader while at the same time saying (or implying)
| that they belong in the Hague.
|
| He doesn't have to do diplomacy with them. He could call
| their bluff. He could unilaterally start delivering food
| and dare anyone to stop him. If Israel starts killing "3-5x
| as many civilians" he could declare war on Israel.
|
| All of these are things he could do. Won't. But could.
| tptacek wrote:
| We cannot in fact unilaterally establish supply
| operations off the Gazan seafront over the objections of
| the Israeli leadership.
| umanwizard wrote:
| The US Navy can unilaterally establish supply operations
| by sea almost anywhere in the world. If a carrier group
| sailed in and started setting up a port in Gaza to
| deliver food, there's no chance Israel would be able to
| do anything about it.
| boppo1 wrote:
| They could definitely stop it, but things would get
| _incredibly_ ugly from there.
| tptacek wrote:
| Right, this is like an Orson Scott Card fantasy. Which,
| don't let me yuck your yums or anything, but no, this
| isn't really a possible scenario. Israel will be an
| Article 5 NATO member before it is a military adversary
| of the United States (neither thing will happen, but if
| we're betting on impossible scenarios.)
| FireBeyond wrote:
| I think that "an enforced naval military blockade of
| Gazan seafront since 2007" is a more accurate phrasing of
| that state of affairs than "Israel's leaders may
| object...".
| berkut wrote:
| Isn't the SA-brought Genocide case the ICJ, not the ICC?
| tptacek wrote:
| You're right! Thanks!
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > What else can Biden say in this situation? He cannot both
| assent to the validity of the ICC charges and continue
| negotiating with Israel for things like US-built supply
| piers on Gaza's seafront.
|
| He didn't have to say anything about the substance. He
| could even use them as leverage in negotiations without
| publicly saying anything about the substance, by
| conditioning US efforts to get the UNSC to hold them in
| abeyance (which it explictly can!) conditioned on a cease-
| fire and concrete steps on aid.
|
| Would it work? Probably not. Would it be better for the US
| interestd broadly than getting nothing at all while
| undermining the credibility of an institution that the US,
| while not a member of, has found practically and
| diplomatically useful in a number of past cases? Absolutely
| yes.
|
| > We're not signatories to the ICC to begin with!
|
| We have shut up about, or actively supported, the ICC in
| many cases, and given the US public nominal goal of a two-
| state solution demonstrating that international
| institutions are willing to take on abused on both sides of
| the conflict without ignoring the legitimate interests or
| rights of people on either side is something the US ought
| to be backing rather than burning down.
| tptacek wrote:
| Everything you're pitching here seems predicated on the
| idea of breaking off all practical diplomacy with
| Netanyahu. Which, if you think you can topple Netanyahu,
| sure, but I imagine there are career diplomats telling
| the administration that moves like these are as likely to
| bolster Netanyahu's position as they are to hasten his
| ouster.
|
| Certainly it is not my contention that the US is
| consistent with respect to the ICC.
|
| It's a bad situation. I genuinely think that the
| administration is playing the best it can with the cards
| it was dealt. I think we're all clear what the
| counterfactual other administration would be doing.
| yyyk wrote:
| It's really not in Israel's interests to hamper any aid if
| it ever was. There's no need to coerce on this point. Biden
| could have gone 'Yay ICC!' and still got cooperation here.
|
| Israel has three alternatives:
|
| Option 1: Do a real siege (never tried. Gaza has less
| malnutrition deaths than Cali according to their own
| figures, and besides everything would have been over months
| ago if it did. That's the real weakness with the ICC case).
|
| Option 2: Provide aid yourself (expensive).
|
| Option 3: Let other people do it for you and not pay for
| it.
|
| Obviously the optimal choice is the last one. The real
| differences between US and Israel are elsewhere (e.g.
| delusional postwar planning by both sides).
| harimau777 wrote:
| The ICC isn't equating the actions of Hamas and Netanyahu.
| They are being accused of separate crimes.
| viccis wrote:
| >I personally can't believe the ICC is equating the actions
| of Hamas and the Israeli government. What a shameful
| organization.
|
| I agree 100%! Over the past year, Israel has caused orders of
| magnitude more innocent deaths by terrorist actions (as
| outlined in the warranted issued here), has a much higher
| civilian death rate during military operations (Oct 7 was
| around 60%, while IDF's battles have been higher, with both
| sides hiding military targets within civilian areas) and
| should be taken far more seriously, as their support from
| other national aggressors like the US makes them far more
| dangerous.
| yyyk wrote:
| The real issue with the warrants isn't 'equating'. It's the
| political point to cover two deeper issues:
|
| First, that Biden admin and others can't escape culpability
| for any such claim if it's considered credible. Second, the
| dubious factual basis (trucks were allowed in all the time;
| temporary port and air supply obviously with Israel's
| approval; the very low malnutrition death count according to
| Gaza health ministry's own reports).
|
| The first made the admin's reply inevitable. The second made
| it even more likely, but it's a too complex point for PR I
| guess, so they went with 'equating'.
| jaynetics wrote:
| Another interesting question is, will it end Netanyahu's career
| if it goes through? It seems like a major deficit for a PM to
| be unable to travel to the majority of relevant states. Most of
| his international trips have been to central Europe so far, and
| I think Europe is too invested in the ICC to circumvent it,
| even if some member states were to criticize this decision.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Very strongly doubt it - decisions like these probably only
| benefit Netanyahu's rally around the flag effect. If it feels
| like the whole world is against you, you rally to your
| leaders.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| On the other hand, half of Israelis disapprove of
| Nethanyahu. The "warrant" would also be >something< all
| opposition would have agaisnt him
|
| https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-
| diplomacy/artic... (grain of salt)
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Significant portions of those disapproving are people who
| want to _intensify_ the war in Gaza, so I doubt an ICC
| warrant would make them more opposed to Netanyahu.
|
| Think it is easy in the US to think Israeli public
| opinion somehow mirrors the US but the vast majority of
| people in Israel right now are pro-war (similar to the US
| post-9/11) and anti-two state
|
| e: not sure why I'm downvoted for something that can
| easily be confirmed by googling polls
| fineIllregister wrote:
| > Significant portions of those disapproving are people
| who want to intensify the war in Gaza, so I doubt an ICC
| warrant would make them more opposed to Netanyahu.
|
| Israel has a multi-party legislature. Netanyahu can be
| outflanked on the right.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Certainly, but if he is outflanked on the right it won't
| be because of the ICC arrest warrant. If anything, that
| might help prevent him from being outflanked on the
| right.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > Netanyahu can be outflanked on the right
|
| He was outflanked by the right in 2019 when Avigdor
| Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu and Lapid's Yamina withdrew
| it's support for Likud and joined Bennett's and Lapid's
| anti-Netanyahu coalition in 2021, but Bibi was able to
| leverage fringe Kahanist and Mizrahi parties to reclaim
| the top seat.
|
| Hell, Bibi would make a coalition with the Arab
| List/Ra'am if it meant remaining PM (and thus retaining
| immunity)
|
| Traditionally, the hard right Jewish parties would always
| win around 20 seats in Knesset but would never be a major
| part of any coalition - but Bibi has alienated just about
| every single faction in Israel at this point trying to
| extend his rule.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > half of Israelis disapprove of Nethanyahu
|
| Yeah but part of that half probably supports Gallant, who
| has split with Netanyahu, but is also charged alongside
| him.
| nabla9 wrote:
| Nethanyahu is survivalist but he faces uphill battle as
| time passes.
|
| The fact that Hamas attack was so successful under his
| watch has not disappeared.
|
| His career is full of scandals and corruption. He is still
| going to have domestic charges in near future.
|
| His war cabinet is going to collapse soon if he continues
| without any plans for the future of Gaza.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| "How far will the US and/or Israel go to threaten or
| discredit the ICC leadership?"
|
| I think the US would not comment on the matter. Candidates
| for Office (Trump) would loudly comment about it.
|
| The US has deep political and geopolitical ties with Israel.
| It will never go agaisnt Israel (the country) when it
| matters.
| falcrist wrote:
| I could see the US pulling back on Israel if it starts to
| cost them soft power elsewhere, but you're fundamentally
| correct. Israel is the primary instrument of US hegemony in
| the middle east, and they aren't going to risk losing that.
| rusk wrote:
| Biden has already started drawing lines though. He has
| been actively been distinguishing between defensive and
| offensive use cases and basically saying that US aid
| isn't for the latter
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Likely just political nonsense to help stop the
| (supposed) bleeding from the swing states. As it stands,
| if the election were held today polls show a massive loss
| for him.
|
| What even is his plan anymore? Keep beating the "im
| better than Trump" drum and hope for the best?
| boppo1 wrote:
| Yes, that appears to be his plan.
| Levitz wrote:
| Rather relevant: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
| room/statements-releases...
|
| >Statement from President Joe Biden on the Warrant
| Applications by the International Criminal Court
|
| >The ICC prosecutor's application for arrest warrants
| against Israeli leaders is outrageous. And let me be clear:
| whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no
| equivalence -- none -- between Israel and Hamas. We will
| always stand with Israel against threats to its security.
| lossolo wrote:
| > The ICC prosecutor's application for arrest warrants
| against Israeli leaders is outrageous. And let me be
| clear: whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no
| equivalence -- none -- between Israel and Hamas. We will
| always stand with Israel against threats to its security.
|
| This is the hypocrisy of the West, when the same court
| issued a warrant for Putin, it was praised but when it
| involves a U.S. ally, it's labeled as "outrageous". This
| only fuels the sentiment prevalent in many Global South
| countries about us (the west) "rules for thee but not for
| me".
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I think the US would not comment on the matter.
|
| Sitting US officials, up to and including the President,
| have already strongly condemned the pursuit of the
| warrants.
|
| > The US has deep political and geopolitical ties with
| Israel.
|
| Which is fine as a basis for opposing things like this as
| long as the US doesn't ever want anyone to believe any of
| its claims that its policies are based on principals beyond
| bloc interest.
| phone8675309 wrote:
| The current political situation in the US gives me every
| indication that the US would provide Netanyahu asylum if
| these warrants to through. The US has withdrawn from the Rome
| Statute and therefore has no obligation to arrest him.
| tptacek wrote:
| Why would he need US asylum? Israel isn't an ICC signatory.
| rusk wrote:
| When the horror of what Israel has done dawns on them
| they might want to hand him over themselves.
| saintkaye wrote:
| I genuinely don't understand this opinion. Israel was
| viscously attacked unprovoked (regardless what you think
| of the history of the two orgs) by the organization that
| governs the province. They're states goal is to
| demilitarize the area while their enemy insists on
| playing out the war in highly populated urban areas.
|
| This isn't a guerilla war either, it's the actual
| official government party. One who has actively promised
| sequels of the attack.
|
| What would you do in such a situation?
| input_sh wrote:
| I don't know what I'd do, but I'm sure I'd do my best to
| not kill 35 thousand civilians in the process.
|
| That's a ridiculously high number. It's comparable to the
| number of civilians killed through the entirety of the
| Bosnian War which lasted over 4 years. Not just the
| widely-recognized genocidal part of it (Srebrenica), but
| all of it.
| tptacek wrote:
| It's a small fraction of the death tolls in Syria and
| Yemen, and, of course, in Afghanistan.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| It is the deadliest ongoing conflict in 2024 and 2nd
| deadliest in 2023.
| threeseed wrote:
| Those aren't comparable in the slightest.
|
| They involved large numbers of deaths on both sides of
| the equation which isn't the case here.
| mhb wrote:
| That's not what proportionality means.
| input_sh wrote:
| To reach Yemen figures Israel would have to kill >20% of
| everyone in Gaza.
|
| Bosnia's pre-war population (4.2 million) is far more
| comparable to Gaza's (2.4 million), that's why I picked
| it.
| saintkaye wrote:
| The other two were not close to as urban conflicts,
| calling this apples to apples is not rooted in
| intellectual honesty.
| saintkaye wrote:
| Thanks for responding. The numbers were halved and the
| total number dosent account the enlistment age is 15.
|
| Secondarily, what do you when the enemy is using that
| expectation as piece of leverage to make it practically
| impossible to strike more surgically.
|
| I'm not the smartest, but I seems like you're saying that
| if one side uses their population as attack deterrents
| and shields that it's incumbent on the other side to
| comply?
| KittenInABox wrote:
| I think, if what you are saying is true, then Israeli
| leadership can simply explain themselves as such in court
| (surrender themselves to the ICC warrant) and be
| proclaimed not guilty.
| input_sh wrote:
| Perhaps reduce the number of acceptable civilian
| casualties per target?
|
| It is public info that Israel is fine with killing up to
| 15-20 civilians for every lowest-ranked Hamas member.
|
| That is a ridiculously high figure in my opinion. I'd be
| lying if I said I didn't expect to witness something on
| such scale somewhere in the world during my lifetime, but
| I certainly didn't expect a modern-day "western"
| "democracy" to get away with it.
| ars wrote:
| > to not kill 35 thousand civilians in the process.
|
| The current best estimates are for 15 to 20 thousand
| civilians. When you write 35 thousand you are showing you
| believe Hamas propaganda.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| You're correct, they only killed maybe 10000 children
| instead of 20000. I guess the bar is at like 15000
| children? If Israel goes above that then they are bad.
| input_sh wrote:
| Does that make it any better!? That's still comparable to
| a small town or a large arena completely wiped away from
| the face of the earth. Not because they were Hamas, but
| because they were near Hamas.
| tptacek wrote:
| Reasonable people will point out that this "near Hamas"
| thing is the result of a deliberate strategy by Hamas to
| ensure that reprisal strikes preferentially spill the
| blood of the civilians Hamas ostensibly represents, while
| shielding and supplying the Hamas combatants who provoked
| the strikes in the first place.
|
| To me, the more powerful argument is just that any
| meaningful military purpose to massed attacks in Gaza
| have now been used up; much of Hamas' infrastructure,
| along with the majority of their leadership cadre, have
| been destroyed. Hamas still "exists", and it could re-
| form, but so could any other militant organization at
| this point. The losses Hamas have taken probably exceed
| those of other state military actors who have decisively
| lost wars in the past.
|
| Further large-scale strikes look increasingly
| performative. It was hard to justify a lot of what Israel
| did even when Hamas had 15 combat-ready brigades and was
| vowing to repeat October 7th. It seems impossible to
| justify it now.
|
| (People definitely disagree with me on this point! It's
| what I believe but fuck if I know with any certainty how
| true it is.)
| runarberg wrote:
| Those are not the current best estimates. I think you are
| referring here to last week's news about OCHA revising
| their figures and now only reporting half of previous
| figures. If so than you are talking about 24,686
| confirmed dead and fully identified victims of the
| Israeli military as of April 30th 2024. Of which 14,600
| are women, children, or the elderly. The 35,000+ figure
| is actually 35,562 confirmed dead as of May 20th 2024
| (including 10,876 confirmed dead and not yet identified).
| Yet not included is the 10,000+ believed dead who are
| missing e.g. under the rubble or in undiscovered mass
| graves, or unreported burials, etc. This makes the
| believed total number of victims killed by Israeli
| aggression in Gaza around 45,000 of which we know 14,000
| are woman, children and the elderly.
|
| 35,000 civilians is not an unreasonable estimate. I would
| personally put a lower bound at 60% of 35,000 = 21,000
| civilians, which is the assuming every adult man is a
| combatant (which we know is not true; there are plenty of
| civilian adult men among the victims) and extrapolating
| the percentage of fully identified victims to the
| confirmed death count.
|
| https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-
| and-i...
| tptacek wrote:
| Seems reasonable and worth adding that we've long since
| blown past any point where the numbers would be
| tolerable. About the best you can say for Israel is that
| they're in an extraordinarily bad position (one in part
| of their own making!) where their only moves involve
| modern dense urban combat, the worst possible thing.
| XajniN wrote:
| All sides in the Bosnian war (3-4 of them) did their best
| to save the lives of their civilians (not so much the
| civilians from the other sides, but Bosnia is sparsely
| populated). Hamas aims to get as many as possible
| civilians killed.
| throw310822 wrote:
| Don't you think that it's strange that Hamas, aiming to
| kill as many civilians as possible, on October 7th killed
| exactly the same proportion of civilians to military as
| Israel is doing in Gaza?
| XajniN wrote:
| No.
| boppo1 wrote:
| As a fairly emotionally disinterested party: greater
| specificity of strikes, focus on Hamas leadership. It
| seems to me that Israel (and the west more generally)
| will be facing a generation of motivated terrorists in
| about 15-20 years, as the young people who went through
| this come of age.
| tptacek wrote:
| People say this a lot, for obvious and fair reasons, but
| it's worth noting that a rational policy person in Israel
| could look at Hamas as a distinct and unlikely form of
| militant nationalism: overtly Islamist, funded and
| trained by the IRGC, and led (since 2017) by a messianic
| lunatic.
|
| I've been saying, only kind of jokingly, that a more
| likely outcome than arrest or Israel-directed
| assassination of Sinwar is Haniya (or his successor)
| taking him out to a field to talk about the alfalfa
| they're going to plant, and how Sinwar will get to feed
| the rabbits. Sinwar really fucked Hamas over here. Easy
| to lose sight of how good a thing they had going! It had
| tacit Israeli government support and was making a bunch
| of Hamas people fairly rich.
|
| Anyways, from that point of view: yes, killing tens of
| thousands of civilians is certainly going to radicalize
| people and drive them into militant groups. But those
| groups might look more like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades
| than the Al-Qassam Brigades.
| saintkaye wrote:
| Yea,but the thing that changed was Saudi flipping more
| western recently. It meant that directionally the region
| was going have a much bigger problem with this kind of
| behavior in the future and it seems like (as an amateur)
| they saw the writing on the wall and thought the more
| messy the region gets the longer it would take to move
| toward a capitalist ideals motivated region.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| After having signed the Abraham Accords, Israel could
| have gone a long way to keeping their hands clean by
| pursuing Hamas through a joint effort with Egypt, UAE,
| KSA, and other states in the region. Israel has a long
| history working with Egypt regarding Gaza. Several actors
| in the region that already receive tacit US support are
| opposed to perceived Islamic dictatorships due to various
| complicated reasons. There are complicated reasons why
| Israel didn't and continue not to, a lot of which comes
| down to having a direct line to US support, but this
| option was something they could have done and chose not
| to. Though full disclosure, I'm not an unbiased party
| here, but I can view this situation from a realpolitik
| lens as well.
| tptacek wrote:
| I mean, I agree. I'm a 2-stater. Netanyahu and his
| governing coalition have for a decade now been redlining
| "culpability" as far as I'm concerned!
|
| (I'll say again though that Hamas in 2018 is a different
| entity than Hamas in 2016. They're both very bad
| organizations, but only one of them was literally working
| to bring about the end of days.)
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| IMO Israel is digging its own grave in the region by
| being so unwilling to work with their neighbors. KSA and
| UAE are brutal to opponents and KSA's own meddling in the
| region shows that they'd do anything to keep militant
| Islamism from gaining a larger foothold in the region.
| All they had to do was to open up a dialogue with their
| neighbors, it would have stopped Muslims from unifying
| around this issue, probably normalized relations even
| further between these states, and would have given Israel
| significant leverage in the region as a bulwark of
| diplomatic stewardship. Now even though the US is doing
| everything they can to tow the line between supporting
| Israel and stopping a bloodbath, Israel itself has
| probably lost any and all support from its neighbors sans
| maybe Egypt, and the US will be hard-pressed to offer
| support in further instances of aggression against
| Israel.
| tptacek wrote:
| I'm less sure. I think the most salient conflict in MENA
| is between the Arab states and Iran, not Israel and
| Palestine (look no further than the grim track record of
| the surrounding states at actually helping Palestinians
| for evidence).
|
| It's hard to look at October 7th and its aftermath as
| anything but a setback for literally every party in the
| region. Even Iran seems to have been caught flat footed.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| It would end up in a proxy war, surely. Iran would back
| Hamas and a coalition of KSA, UAE, Egypt, and Israel
| would spearhead the Gaza situation from the other side.
| It's still a shitty outcome but IMO a better one. For
| one, regional actors are incentivized to deal with the
| situation in a way that spillover doesn't affect them
| (Lebanon and Egypt have both been vocal about not
| accepting refugees), but most importantly it wouldn't be
| as affected by the US political news cycle and the heart-
| rending imperialism that creates (essentially American
| domestic interests and politics affecting regional
| politics in the Middle East, meaning Palestinians have no
| say over their own politics in any meaningful way, unlike
| American college students.) The biggest risk would
| probably be Russian and Chinese interests coming into the
| region which would surely prompt a US reaction, but I'm
| not sure how much Russia or China would have to gain here
| if the US were not involved.
|
| It would have probably ended in a civil war type
| situation but at least you wouldn't have widespread
| famine or the bombing of hospitals or further civilian
| atrocities. Also forcing regional states to allocate
| their own resources to the conflict means there's a
| direct incentive to wind it down since their resources
| are a lot smaller than the resources of the US. Israel
| would eventually face domestic pushback over wartime
| spending and the autocratic states in the region would
| have to balance their funding of the proxy conflict
| against their own ambitions and budgets. Iran is somewhat
| democratic and they too could only fund Hamas so far
| before looking after their own affairs.
|
| The US's own nation building efforts in the Middle East
| flagged due to outrageous spending that materialized in
| minimal results. The same effect with poorer governments
| would naturally circumscribe the conflict in the area.
| boppo1 wrote:
| >...Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades than the Al-Qassam Brigades.
|
| Can you tell me more about the difference here?
| tptacek wrote:
| The former is the former armed wing of Fatah, the latter
| of Hamas. Fatah is a (notoriously corrupt) secular
| nationalist organization. The story goes that Netanyahu
| tacitly supported and helped fund Hamas for many years as
| a check against Fatah consolidating power into a coherent
| Palestinian state.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > but it's worth noting that a rational policy person in
| Israel could look at Hamas as a distinct and unlikely
| form of militant nationalism: overtly Islamist, funded
| and trained by the IRGC, and led (since 2017) by a
| messianic lunatic.
|
| Funded and trained by Mossad and others too, at times. In
| fact, Netanyahu was approving tens of millions a month to
| Hamas to stay militant and provide a more extremist
| opposition to Arafat and the PLO who were calming down
| and more peaceable in their old age.
|
| This is the thing that really gets frustrating.
|
| Israel's hard right is as opposed to a two state system
| as Hamas is. People point to "from the river to the sea"
| as "proof" of Hamas' genocidal intent (and I won't
| pretend they haven't said other things to that end,
| either), ignoring that it was literally Likud's platform
| slogan since the 1970s.
| tomp wrote:
| Not if they win decisively and eradicate not just the
| terrorists, but the terrorist indoctrination as well.
|
| Note: there hasn't been a "generation of motivated
| terrorists" coming out of Japan and Germany after WWII,
| those populations were entirely subdued.
| YZF wrote:
| This statement about Israel creating a new generation of
| terrorists is said a lot but I think we have pretty
| strong counterexamples. Germans didn't become motivated
| terrorists after WW-II despite great devastation and
| killing of civilians by the Allies. Neither did Japan.
| I'm sure there are similar WW-I examples. One might argue
| that not fighting this war until the enemy surrenders is
| a much stronger motivation for terrorism. A more recent
| example might be Russia's campaign against Chechnya or
| Sri Lanka's campaign against the Tamil Tigers, both
| fought until the enemy was crushed and both seemingly
| have for now resolved the terrorism issue.
|
| With respect to your proposal. Can you be more specific
| about how Israel is supposed to target Hamas leadership
| when they are in tunnels underground below civilian
| populations and holding hostages? That Hamas leadership
| is not dead is not due to lack of Israel trying to target
| them specifically. I don't think it's possible to get at
| Hamas without taking over the entire Gaza strip which
| leads me to repeat the OP's question of what would you
| do. Another question is whether you're suggesting to give
| free pass to the Oct 7'th attackers and kidnappers (which
| seems to be implied by saying "focus on Hamas
| leadership").
| xdennis wrote:
| > Israel [...] will be facing a generation of motivated
| terrorists in about 15-20 years
|
| The Palestinians are taught from primary school to hate
| Jews[1] (books paid with western money). They couldn't
| possibly hate Jews more.
|
| [1]: https://www.cfr.org/blog/teaching-palestinian-
| children-value...
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| As the other person stated, more targeted attacks. Israel
| is well known for their assassinations of Iranians. Why
| not Palestinians too?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I promise you, Israel does plenty of targeted
| assassinations in Palestine. For instance [0] (mildly
| graphic, shots are fired by Israeli assassination squad
| into car) - stuff like this is very common in WB and now
| Gaza.
|
| [0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/17p7
| mfx/bett...
| threeseed wrote:
| > Israel was viscously attacked unprovoked
|
| Unprovoked is a stretch.
|
| Settlers have been given free rein to commit terror acts
| all throughout the Palestinian Territories.
|
| And Hamas has been propped up by the Netanyahu government
| for years.
| amluto wrote:
| > Settlers have been given free rein to commit terror
| acts all throughout the Palestinian Territories.
|
| Not quite:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_fro
| m_G...
|
| This is not to say that Israel permitted Gaza to have any
| reasonable sort of economic development (as a simple
| example, it's effectively a country with two not-very-
| open land borders _and no port_ , which surely made trade
| rather challenging).
|
| If you want an analogy, imagine roughly the population of
| San Francisco plus San Mateo County, but with under half
| the land area, hostile relations and extremely limited
| travel across the land border with Santa Clara County and
| points South, with no bridges and no port. Throw in a
| near-complete dependency on Santa Clara for water and
| electricity, and nowhere near enough agriculture. (At
| least San Mateo County has a decent amount of farming to
| the West.) Take out the hot tech scene as well, and the
| economic situation would not be awesome.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Unprovoked, really?
|
| 60% of homes destroyed, 80% of schools, all universities,
| 31/35 hospitals.
|
| What Israel [0] could have done was to not create this
| situation in the first place, but their goal was never
| solve it anyway.
|
| [0] I mean the current government in power and right wing
| extremist settlers
| saintkaye wrote:
| They killed and raped kids at a concert. If calling that
| unprovoked terror is too far across the aisle, it's hard
| to imagine an intellectually honest conversation, no?
| rusk wrote:
| Well if you believe it was unprovoked then I can
| understand why this point of view would be so confusing.
| throw310822 wrote:
| I don't understand why you say "unprovoked". Gaza has
| been under occupation for decades (yes, it's technically
| an occupation, regardless of whether there are settlers
| or not). It's been periodically bombed, each time with as
| many victims as an October 7th. It's been under a
| complete blockade for 16 years. The fact that everything
| was fine in Israel on October 6th doesn't mean that there
| was a peace- it just means that they weren't expecting
| their victims to be able to fight back.
|
| > What would you do in such a situation?
|
| The situation is that Israel is an oppressor and an
| occupier, so what should it do? Well, first of all it
| should have made different choices in the past, honest
| and fair and peaceful choices. Which it didn't make, and
| it's its fault. But it's never too late. It should have
| made honest, fair and peaceful choices also in this
| occasion- mourned its deads, vowed to bring those
| responsible to justice, and engaged with Palestinian
| counterparts to withdraw within the 1967 borders and
| promote the birth of a Palestinian state.
|
| Of course, it didn't do any of those things. It did
| exactly what Hamas expected.
| tptacek wrote:
| And, as a result, Hamas has been gone from a rent-
| extracting governing authority with 16 combat-effective
| brigades, deep connections to the IRGC, and ongoing
| funding not just from the Gulf States but from Israel
| itself(!) to an international pariah with military
| leadership hiding in tunnels and its last 2 allegedly
| combat-effective brigades preparing to make a valiant
| last stand behind a wall of civilian refugees in Rafah.
|
| Yes: Israel did exactly what Hamas expected. The problem
| for Hamas is twofold:
|
| * Hamas thought the urban combat to root them out of Gaza
| City and Khan Younis would be a Vietnam-scale bloodbath
| that would tie the IDF up indefinitely until they were
| forced to make a truce.
|
| * Hamas's messianic nutbag leader genuinely believed that
| he was ushering in the end of days, and that the IRGC's
| other assets would immediately commit to full scale
| combat operations against the IDF. Instead: Hezbollah
| noped the hell out, and Iran launched a large scale drone
| attack that ended up providing a Boeing and Lockheed-
| style fireworks display in which other Arab states, even
| as Israel was massacring Palestinian civilians, pitched
| in to help. Then Iran "declared the matter resolved".
| Gulp.
|
| Sometimes, if only strategically, it makes sense to do
| what your enemy wants you to, because your enemy is
| stupid.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Neither is the US nor most countries in the World.
|
| The only major countries/blocs that are ICC members are
| the EU/EFTA/EU ascension candidates, UK, Canada, Mercusor
| (lowkey surprised Venezuela's still a signatory), Mexico,
| South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and NZ.
|
| Edit:
|
| Yes. 124 nations did initially sign the Rome Statute.
|
| I meant regional powers/countries that matter.
| amiga386 wrote:
| If anyone here is from the US and doesn't like Israel
| scoffing at the ICC, they should read up on the American
| Service-Members' Protection Act
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-
| Members'_Prot...
|
| > The United States is not a member of the International
| Criminal Court (ICC). The Act authorizes the president of
| the United States to use "all means necessary and
| appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or
| allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on
| behalf of, or at the request of the International
| Criminal Court". This authorization led to the act being
| colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the
| act allows the president to order U.S. military action,
| such as an invasion of the Netherlands, where The Hague
| is located, to protect American officials and military
| personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.
|
| It was introduced in 2002 when the US invaded Afghanistan
| and Iraq and hasn't been rescinded. So if the US ever
| committed war crimes in those countries, or any other
| ones; too bad. The US so totally and completely doesn't
| recognise the ICC's jurisdiction that it will literally
| invade the Netherlands in order to not be bound by it in
| any way, shape or form.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| What's frustrating about that is that a lot of the US's
| early efforts to not get involved in the ICC was to
| protect Henry Kissinger from prosecution, who, most
| objective observers tend to agree did commit or authorize
| multiple war crimes, from assassinations of Chilean
| leaders, to the carpet bombing of Indochina, particularly
| Cambodia, and others.
| tptacek wrote:
| Is this all that weird? The ICC is fairly Eurocentric.
| India and China aren't signatories either.
|
| The "Hague Invasion Act" is performative silliness
| enacted in the immediate wake of September 11. The truth
| is that no major European country is going to arrest an
| American, Indian, Philipino or Israeli politician.
| There's kind of a deus ex machina thing happening with
| the ICC; you still have to do standard-issue diplomacy.
| KKKKkkkk1 wrote:
| What do you mean they wouldn't arrest? Israel's foreign
| minister Tsipy Livny had arrest warrants issued against
| her by courts in the UK and in Belgium.
| tptacek wrote:
| The UK literally apologized to Livny for doing that;
| that's how not toothy these things are.
| KKKKkkkk1 wrote:
| That depends on who is in power. I don't think Jeremy
| Corbyn's Labour government would have apologized.
| craftkiller wrote:
| > nor most countries in the World.
|
| Wikipedia says there are 124 states party to the Rome
| Statute and there are 193 sovereign states that are
| members of the united nations. Thats 64%, which is most
| countries.
| eynsham wrote:
| There are 124 state parties to the Rome Statute, which is
| more than a majority, counting standardly.
| tptacek wrote:
| And? It's not a vote. Pick a person from the world out at
| random; it's a coin flip whether they live in a country
| that has or hasn't ratified Rome.
| bawolff wrote:
| His career is already in a bad place as far as i understand.
| If anything it might help him because he could cry that they
| are unfairly (regardless of if true) out to get him.
| amirhirsch wrote:
| His career was already over. Nearly all Israelis would
| support exchanging Netanyahu for hostages, again.
| xenospn wrote:
| As a former Israeli, I cannot say this enough: please take
| Netanyahu, dig the deepest hole you can, throw them in
| there, lock it up and throw away the key.
| cromka wrote:
| You mean him, not them?
| nabla9 wrote:
| Warrants requests are for five people.
|
| I think warrants issued against Sinwar, Al-Masri and Haniyeh
| are very likely. Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant IMHO are
| over 50%
|
| Proportationality and intention are important when the ICC
| interprets what constitutes war crime or crime against
| humanity. These cases also set up a precedents. Arrest warrant
| for Netanyahu and Gallant is for:
|
| - Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime
| contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
|
| - Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body
| or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment
| as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
|
| - Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a
| war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
|
| - Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population
| as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
|
| - Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and
| 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by
| starvation, as a crime against humanity;
|
| - Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article
| 7(1)(h); Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity
| contrary to article 7(1)(k).
| pyuser583 wrote:
| If Netanyahu produces a document from the Israeli Supreme
| Court allowing his actions, doesn't that make it impossible
| to prosecute him?
|
| ICC works in conjunction with national courts. If a country
| has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets
| the right to address the wrong. Or not.
|
| Israel's judiciary is both functional and independent. Very
| independent. Of Netanyahu in particular.
|
| And the Israeli judiciary seems to be going along with this.
|
| Source: https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works
|
| > The ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national
| criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not
| are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If Netanyahu produces a document from the Israeli
| Supreme Court allowing his actions, doesn't that make it
| impossible to prosecute him?_
|
| No. Israel's courts ratifying alleged war crimes is the
| Israeli national system being "unwilling or unable to
| [apply international law] genuinely."
| alephnerd wrote:
| And to add on to JumpCrisscross, ICC warrants are only
| valid in countries that are currently member states of
| the ICC [0], though countries will gladly turn the other
| eye depending on mutual interests (eg. Narendra Modi's
| close relationship with Japan, France, Singapore, UAE,
| and Israel because they didn't enforce US travel
| sanctions on him when he was CM of Gujarat in the 2000s).
|
| Notably, the US is NOT a signatory of the ICC (this was a
| whole thing in the Iraq War days).
|
| [0] - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_
| states.sv...
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| For folks interested in this process, take a look at the
| ICC proceedings against Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman
| [1] regarding war crimes in Darfur.
|
| [1]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/abd-al-rahman
| alephnerd wrote:
| Also the Frontline documentary from 2019 about Ratko
| Mladic's trial [0]
|
| (Edit: I'm a dummy, this was the ICTY, not the ICC, but
| the ICTY was the precursor model of the ICC in the
| aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars).
|
| [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJh8fuaqslo
| nabla9 wrote:
| >produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court
|
| This would mean that Netanyahu has been charged, tried and
| eventually acquitted of the same crimes. ICC investigates
| if the national proceedings are genuine.
|
| To start the process, Israeli prosecutor must prosecute.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Israel courts have a process of pre-clearance. If the
| "criminal act" was pre-cleared by the Israeli courts and
| found lawful, that's a big deal.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > If Netanyahu produces a document from the Israeli Supreme
| Court allowing his actions, doesn't that make it impossible
| to prosecute him?
|
| No, it does not.
|
| > ICC works in conjunction with national courts
|
| Not in the way you are suggesting.
|
| > If a country has a functional, independent judiciary,
| that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong
|
| No, the ICC will rule a case inadmissible if a state has
| investigated and/or prosecuted _that specific case_ (not
| just if it has some general level of legal functionality),
| _unless_ the ICC also fines that the investigation or
| prosecution was not genuine (e.g., was pretextual for the
| purpose of, say, giving the accused an exonerating document
| to wave around to protect against ICC prosecution.)
|
| See Article 17 of the Rome Statute.
| jd3 wrote:
| The US states:
|
| > The ICC was established by its state parties as a court
| of limited jurisdiction. Those limits are rooted in
| principles of complementarity, which do not appear to have
| been applied here amid the Prosecutor's rush to seek these
| arrest warrants rather than allowing the Israeli legal
| system a full and timely opportunity to proceed.[0]
|
| ---
|
| The ICC defines:
|
| > 1. Complementarity: The principle of complementarity
| governs the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction. This
| distinguishes the Court in several significant ways from
| other known institutions, including the international
| criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda
| (the ICTY and the ICTR). The Statute recognizes that States
| have the first responsibility and right to prosecute
| international crimes. The ICC may only exercise
| jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so,
| including where they purport to act but in reality are
| unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings. The
| principle of complementarity is based both on respect for
| the primary jurisdiction of States and on considerations of
| efficiency and effectiveness, since States will generally
| have the best access to evidence and witnesses and the
| resources to carry out proceedings. Moreover, there are
| limits on the number of prosecutions the ICC, a single
| institution, can feasibly conduct.[1]
|
| namely,
|
| > The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national
| legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport
| to act but in reality are unwilling or unable to genuinely
| carry out proceedings.
|
| The US argues that the ICC has not adequately allowed this
| process to play out through the courts in Israel.
|
| ---
|
| The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs states:
|
| > The criteria of unwillingness or inability to carry out
| proceedings would involve some indication of purposely
| shielding the accused from criminal responsibility or a
| lack of intent to bring the person to justice. This may be
| inferred from political interference or deliberate
| obstruction and delay, from institutional deficiencies due
| to political subordination of the legal system, or
| procedural irregularities indicating a lack of willingness
| and inability to investigate or prosecute genuinely.[2]
|
| ---
|
| Imo the hermeneutics are clear, though it will be up to the
| lawyers from either side to make arguments in favor
| of/against.
|
| [0]: https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-
| internatio...
|
| [1]: https://www.icc-
| cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/20B...
|
| [2]: https://jcpa.org/article/would-judicial-reforms-in-
| israel-op....
| harimau777 wrote:
| If the Israeli Supreme court allows his actions, then that
| sounds like it would fall under the "unwilling" part of
| "unwilling or unable to do so".
| jiggawatts wrote:
| The second, third, and fourth items in that list apply just
| as much to the October 7 attacks orchestrated by Hamas
| leadership.
|
| Where are their arrest warrants?
| ReflectedImage wrote:
| Presumably in the Israeli and US courts
| dullcrisp wrote:
| There are also arrest warrants sought for Hamas leadership
| that were excluded from the headline.
|
| Edit: it does mention Sinwar.
| amluto wrote:
| Being requested concurrently, by the same prosecutor. See,
| for example, the title and the first couple paragraphs of
| the article.
| nabla9 wrote:
| Read the comment you replied again. You will be surprised.
| cromka wrote:
| A good example of a failed attempt at whataboutism.
| HL33tibCe7 wrote:
| > Will the ICC actually approve the warrants?
|
| Almost certainly
| riku_iki wrote:
| > How far will the US and/or Israel go to threaten or discredit
| the ICC leadership? Will Egypt or other neighbours respond?
| What is the reaction in China? Will Europe and the Netherlands
| stand by the ICC unconditionally?
|
| ICC warrant will likely just be ignored.
| jmyeet wrote:
| It seems more likely than not that the ICC will approve the
| warrants. This is unprecedented for the ICC to turn its gaze
| toards a key US ally.
|
| As for how far will the US go, well in 2002, Congress passed
| (and Bush signed) the American Service Members Protection Act,
| more colloquially known as the Hage Invasion Act. It authorizes
| the president to use all necessary force _including invading
| the Netherlands_ if an American servicemember or appointed
| official is ever taken into ICC custody. This includes
| officials and servicemen of key allies, including Israel.
|
| So will Betanyahu or Gallant actually be arrested? Almost
| certainly not. The practical effect of this is political not
| legal.
|
| The goal of protests, boycotting, ICJ applications, ICC
| warrants, UN (GA and SC) motions, "Undecided" voting in
| Democratic primaries and so on are to incrementally pressure
| the two key players here: Israel and, more importantly, the US.
| Why? Because the US could end the conflict with a phone call.
| They could end it with a press release.
|
| BDS (Boycott, divest, sanction) movements were considered
| successful in isolating and ultimately toppling the Apartheid
| South African regime in the 1970s and 1980s. Given this
| success, an awful lot of lobbying has been directed at US
| politicans to pass so-called "anti-BDS" laws that are laws in
| ~37 states. For example, to be a teacher in Texas, you need to
| sign a contract agreeing to never participate in a BDS movement
| against Israel.
|
| So the practical effect of ICC warrants is just to
| incrementally isolate and pressure Israel.
| outside1234 wrote:
| How can the US end the conflict with a phone call? I think
| that is unlikely because I suspect those phone calls have
| already been had.
|
| And really the only way we are resolving this is by actually
| solving the underlying issue, which is that there are a set
| of people essentially locked up in a prison for 30 years
| and/or slowly being shot by settlers in the West Bank.
| jmyeet wrote:
| Press release: "We're halting all arms shipments to
| Israel". There's even a legal basis for it, the so-called
| "Leahy laws" [1]. Israel cannot exist without hte largesse
| and political cover the United States provides.
|
| I agree about solving the underlying issues and the
| injustices that have historically taken place but the above
| is intended to answer the question and engage in analysis
| rather than arguing the merits, which is likely an
| unproductive conversation.
|
| [1]: https://www.state.gov/wp-
| content/uploads/2020/06/PP410_INVES...
| mrangle wrote:
| Support / condemnation will be staunchly factionally split from
| within all Western Nations. Speaking about a National Unified
| Will is ridiculous at this stage in history. Eventually, the
| anti-Israel faction will dominate everywhere except for one or
| two select Nations that does not include the US. Though, its
| possible that the US also stays loyal for an indefinite time
| period. Accurate predication for support / condemnation is
| rooted in deeper history and geopolitical logic than most
| people consider.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I think this is very much up in the air.
|
| A high profile Islamic terrorist attacks would shift the
| narrative, for example. On the other side, if the war cools
| down a bit people will gradually lose interest in the same
| way that no one cares about Modi's past actions.
| mrangle wrote:
| It could be up in the air.
|
| For perspective, I'm with Israel. Though, I'm for saving as
| many Palestinian lives as humanly possible. Which should be
| all of them, should the clerics and State Actors stop
| abusing them via radicalization and the Islamic World works
| with Israel toward offering appropriate options.
|
| But what I'm speaking about, in terms of prediction, isn't
| the way that the wind blows. What I'm speaking about is
| high level State intention.
|
| No one today can seriously believe that State political
| orientation is a grassroots effect. The reality is that,
| with the exception of extremely unstable States that are de
| facto puppets of other Nations, the broad political
| orientation of modern States is an effect of the allowable
| movements, opinions, revolutions, propaganda, and
| migrations that are facilitated by the agencies over
| decades. Ergo, the eventual orientation of any State toward
| or away from Israel has to be assumed to be in that State's
| geopolitical interest as dictated at the highest level.
|
| As we can easily observe, if there was an event and the
| resultant popular effect was not in the State's interest
| than, no matter what, the event would be minimized into
| oblivion by State Press.
|
| Conversely, the Press will manufacture events out of
| virtual non-events if that assists the State's interest.
|
| Only the State or God will determine whether or not it
| supports Israel, in any future. That's my starting point
| for prediction.
| yyyk wrote:
| Without expressing opinion on the warrants:
|
| A) I'm told warrant approval is almost always a rubberstamp.
|
| B) There will be a discrediting campaign, but ICC's future is
| the least interesting thing to me.
|
| C) I'm not sure this leads to a conviction, but actual trials
| will probably take years by which time Bibi and co will be out
| of office. Again not so interesting.
|
| D) Bibi was already done for. But paradoxically this
| strengthens him domestically temporarily and massively
| strengths the Right next elections. I'll expand on this below
| since this is IMHO interesting.
|
| E) It makes attacking Israel a bit more 'legitimate', but in
| the ME legitimacy for that was already sky-high. War with
| Lebanon was very high likelihood anyway.
|
| F) Saudi normalization is DOA for this term (always was, but
| admin was blind to everyone's interests. Qatar would have had
| to be nuts not to put every possible roadblock here, and Biden
| admin could never see what was in front of its eyes).
|
| G) Hamas has not so simple problems here. The various ideas for
| reintegration has hit serious roadblocks, and later on I
| believe this will cause them bigger problems than Israel which
| can always change leaders.
|
| ---
|
| D is not 'rally around the flag'. It has to do with the
| opposition is built: its deep links with the 'security state'.
| The security state is outraged and itself vulnerable to
| possible warrants. The same logic could have easily justified
| adding Gantz.
|
| An Israeli Left opposition which can't claim the world likes
| them more (due to warrant risk) and loses its security
| credentials (security state links to pre and post Oct failures,
| warrant risk again) is dead in the water. Which means it needs
| more time before an election to find its footing again... But
| on the other hand, it wouldn't like possible ICC isolation
| either. So a temporary delay before losing in the elections.
| nabla9 wrote:
| ICC does not have trials or conviction in absence.
|
| After the arrest warrant goes out, everything stops until
| people charged are in custody. It's very unlikely that
| Gallant or Netanyahu will ever be arrested. Their travel will
| be just limited for the rest of their lives.
| yyyk wrote:
| True. I never assumed that, though I see now why my
| phrasing could imply it. You're right - they're probably
| not stepping in that court. But even if they did, it would
| take years.
|
| My other point - ICC _can_ issue secret warrants, and no
| denial would be credible due to its very nature... This is
| poison to Gantz 's political career and same for any active
| general who would want to join the current opposition
| following service. The current Israeli opposition is just
| not competitive without generals, and all they've left are
| certain people who are very... outspoken to put it mildly.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I'm told warrant approval is almost always a rubberstamp.
|
| Its pretty similar to an indictment in the US (to judges
| rather than a grand jury); its an unopposed process where the
| prosecutor knows the standards and chooses when to bring a
| case to that step based on confidence in being ready to meet
| the standards. There's not a lot of probability of surprises
| if the basic work is done competently and in good faith and
| not with an intent to push the envelope.
|
| > I'm not sure this leads to a conviction, but actual trials
| will probably take years by which time Bibi and co will be
| out of office.
|
| Trials won't take start until the individuals being tried are
| in custody for trial. (They don't have to be at the same
| time.)
| abtinf wrote:
| Would it be correct to think of an ICC warrant not as a "warrant"
| in the traditional sense, but as sanctions?
|
| That is, a court ordered warrant is typically executed by a
| government's law enforcement. There is no such proactive
| enforcement mechanism available to the ICC.
|
| Instead, the governments that have ratified the ICC-related
| treaties have simply agreed to arrest warrant targets if they
| happen to travel to their jurisdiction.
|
| As such, it seems more like a "travel-ban" or "house arrest" than
| a warrant. Is that correct?
| akira2501 wrote:
| A warrant is a standing order to arrest someone on sight.
|
| A warrant may additionally grant the police extrajudicial
| powers to enforce the warrant but that's a separate legislative
| concern. In the case of the ICC the enforcement is left up to
| individual member states. There may be consequences for not
| enforcing a warrant when the opportunity presents itself.
| duskwuff wrote:
| It's a real arrest warrant when its target is in a country
| which is a party to the Rome Statute. The ICC has conducted a
| number of investigations involving war crimes and crimes
| against humanity in Africa, for example; many of those have led
| to convictions.
| swashboon wrote:
| This is more akin to empaneling a grand-jury in the USA - it is
| driven by the prosecutors office and is the first step before
| review to see if adequate evidence exists to justify a "real"
| warrant that would lead to arrests.
|
| If they get a warrant - its just like a warrant in the USA,
| maybe the cops bother looking for you i.e. go to your house /
| work / last known address but more often they just wait until
| you get a traffic ticket or something where you happen to
| interact with them. If you had a warrant from another state,
| the local cops would need a pretty good reason to bother
| actually looking for you.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| It's my understanding that it also has knock on effects to
| countries hosting those people, or refusing to arrest them, as
| it means that weapons shouldn't be exported to the hosting
| country.
|
| However I can't find a reference to that.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > Would it be correct to think of an ICC warrant not as a
| "warrant" in the traditional sense, but as sanctions?
|
| I think it is best to think of it as a warrant because it is a
| standing order for any member state to arrest them. Whether
| those member states actually do so is not certain, South Africa
| for instance has shirked recent ICC arrest warrants multiple
| times.
| kelnos wrote:
| I don't think it makes sense to look at it this way. I would
| look at it as any other warrant issued by any body. If the
| target of the warrant lives in a country that recognizes ICC
| warrants, then it's more or less similar to a warrant issued by
| that country's government. If not, then it's similar to a
| country issuing a warrant for the arrest of someone who lives
| outside their jurisdiction, with no extradition treaties in
| place.
|
| I do agree that the end result is a sort of "travel ban", but
| that's no different than if the US issued a warrant for (say) a
| Chinese citizen living in China. The Chinese government is
| probably not going to hand that person over, and that person is
| effectively barred from travel to the US (and likely other
| countries like Canada that might help the US enforce that
| warrant if the opportunity presented itself), unless they want
| to get arrested.
| bawolff wrote:
| One of the interesting aspects to me, is that ICC considers this
| both a non-international and international armed conflict (mildly
| different laws apply depending on which it is, but the difference
| is small as far as i understand)
|
| How could something be both? Palestine is either a separate state
| from Israel or it isn't.
| zahma wrote:
| I's guess it depends on who you're talking to: some
| organizations or states see Palestine as a state, others do
| not, and others see it as a future state but not one at this
| time. Keeping a definition broad lessens the chance of outright
| dismissal of otherwise cogent claims of wrongdoing.
|
| That's all insofar as anyone or entity actually respects
| international law. It comes down to states agreeing that it's
| in their best interests to cooperate on a matter. As long as
| the USA and Europe support Israel and don't bring to bear any
| leverage to stop this insanity and form an independent state,
| the ICC can call Palestine whatever it wants to describe the
| situation.
| bawolff wrote:
| I don't think it matters what other groups think, it matters
| what the ICC thinks, and they already ruled they think
| Palestine is a state, at least in a preliminary fashion (i'm
| sure if this gets to trial the question will be relitigated).
|
| Additionally ICC only has juridsiction if Palestine is a
| state. So the entire thing goes away if Palestine is not a
| state (since only states can aceede to the rome convention).
|
| I do not think Palestine being a state is the same question
| as if this conflict is international. I think it may be
| possible for both Palestine to be a state and this conflict
| be non international. However IANAL and that is pure
| speculation.
| keefle wrote:
| I'm wondering the same, but also wonder if the situation off
| the coast of Yemen and Iran's recent response to Israel bombing
| their embassy made the conflict partially international?
| thsksbd wrote:
| The conflict cannot be not considered international simply
| because Palestine's recognition is blocked by the US on
| Israel's behalf.
|
| Nor can it be not international due to the vagueness of
| Israel's borders. Israel has internationally legally
| recognized borders (the Green Line) and is acting outside
| them.
|
| This conflict is international.
| digging wrote:
| > How could something be both? Palestine is either a separate
| state from Israel or it isn't.
|
| I don't think this is correct. Palestine's status is disputed.
| Legal status isn't a physical property, it's a social one, so
| if many people think "A" is "B", then "A" is in some sense
| genuinely "B".
|
| Considering the conflict in both contexts avoids "Oops, the
| entire thing is nullified because it's technically Conflict
| Type 1, not Conflict Type 2."
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| "so if many people think A is B, then A is in some sense
| genuinely B."
|
| Rather, A is A for many people, and B is B for many people.
| Both groups aren't mutually exclusive
|
| ( GroupA [?] GroupB ) != [?]
| bishbosh wrote:
| I don't see how this relates. The point was about Palestine
| as a state. If enough people recognize Palestine as a
| separate state, this becomes an international issue. I
| believe this was the A is B claim digging made. What would
| be the analogous claim for your point? That some folks
| believe Palestine is it's own state, and some folks don't,
| and that the views are not mutually exclusive?
| bawolff wrote:
| I agree its disputed, but i don't think it follows from that
| that it is both. Like hypothetically (i say hypothetically
| since this is not the situation at hand afaik) if there was
| one crime that only applied to non international armed
| conflicts and one that applied to international, i don't
| think it would be just to charge with both just because its a
| bit unclear which is the correct one.
|
| --
|
| I also found in the legal report the following that partially
| explains the reasoning https://www.icc-
| cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p... :
|
| War crimes require a nexus to an armed conflict, and for some
| war crimes this conflict must be international.5 For this
| reason, it is necessary to assess the situation in Gaza and
| in Israel to determine whether an armed conflict exists and
| if so, its nature. 13. The Panel agrees with the Prosecutor's
| conclusion that the conflicts in Israel and Gaza comprise an
| international armed conflict and a non-international armed
| conflict running in parallel. Hamas is a highly organized
| non-State armed group, and the hostilities between Hamas and
| Israel have been sufficiently intense to reach the threshold
| of a non-international armed conflict. The Panel's assessment
| is that the non-international armed conflict between Israel
| and Hamas began, at the latest, on 7 October 2023, when Hamas
| and other Palestinian armed groups launched Operation al-Aqsa
| Flood against Israel and Israel launched its Operation Iron
| Swords in response. The Panel has also concluded that there
| is an international armed conflict between Israel and
| Palestine on the basis either that: a) Palestine is a State
| in accordance with criteria set out in international law, for
| which there is a sufficiently strong argument for the purpose
| of an application to the Court for an arrest warrant, and an
| international armed conflict arises if a State uses force
| against a non-state actor on the territory of another State
| without the latter's consent; or b) Palestine and Israel are
| both High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions,
| and that pursuant to the text of Common Article 2 of the
| Conventions, an armed conflict between two High Contracting
| Parties is international in character; or c) There is a
| belligerent occupation by Israel of at least some Palestinian
| territory. 14. The Panel's assessment is that the
| international armed conflict began at the latest on 7 October
| 2023, when Israel first started responding to the Hamas
| attack on its territory by using force on the territory of
| Palestine without the latter's consent.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Palestine is either a separate state from Israel or it isn
| 't_
|
| I don't believe the ICC's jurisdiction is limited to state-on-
| state conflicts. The more-curious question is how the ICC is
| claiming jurisdiction over non-signatory nations.
| ajb wrote:
| They aren't: they are asserting jurisdiction over
| individuals:
|
| - who are alleged to have committed crimes on the territory
| of the signatory nation, or
|
| - who are nationals of the signatory nation
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Oh interesting, TIL [1].
|
| [1] https://www.icc-
| cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p... _page 3,
| paragraph 9_
| mjfl wrote:
| It is not a separate state. Israel controls the borders and the
| airspace of Palestine and Palestine is not allowed, at least by
| law, to raise its own army, navy, air force. Israel is thus
| sovereign over Palestine and the Palestinians are its subjects,
| which is why Israel is _not_ a democracy, and why this conflict
| is a rebellion.
| ashconnor wrote:
| Parties and signatories of the Rome Statute
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#/...
| octopoc wrote:
| Interestingly looks like both the US and Israel withdrew their
| signatures at some prior point.
| sirbutters wrote:
| Certainly wouldn't want US or IDF soldiers to be held
| accountable. smh.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| The US signature was shaky to begin with (it was never really
| ratified through the proper channels) and I doubt they
| would've kept their signatures with the impending invasions
| following 9/11.
|
| With the so-dubbed "The Hague Invasion Act" I'd say the US
| has not only withdrawn its signature, it actively threatens
| anyone trying to hold their citizens accountable to things
| like war crimes. Officially, they're an observer these days,
| but practically, I think they're only there to see their
| enemies get convicted, and nothing else.
| Cody-99 wrote:
| >Khan said the ICC's prosecution team is also seeking warrants
| for Israel's Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as two other
| top Hamas leaders -- Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri, the leader
| of the Al Qassem Brigades who is better known as Mohammed Deif,
| and Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas' political leader.
|
| That is it..? Hamas has thousands of militants and hundreds of
| officials in Gaza and Qatar. At minimum the ICC should be issuing
| warrants for every Hamas member of al-qassam (their military
| wing) and Hamas core leadership.
|
| 3k Hamas fighters attacked Israel and posted it openly on social
| media. Half of those died in the initial attack and lots have
| surely died in the war since but there is no reason not to get
| arrest warrants for these war criminals who directly posted their
| war crimes to the internet.
| ugh123 wrote:
| Probably because those are "soldiers" and not leaders and
| decision makers.
| Georgelemental wrote:
| Are they also supposed to submit arrest warrants for all the
| IDF soldiers who committed war crimes and shared them on social
| media? It's the job of the political/government/military
| leaders to keep their soldiers in check, and the job of the ICC
| to keep the leaders in check. (In theory at least)
| Cody-99 wrote:
| Yes..? If someone commits war crimes and posts the evidence
| of them doing so on the internet one would hope the ICC would
| take note.
| HL33tibCe7 wrote:
| You are ignorant of the point of the ICC
| throwitaway222 wrote:
| Did the ICC arrest Bush? Currently Israel has a 30:1 ratio of
| Palestinians to Israeli deaths (just in this conflict).
|
| US had close to 100:1 ratio in the post-911 iraq war.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| Ask a US vet how they feel about whats going on over there vs
| their ROE (rules of engagement)
|
| Americans were NOT OK with abugrabe, most of us are not ok with
| what is going on in relation to women and children and
| hospitals in Gaza.
|
| Its not that there is a war, its how its conducted.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Rules of engagement or not, the American invasion caused
| plenty of unnecessary civilian deaths. In this case, I think
| the comparison between Bush and Netanyahu is quite apt,
| though Bush was smart enough not to use as much incindiary
| language while the people serving his country hurt so many
| people. The October attacks and the following excessive
| military response was not unlike what happened after 9/11.
|
| Though there's hardly any concensus (partially because the
| ICC doesn't use the American court system, and therefore
| isn't supported by many American legal professionals),
| American scholars have written about how Bush would be
| accountable under international law. Nothing has ever come of
| it as far as I know, but I believe that's only the case
| because no country dares risk the political war with one of
| the world's leading military and political powers.
|
| > Its not that there is a war, its how its conducted.
|
| The shitshow that happened after 9/11 ended up with war
| crimes committed in a war fought over invented weapons if
| mass destruction. I would argue that the war being there can
| be reason enough to hold people accountable.
| anon291 wrote:
| At some point, this sort of thing deserves to be mocked.
| Look, if civilian deaths are not allowed in war at all
| (like all are intolerable to the point where pacifism is
| the only option), then we must condemn the Allies in World
| War II, who caused untold civilian deaths. Are you ready to
| go there?
|
| The solution to belligerence cannot be wishful thinking and
| unicorn farts
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| A lot of international humanitarian law was established
| in response to WWII. The terror bombing campaigns of WWII
| would now be viewed as illegal.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Some of the things the allies did in the second world war
| were horrific. Overall, beating the nazis was a good
| thing, but both sides committed war crimes out of
| bloodlust and revenge.
|
| If you allow yourself to execute carpet bombings on
| civilians "for the good cause", don't be surprised when
| the enemy does the same. 9/11 caused a fraction of the
| destruction and innocent deaths of bombings in either
| side, yet we don't (and shouldn't) accept that as some
| side effect of fighting "the enemy".
|
| War crimes are a fact of just about every military
| conflict, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't convict
| those that commit them.
| jeltz wrote:
| No, but they should have.
| anonnon wrote:
| > US had close to 100:1 ratio in the post-911 iraq war.
|
| So the US is responsible for every Iraqi death, even those
| caused by insurgent groups like Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Mahdi
| Army, and ISIS?
| throw_a_grenade wrote:
| I find it meaningful that they're mentioned in the same
| document/release. Newspeople will obviously shorten that gap even
| further and put them in the same sentence, separated only by
| comma (like the CNN article currently linked).
|
| If that doesn't say "your're no better than the other side", I
| don't know what would. It might be especially disrespectful to
| the Israeli, who usually play moral high ground, but it's
| probably also true the other way around.
|
| Titling the official release "... in the situation in the State
| of Palestine" is a cherry on the top. (https://www.icc-
| cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-... -- thanks to
| sibling comment)
| ars wrote:
| You find it meaningful, I find it disgusting, and furthermore
| it calls the entire "court" into question. It's pretty obvious
| this is not a real court, and it should be ignored by all.
|
| Why did they wait 7 months?
|
| If the Netherlands had any morals they would have ejected these
| clowns long ago.
| tivert wrote:
| > ...and furthermore it calls the entire "court" into
| question. It's pretty obvious this is not a real court, and
| it should be ignored by all.
|
| Yeah, it's not a real court, it's just a bunch of
| "transnational" bureaucrats imitating the _forms_ of a court,
| without the foundational basis [1], and at great remove from
| whatever situations they 're pretending to judge. At best,
| it's a political prop.
|
| [1] Which would include things like de-facto power over its
| claimed jurisdiction, and having law known and respected by
| the people there.
| paxys wrote:
| Call me when George Bush is served for murdering half a million
| Iraqi civilians and countless others all over the middle east
| post 9/11. Until that happens it's hard to treat the ICC is
| anything but a sham court to preserve western supremacy.
| nomdep wrote:
| Western supremacy over... eastern supremacy? Who exactly?
| China? Russia? If that's your answer, I'm happy with western
| supremacy thank you very much.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| The problem with holding the US accountable is that they have a
| law that'll let their president invade any country that arrests
| American citizens.
|
| Large military powers such as China, Russia, and perhaps India,
| could try to put out warrants, but most ICC signatories would
| end up having an aircraft carrier parked in front of their
| capital.
|
| I agree that the American war crimes should be treated the same
| as the Israeli war crimes and the Hamas terrorist attacks, but
| realistically, this will never happen. The same way the ICC
| won't ever get their hands on Putin for the invasion of
| Ukraine, or Xi Jing Ping for the Uyghur genocide.
|
| If Israel had nukes and a top-five worldwide military presence,
| any attempts to go after Netanyahu would be as futile as
| attempts to convict Bush. The unfortunate fact is that the
| people with the biggest guns are rarely kept to the same
| standards as everyone else.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _they have a law that 'll let their president invade any
| country that arrests American citizens_
|
| Source?
|
| > _If Israel had nukes_
|
| It does [1].
|
| [1]
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel
| jeroenhd wrote:
| > Source?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-
| Members%27_...
|
| Though I did misremember, it's specifically about
| international courts prosecuting service members and
| officials. Which, or course, in this case would certainly
| apply.
|
| >It does
|
| Interesting, I did not know that. In that case it does
| surprise me that the ICC went ahead and tried to take
| action against Israel.
|
| Perhaps the fact that Israel has very few allies and too
| many enemies to use them against most ICC members helps.
| mint2 wrote:
| I'm not following the logic here.
|
| are you saying the ICC panel is incorrect about their
| recommendation? How does an earlier lapse in justice effect an
| entirely separate event?
| jupp0r wrote:
| The optics of equating a terrorist organization on the one hand
| with a democratic state with functioning judicial system and
| accountability for any crimes committed on the other hand by
| putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the
| court.
|
| I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly
| targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but
| that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion. On the
| other side you have what's a pretty clear case of a large scale
| terror attack against innocent civilians.
|
| In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of
| refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _equating a terrorist organization on the one hand with a
| democratic state with functioning judicial system and
| accountability for any crimes committed on the other hand by
| putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the
| court_
|
| War crimes are war crimes, and these were committed in the same
| war. This is like complaining a corporation and an employee
| were charged in the same press release. They're different, but
| not in the respect of the alleged crimes.
|
| > _why doesn 't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing
| to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?_
|
| Refusing refugees isn't a war crime and isn't--to my knowledge
| --under the ICC's jurisdiction.
| mkoubaa wrote:
| Furthermore, if Egypt did accept refugees, depending on how
| it was done, they could be implicated as an an accomplice to
| ethnic cleansing
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| In that sense, the UK and America (among others) were
| accomplices to the Holocaust, by accepting Jews who were
| fleeing Germany?
| danans wrote:
| The US and UK have a checkered record with respect to
| accepting people fleeing the Holocaust [1].
|
| Saving them was not an objective of the war effort and
| was opposed by many due to domestic anti-Semitism and
| ethno-nationalism (Nazism had significant open sympathy
| in the US at the time).
|
| Until the political tides changed in the US/UK, both
| countries definitely wasted time during which many
| perished in the Holocaust. Mostly people watched as the
| Nazis killed millions. There was no public uproar to
| intervene while the events were happening.
|
| It's also not clear that either country would have ever
| accepted millions of Holocaust refugees, even though the
| US certainly had the space. The creation of the state of
| Israel after the war in a way helped them not have to
| face that question.
|
| 1. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-
| united...
| ars wrote:
| > War crimes are war crimes, and these were committed in the
| same war.
|
| Some were committed 7 months ago, the other were allegedly
| committed a short time ago.
|
| Putting them both in the same release is utterly repugnant.
| feedforward wrote:
| > terrorist organization
|
| Is that the "terrorist organization" that Netanyahu sent the
| Mossad head to Qatar a few months ago so he could beg them to
| fund Hamas? (
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q...
| )
|
| > democratic state
|
| Israel says it controls Palestinian territories and it does
| (with some trouble in Gaza since October). None of those
| millions can vote in the Knesset (although a foreign Jew who
| moves to a West Bank settlement can vote). It is not a
| democracy. Even for those who can vote, Netanyahu is trying to
| get rid of the judiciary.
|
| It is a colonial settler state like Rhodesia or French Algeria,
| and will have the same fate as those states. It is a relic in
| 2024, and becomes more so every year.
| petra wrote:
| Analysing the Israeli-arab conflict as colonialism takes a
| very complex issue and describes it in a very shallow, non-
| accurate way.
| octopoc wrote:
| If a drug addict is accused of assaulting a wealthy
| businessman, everyone accepts that they should both appear in
| court. Nobody thinks that the justice system is equating the
| two except in the sense that both are human beings and as such
| have the same obligations (and rights / privileges) regarding
| justice.
|
| And I think in that sense Hamas and Israel _are_ equal:
| Palestinians and Jews are both humans and the concepts of
| justice should apply to both in the same way.
|
| Accusations of genocide have been flying around a lot and it's
| good that the court takes such serious accusations seriously.
| TylerE wrote:
| Huh? Your comment is frankly non-sensical. Witnesses/victims
| that appear in court are doing so on behalf of the
| prosecution, they aren't charged with any crime.
| octopoc wrote:
| Those are technicalities, but jupp0r was talking about how
| the public is going to perceive this action by the ICC.
| jupp0r was concerned that the ICC was equating the two
| sides, my point is that yes, they're being equated, in the
| sense that both sides are human. In other words, I don't
| think this is going to make people think, "huh, I guess
| both sides are equally guilty," I think it'll make people
| think, "huh, I guess both sides are being held to the same
| standard of justice." That's a good thing.
| courseofaction wrote:
| This is a fairly charged analogy which plays into the
| presentation of the sides and not the facts.
|
| What if it turns out the Wealthy Businessman has been
| steadily murdering and Drug Addict's family, taking their
| land, and forcing them into such distress that they become
| addicted to a simple chemical escape?
|
| Wearing a suit doesn't make you respectable. Hell, these days
| it's a cause for suspicion.
| octopoc wrote:
| Yes, exactly! Our bias might be in favor of Israel because
| they have familiar-looking uniforms, tanks, etc. and the
| Palestinians are unshaven and often have a haunted look in
| their eyes. But not all is at it seems, and that's why the
| court shouldn't treat Netanyahu with kid gloves just
| because he looks clean.
| gip wrote:
| This is totally off. Only the addict will be charged of
| assault.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Israel administers multiple territories, some of them
| democratically (e.g. Israel proper, where Arabs are citizens
| with equal legal rights), and some of them undemocratically
| (e.g. the West Bank).
|
| In other words, if by "Israel" you mean only within the borders
| of its sovereign territory, yes it's a democracy. If by
| "Israel" you mean all territory controlled by the State of
| Israel, it's clearly not.
|
| So, they at best get partial credit for being "a democracy". If
| they wanted to get full credit, they would have to either
| relinquish control over the West Bank (and Gaza for that
| matter), or grant the people living there equal citizenship and
| voting rights.
|
| > In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of
| refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
|
| Nobody has to let foreigners into their country if they don't
| want to. Israel has every right to limit what goes over their
| border with Gaza, too. What bothers me is that they also
| restrict Gaza's territorial waters and airspace (and have been
| doing so since long before Oct. 7th), which AFAIK Egypt isn't
| involved in.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Nobody has to let foreigners into their country if they
| don 't want to_
|
| Eh [1]. But not the ICC's business.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_th
| e_S...
| xg15 wrote:
| > _Israel administers multiple territories, some of them
| democratically (e.g. Israel proper, where Arabs are citizens
| with equal legal rights), and some of them undemocratically
| (e.g. the West Bank)._
|
| This is one aspect of the whole conflict that has always
| seriously irked me.
|
| The West effectively treats Israel as if it were the legal
| guardian of the Palestinians: Israel controls the entire
| territory, controls the tax revenue, population registry,
| borders, airspace, energy and water supply, can precisely
| restrict what (is allowed to) go in and out, can construct or
| demolish buildings at will, can arrest people at will, or
| even shoot them, can arbitrarily set the rules for court
| proceedings, etc. Western and neighbor countries fully
| support this view, to the point where, if Palestinians import
| or export goods into their own territories without Israel's
| authorisation, this is called "smuggling".
|
| Yet at the same time, Israel seems to have no obligation to
| actually consider or represent the _interests_ of the
| Palestinians: They are not allowed to vote in Israeli
| elections; they don 't have any representation in the
| Knesset; laws can be passed that arbitrarily disadvantage
| them without loss of democratic status; Israeli politicians
| openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies".
|
| In any situation where any individual person were the legal
| guardian of another person and at the same time called them
| "their bitter enemy", we'd be deeply alarmed and suspect an
| abusive relationship. Yet in the case of Israel and the
| Palestinians, that's "how things are supposed to be" and
| everyone who tries to _change_ that status quo is the
| problem.
|
| This feels extremely wrong to me.
|
| (The UN is clearer here: They give Israel the specific legal
| role of "occupation force" and point to various obligations
| towards the occupied population that come with that role.
| However, the western countries somehow both deny that any
| occupation even takes place _and_ demand that Israel must
| continue to have full control over the territories - which is
| contradictory in itself)
| eynsham wrote:
| Juxtaposition and equation are different. The press release
| makes very clear which charges apply to which parties--the
| charges against the Hamasnikim are quite different from those
| against Israeli leaders. It also makes clear that the principle
| of subsidiarity of course applies.
|
| If you think the prima facie case against Bibi and Gallant is
| convincing, the Israeli AG is quite plausibly doing so little
| that subsidiarity is no longer engaged. If you think it is
| unconvincing, as you say, the problem is not some
| inappropriately symmetric ignoring of subsidiarity but that the
| charges themselves are unconvincing.
|
| A final point is that the Rome Statute does not prohibit merely
| 'orders of directly targeting civilians', and so other
| potential crimes must be considered. These include 'cruel
| treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
| [e]xtermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and
| 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by
| starvation, as a crime against humanity; [and o]ther inhumane
| acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k)'.
| Of course, you may think that Khan has jumped the gun on each
| of these in that each of these charges is also implausible, but
| that is a stronger position than doubting that there were
| orders to directly target civilians.
|
| (edit: I should add that Khan [I imagine] and I would say that
| while subsidiarity may not preclude proceedings against Israeli
| officials because of Israeli inaction, Hamasnikim are not
| subject to anything that remotely resembles a judicial system
| worth the name, so there is nothing comparable to even fail to
| act.)
| jupp0r wrote:
| I realize that the charges are different and clearly
| attributed to each party they are brought against. The optics
| of this will still practically lead to people equating both
| parties and the charges. An alternative (ie seeking both
| warrants separated by time (ie a week) and space (different
| press releases)) would have been better.
|
| Again I'm all for investigating whether war crimes have been
| committed by Israel. It's going to be a nuanced argument in
| any case to prove so that will probably involve how many
| civilian casualties are acceptable to achieve legitimate
| military aims.
|
| The contrast must be pointed out by all who want nations and
| non state actors to be accountable for their actions.
| mkoubaa wrote:
| The better comparison is between Hamas and the current Israeli
| executive branch, not the state of Israel per se. Even so, I
| see no equating the two. The ICC is implicating both parties
| with war crimes, not claiming they are equal
| neilv wrote:
| I assumed the ICC named the two opposed leaders in the same
| press release because the ICC had concerns about both, and it
| is a politically charged situation.
|
| (If they had named only one leader in that press release,
| perhaps quietly expecting to name the other later, I would
| think that would appear to be a judgment of the multiple
| obvious potential concerns, and a taking of sides.)
| threeseed wrote:
| > why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to
| allow civilians to flee
|
| Because Egypt believes this would amount to supporting ethnic
| cleansing:
|
| https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2024/02/27/why-e...
|
| And given that many on the far-right in the Israel government
| want Palestinians out of Gaza it's a reasonable position.
| itronitron wrote:
| Has anyone asked whether the Palestinians in Gaza want out of
| Gaza? That seems like a more important question.
| dathinab wrote:
| they don't, in general
|
| but they also don't want to die, want flowing water, food,
| electricity, medical infrastructure etc.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| Many of them have demonstrable property ownership (or their
| parents/grandparents did) in Israel proper.
| ok123456 wrote:
| They want to return to their homes from before the Nakba.
| They tried to march for this peacefully in 2018 and had
| snipers shoot their kneecaps out.
| HL33tibCe7 wrote:
| Nice whataboutism
| chakintosh wrote:
| Except only one of those organizations killed 30 000 civilians
| within 7 months.
| HL33tibCe7 wrote:
| And cut off water supplies and electricity, and killed
| international aid workers, and rained hellfire on hospitals,
| and killed workers from the UN, and wiped out entire
| Palestinian families, and razed Gaza to such an extent that
| it changed the colour of it as seen from space, and plunged
| Gaza into famine in the worst drop in nutritional status in
| recorded history.
| throwitaway222 wrote:
| I suppose if Hamas was the larger one, those 30k would have
| been 30 days, but most likely 5 if given the same resources.
| HL33tibCe7 wrote:
| If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike.
| curiousgal wrote:
| Yeah still does not excuse Israel..
| lr4444lr wrote:
| Those are the Gaza ministry of health's numbers for all
| killed, IIRC, not just civilians.
| longitudinal93 wrote:
| And not just all who were killed but everyone who has died
| since Oct. 7
| ars wrote:
| That's not true. 30,000 civilians were not killed by either
| side. Stop parroting Hamas propaganda.
| genman wrote:
| It is even worse than this - the document calls Israel "a
| territory" and Gaza "a state". I really expected that ICC can
| be less biased even when a Muslim is appointed as a prosecutor
| against Israel.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Why don't you ask Pakistan if he counts as one.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| It's bad optics that the court didn't immediately move after
| 10/7.
|
| A point. The reason a lot of countries want a two state
| solution is because they plan on deporting all their
| Palestinians once that happens.
| jjulius wrote:
| >In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of
| refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
|
| I see phrases like this tossed around in countless political
| debates - "Well, if they're investigating X, why the heck
| aren't they investigating Y!?".
|
| To that, I ask - how are you 100% sure that that's not also
| happening?
| verteu wrote:
| > I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of
| directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli
| military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my
| opinion
|
| The Panel's report is not based on "far fetched assumptions."
| It names the explicit acts that Israel is known to have
| committed (eg: mass starvation via blockade of food and
| shelter):
|
| "based on a review of material presented by the Prosecutor, the
| Panel assesses that there are reasonable grounds to believe
| that Netanyahu and Gallant formed a common plan, together with
| others, to jointly perpetrate the crime of using starvation of
| civilians as a method of warfare. The Panel has concluded that
| the acts through which this war crime was committed include a
| siege on the Gaza Strip and the closure of border crossings;
| arbitrary restrictions on entry and distribution of essential
| supplies; cutting off supplies of electricity and water, and
| severely restricting food, medicine and fuel supplies. This
| deprivation of objects indispensable to civilians' survival
| took place in the context of attacks on facilities that produce
| food and clean water, attacks against civilians attempting to
| obtain relief supplies and attacks directed against
| humanitarian workers and convoys delivering relief supplies,
| despite the deconfliction and coordination by humanitarian
| agencies with Israel Defence Forces. These acts took place with
| full knowledge of the extent of Gazans' reliance on Israel for
| essential supplies, and the adverse and inevitable consequences
| of such acts in terms of human suffering and deaths for the
| civilian population."
|
| https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p...
| kmeisthax wrote:
| If this was October 2023, sure. I'd agree with you. The problem
| is that, as the war has continued, Israel has engaged in a
| number of actions that, depending on how you spin it, are
| either catastrophic fuck-ups or deliberate attempts to starve
| out Gaza, including _bombing a humanitarian aid convoy_.
|
| Furthermore, there's no way in hell Netanyahu gets his endgame
| (wiping Hamas off the face of the planet) without either
| exterminating all Palestinians in Gaza (which absolutely is a
| war crime, orders or no) or significantly backing down on
| several of the things Israel does to Palestine to make it mad.
| He also has no reason to simply snipe some of the higher-ups,
| patch up the holes in the Iron Dome, and declare victory.
| Netanyahu needs the war to continue so he can continue delaying
| his corruption trial long enough to declare himself above the
| law with a judicial reform.
|
| To be clear, _yes_ , Israel is more western and more liberal
| than Palestine, but that gap is closing faster than I think
| anyone would like to admit.
|
| >In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of
| refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
|
| Because countries do not recognize migration as a human right.
| If the ICC did this and was consistent about it, they'd have to
| challenge basically every restrictive immigration policy ever.
| I'd personally love that, but given how many countries in the
| EU are making handbrake turns to the right wing _specifically_
| so they never have to take in another refugee ever again[2],
| the EU would rather just invade the Hague like Bush threatened
| to.
|
| Furthermore, (one of) the reason(s) why the 'three state
| solution'[3] never really panned out is because Egypt and
| Jordan don't want to become hosts for further revaunchism.
| Hamas will set up shop in their new home and Israel will just
| invade them - like they did in the Yom Kippur War. For similar
| reasons Israel has never wanted to entertain the 'one state
| solution'[1] that would also have solved this conflict decades
| ago, because they (mostly correctly) think Hamas will never be
| satisfied until Palestine extends from the border to the sea
| and all the Jews have been deported.
|
| [1] Just abolish the Palestine/Israel border and let people
| live and work wherever
|
| [2] Which, to be clear, is also a travesty.
|
| [3] Move Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan and let Israel take
| over the rest of the land
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| > or deliberate attempts to starve out Gaza
|
| The Israeli defense minister went on TV on 9 October 2023 [0]
| and declared that he was going to starve Gaza:
|
| "We are imposing a complete siege on the city of Gaza. There
| will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel,
| everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we
| are acting accordingly."
|
| I assume that this explicit admission of guilt is why he has
| been charged.
|
| 0. https://youtu.be/ZbPdR3E4hCk?si=Gx1Uf_jWeRVUNELr
| kelnos wrote:
| > _The optics of equating a terrorist organization on the one
| hand with a democratic state with functioning judicial system
| and accountability for any crimes committed on the other hand
| by putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the
| court._
|
| I don't think anyone is actually doing that, though. The leader
| of a terrorist group and the leader of a democratic state can
| both commit war crimes. We need not compare them directly or
| try to say which one of them is worse in order to acknowledge
| that fact. Putting them in the same press release (this isn't a
| press release, though; this is a CNN article) seems fairly
| natural to me, since both are actors in the same conflict,
| regardless of how it started.
|
| > _I 'm all for investigating if there were any orders of
| directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli
| military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my
| opinion._
|
| You don't need direct orders to target civilians. You merely
| need negligence or a lack of care that causes civilian deaths
| in excess of what is "necessary" (ugh) to achieve the military
| objectives. I personally believe that Israeli forces have been
| indiscriminately killing civilians in Gaza in a way that would
| constitute war crimes, and apparently that just means I'm in
| agreement with the ICC.
|
| > _On the other side you have what 's a pretty clear case of a
| large scale terror attack against innocent civilians._
|
| Again, it is perfectly possible to acknowledge that two
| different parties have committed war crimes, even though
| they've done so in completely different ways, and the
| organizations they represent are completely different.
|
| > _In addition, why doesn 't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct
| of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?_
|
| Because that's not against international law. Even if it was,
| your question here is just whataboutism.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| You're right, the optics are weird, but sufficient conditions
| that define criminal acts can be multiple and varied.
|
| Egypt's non-involvement may violate some other principle, but
| probably not a "war crime".
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| The arrest warrants are for individuals, some from Hamas and
| some from Likud. Where do you see an arrest warrant for Israel?
|
| I spent a while trying to see what you wrote but am not finding
| it.
| hirako2000 wrote:
| A terrorist organisation is what typically a government stamp
| on that group for using terror to gain political advantages,
| those against it. Such government may use terror tactics which
| it would stamp as national security, preemptive actions,
| necessary interventions, collateral damage. Anything to justify
| what could be qualified as brutal unjust "terrorism".
|
| On that basis all of the targets of the ICC are leaders of
| terrorist organisations. Hamas is considered terrorist
| organisation by certain authorities, you bet the Israeli
| government is considered terrorist by other authorities.
|
| The ICC is meant to act on the evidence of war crimes. The
| definition of war crimes is far more formal than the
| qualification of terrorism. Consider giving a definition of
| terrorism, you will find that any arm belligerent who happen to
| cause civilian casualties can be categorized as such.
|
| Finally, it is also worth noting the french resistance to the
| country's occupation and Nazism was considered led by terrorist
| groups. Those did employ sabotage, kidnapping, bombing, instill
| terrors. The collaborating french authorities and the Wermacht
| put those resistants on their terrorists lists, back then.
|
| The ICC is surely meant to be above the arguments in the lines
| "these terrorists and those aren't", or politically and some
| government's biases as arguments. It would look into the
| evidence and prosecute based on these.
| ajb wrote:
| This is the statement of the panel of legal advisors to the
| prosecutor: https://www.icc-
| cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p...
|
| One of them, incidentally, is Judge Theodor Meron CMG, a
| holocaust survivor.
| teyc wrote:
| There were some suggestions in the past that the US's unbridled
| support for Israel is harmful to the long term interests of
| Israel. Over the years I've seen less and less intelligent
| arguments coming from Israeli leadership, particularly in a world
| where smartphones can turn any citizen into a reporter.
|
| Some days it is apparent that the wrath meted upon the
| Palestinians has turned into bloodlust. While I understand the
| grief and anger following such a massacre, there has long been a
| pattern of wilfully misplaced reaction against stone throwing
| kids and targeting of journalists and their families. These
| cannot be attributed to Oct 7.
|
| Now with Israeli funds making its way back to US politics, the
| crazier the politician the better his chances. With time, the
| benevolence of the US will be questioned by their allies and make
| the world a less predictable place.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| >Now with Israeli funds making its way back to US politics, the
| crazier the politician the better his chances. With time, the
| benevolence of the US will be questioned by their allies and
| make the world a less predictable place.
|
| What alternative do these other "partners" have? The Ukraine
| war has exposed how badly atrophied all their military might
| has become and lets be honest, post Ukraine, its clear that is
| the most important thing.
|
| The EU still isn't meeting their minimum NATO commitments
| despite how far behind they are. It would take a massive amount
| of pain that the EU populations would have to bear in order to
| turn this around. I suspect all of a sudden EU population will
| become like the US population caring only about their own short
| term self interests more than what is "morally right". So the
| partnerships with the US will stay until the EU is willing to
| make that painful sacrifice to build out an alternative to the
| US military.
| teyc wrote:
| A war only happens when the chances of winning or losing is
| indeterminate. Ukraine would have achieved a sane political
| outcome without loss of blood and treasure if the Russians
| managed to roll in their tanks and replaced the government
| with a Russian leaning one. This may sound unpalatable it
| would have restored status quo to the pre-western-funded coup
| against the Russian-friendly government that was in place.
|
| Geopolitically, the NATO was heading towards obsolescence as
| Germany and Russian integrated their economies and achieve a
| lasting peace in the region. The US meddling in Ukraine
| weakens Europe and maintains the US status as the global
| hegemon.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Is Israel a signatory of the ICC treaty? Does the ICC have
| universal jurisdiction?
| xg15 wrote:
| Israel is not, however Palestine - as a UN observer state - is.
| This was enough for the ICC to declare jurisdiction.
|
| To my knowledge, this is also the grounds on which the US and
| UK dispute jurisdiction: They say, no country in this conflict
| _that they recognise_ is ICC signatory, so the ICC does not
| have jurisdiction.
|
| (Not a lawyer, but this seems a pretty spurious and self-
| referential legal argument to me and in any case the UN
| accepted Palestine as an observer state, so I doubt that it
| would fly.)
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Does Palestine, as recognized by the UN, include the West
| Bank?
|
| Because from what I hear, that "Palestine" doesn't really
| exist.
|
| There's Gaza, and there's the West Bank.
| xg15 wrote:
| See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition
| _of_t... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_
| the_State_of_P... .
|
| Most countries which recognise Palestine as a state seem to
| recognise it in the 1967 borders, i.e. Gaza + West Bank +
| East Jerusalem.
|
| Not sure about the UN though.
| irishloop wrote:
| From the NYT:
|
| > For now, the announcement is largely symbolic. Israel is not
| a member of the court and does not recognize its jurisdiction
| in Israel or Gaza, meaning that Israeli leaders would face no
| risk of arrest at home.
|
| The US is also not a member
| dathinab wrote:
| international law, courts, treaties etc. don't really work like
| that
|
| Like there is no such thing as a "universal" right, law, lawful
| action or anything. There is just "agreements/policies"
| countries enforce by the power of their
| military/economical/geopolitical might not by jurisdiction,
| through for practical reasons most times there is a _self
| imposed_ jurisdiction of some form.
|
| Through in most cases (i.e. not war, special military
| operation) this "upholding" is limited to their territories.
|
| The jurisdiction the ICC as imposed on themself is more or less
| to judge war crimes and genocide by anyone anywhere
| internationally.
|
| In practice this means anyone anywhere as long as the power of
| the ICC member states allow them to do so (in a for the member
| reasonable way).
|
| Practically the only place states can reliable enforce such
| things is in their territory. E.g. this means they don't
| enforce it when the person committing the crime is an US
| Citizen because they are not powerful enough to force the US to
| allow them to do so.
|
| What that means in this case is that assuming a warrant is
| issued they will be arrested iff they step into member state
| territory, and even then it might depend on the individual
| power of the member state and the context of them stepping into
| the state.
|
| Through iff ICC members would be far more powerful and united,
| things could be very different.
|
| E.g. the US imprisoning no US Citizens arrested outside of US
| territory in Guantanamo was a case of "having enough power to
| enforce their rules outside of their territory". (But it's also
| a terrible example given such arrests in general didn't follow
| the procedure you would expect from a state of law (or the ICC)
| and we know today involved more then just one or two innocents.
| Heck if the ICC had the power they would likely have judged
| that to be a war crime and issued an arrest for the people
| responsible for it.)
| tndibona wrote:
| For a quick moment, I thought Netanyahu is wanted by the
| International Cricket Council for ball tampering.
| isametry wrote:
| I, for one, realized quite soon that this is well out of
| International Color Consortium's jurisdiction and capacity
| (however non-compliant the color profile implementations in
| Gaza might be).
| octopoc wrote:
| This is an opportunity for Israel to reverse course. They can
| blame everything on Netanyahu, throw him out of office, stop all
| attacks into Gaza, stop depriving Gaza of food and water, and
| start deliberately working with respected members of the Gaza
| community to help build local businesses. They can make an
| international call to all successful Palestinians around the
| world to bring their business back to Gaza. Make it like when
| Israel was formed--a call to build something good for their
| ethnicity.
|
| Honestly this could be a really great thing for the region. It
| could be an opportunity to shift blame from an entire ethnicity,
| the Jews, onto a single member of that ethnicity, in order to let
| the Jews and Palestinians be at peace with each other.
| gyudin wrote:
| Most interesting part is that Putin on that list for "kidnapping"
| children, while in fact just providing a temporary refuge. While
| Netanyahu bombed and killed like 15,000 children and it's not a
| war crime for some reason, huh.
| ggm wrote:
| Forgive me if I misremember, but I believe the US refused to
| recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC over it's own citizens and
| soldiers, and continues to require that its forces have effective
| indemnification against actions in economies they are invited
| into.
|
| They state that actual crimes will be dealt with by JAG, but I
| think the Okinawan community disputes that they were taken
| seriously when it comes to domestic violence and sexual assault.
| CommanderData wrote:
| About time. Let's hope he's arrested quickly.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-20 23:00 UTC)