[HN Gopher] ICC issues warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hama...
___________________________________________________________________
ICC issues warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas officials
Author : runarberg
Score : 625 points
Date : 2024-11-21 12:13 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.icc-cpi.int)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.icc-cpi.int)
| Qem wrote:
| > The Chamber issued warrants of arrest for two individuals, Mr
| Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant, for crimes against
| humanity and war crimes committed from at least 8 October 2023
| until at least 20 May 2024
|
| And things got much worse in the latter part of 2024. Even if the
| court didn't take into account facts after 20 May 2024, ample
| evidence already existing by then was already enough to issue the
| warrants. When it takes more evidence into account I bet more
| warrants will be issued.
| bhouston wrote:
| It is incredibly likely another series of warrants will be
| issued for the next level down of both Israeli and Hamas
| leadership.
|
| It is too bad Lebanon didn't ratify the ICC treaty. They really
| should have.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| It is indeed ridiculous that Lebanon didn't join the ICC, one
| has to imagine that Hezbollah played a role in that decision.
| Which is funny because all the Palestinian resistance
| factions actually pushed for ICC jurisdiction to the extent
| that they called for it to apply to them and Israel equally!
| The hoops the Palestinians had to jump through to join the
| ICC were crazy, including (reified) threats of heavy
| punishments from the US if they did.
|
| Here's the full story if anyone is interested: https://palepe
| dia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court%27s_...
| n4r9 wrote:
| According to the BBC:
|
| > A warrant was also issued for [Hamas military commander]
| Mohammed Deif, although the Israeli military has said he was
| killed in an air strike in Gaza in July.
|
| [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2exvx944o
| dang wrote:
| This is the link: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-
| palestine-icc-p...
|
| Most news reports are treating this as a single story, but
| posting the original source seems a good idea in this case; it
| just happens to be split across two URLs.
| ktallett wrote:
| Rightfully so, their intentions and actions which have matched,
| have been clear for the last year. Hopefully the rest of the
| international community including governments will finally stand
| together and call them out for the crimes they have been
| committing. This is hopefully a step to removing arms sales to
| Israel as well from many countries.
| nabla9 wrote:
| (before you jump into discussion, remember that this only about
| these two individuals)
|
| ICC and the prosecutor are on very solid ground here.
|
| The prosecutor asked opinions from a impartial panel of experts
| in international law. The panel included people like Theodor
| Meron (former Legal adviser for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign
| Affairs), Helene Kennedy, Adrian Fulford.
|
| Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant provided plenty of evidence of the
| intent. Did they really think that when they talk Hebrew to their
| audience, rest of the world does not hear them. Case like this
| would be harder to prosecute without evidence of intent.
| justin66 wrote:
| > Did they really think that when they talk Hebrew to their
| audience, rest of the world does not hear them.
|
| When it comes to US public opinion, that's normally the way it
| works.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Thanks to our media and politicians.
| nabla9 wrote:
| People without media and politicians are not that much
| better.
| GordonS wrote:
| And in turn, thanks to orgs like AIPAC.
| bjoli wrote:
| I had a look at the democrats who support the recent
| "Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American
| Hostages Act". I had a look at 10 of them. 7 of them had
| substantial donations from AIPAC. The others were soon up
| for re-election.
|
| I am not American, but why oh why are you not rooting in
| the streets? That is just soooo effed up. This is just
| one of so many issues, and AIPAC is a just a part of the
| problem. It is just so obvious that U.S. politicians are
| up for purchase.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| ... where the combination of their and the public's willful
| ignorance results in much needless suffering.
| bbqfog wrote:
| The translate button on Twitter has been _super_ helpful
| since Oct 7th. You can go see for yourself what most Israelis
| are thinking and let me just say, it 's very, very appalling
| and openly genocidal for the most part.
| justin66 wrote:
| In fairness to Israel, they have a peace movement and human
| rights movement and so on. It's just that even before
| October 7th, they were getting increasingly outnumbered.
| burkaman wrote:
| I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but drawing any
| conclusions from random people on Twitter seems like a
| mistake. They might not be human, they might not be
| Israeli, and they might not be representative of Israel's 9
| million people. I wouldn't want anybody to judge me based
| on how English-speaking Twitter accounts behave.
| magic_hamster wrote:
| Israel was massively radicalized by October 7th. Prior to
| October 7th, a lot of Israelis believed that if
| Palestinians had a better economy and could afford a
| comfortable life, peace would be possible. October 7th was
| not just a surprise to many Israelis, but also the
| atrocities were so horrible that it radically changed how
| Israelis view the situation. This is hard to grasp, but a
| lot of people don't really understand what happened on
| October 7th, because this was stuff was obviously not shown
| on mainstream media.
|
| The entire situation is very tragic. But ultimately,
| October 7th killed any chance for peace between Israel and
| the Palestinians, for a long long time. The current
| population in Israel will never forget October 7th, there
| are some seriously cannot-be-unseen NSFL atrocities.
| throw310822 wrote:
| > Israel was massively radicalized by October 7th
|
| Israel had been locking Gaza in a total blockade for 17
| years (with talk of "keeping them on a diet"), plus had
| bombed Gaza multiple times resulting in more than 5000
| deaths (= 5 October 7ths- they called this "mowing the
| lawn". During these bombing campaigns we have pictures of
| Israelis enjoying the show from afar from observation
| points with food and drinks).
|
| In the meanwhile they enforced an apartheid regime in the
| West Bank, building new settlements for hundreds of
| thousands of residents, and launching pogroms to drive
| away the Palestinian population.
|
| So no, it wasn't Oct 7th that radicalised them.
| throw_pm23 wrote:
| It is telling that you also mention "better economy" and
| "comfortable life", but not "equal rights" or "self-
| government" or any such thing. Even with animals in the
| zoo one doesn't think that all they need is being well-
| fed.
| WaxProlix wrote:
| Which atrocities? What wasn't shown on mainstream media?
|
| In my experience, most of what mainstream media claimed
| initially around atrocities was proven to be
| categorically false - up to and including the president
| of the USA going on live TV and lying about having seen
| evidence of baby killing, with staffers having to
| sheepishly and quietly release a "that didn't happen"
| statement later.
|
| Of course these retractions happened later, and Israel's
| explicit and planned messaging of atrocities, inhuman
| animal behavior, etc had its desired effect of riling
| people up to support a genocidal assault after a single
| successful counterattack from an impoverished people at
| war for generations.
| robobro wrote:
| I agree that what the IDF is doing to Palestinians, now
| and for a long time is very tragic, and it's also tragic
| how many of their own people and fellow soldiers they
| (IDF) killed on Oct 7th.
| ben_w wrote:
| Myself, I have no sense of what it's like in Israel right
| now, but I have noted several times that the October 7th
| attack was proportionally worse to Israel than 9/11 was
| to the US, so I can easily believe that this had a
| similar impact on the national psyche.
|
| That said, I do often read comments and news articles
| claiming that Netanyahu's government is unpopular within
| Israel, and that he only maintains his position by the
| support of the... well, there's not a polite way to
| describe the attitudes of the settlers who take land that
| isn't in Israel and then demand Israel defend them, nor
| those who demand violence while claiming their religious
| beliefs prohibit serving in the armed forces even though
| everyone else has conscription.
|
| Not confident of that popularity though, as Googling gets
| me an _extraordinarily_ broad range of popularity scores.
|
| That said:
|
| > But ultimately, October 7th killed any chance for peace
| between Israel and the Palestinians, for a long long
| time.
|
| Did any chance of a peace live before?
|
| The Israeli PM who signed the Oslo Accords, Yitzhak
| Rabin, was shot by a far-right-wing Israeli extremist for
| signing them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords
|
| A large portion of the Palestinian population also
| opposed it.
| bawolff wrote:
| I mean, nobody really knows until the trial (if one ever
| happens). Its easy to be convincing when you are just listening
| to the prosecution - it gets harder once the defense has the
| opportunity to poke holes.
|
| Keep in mind the conviction rate at ICC is pretty low.
|
| > The prosecutor asked opinions from a impartial panel of
| experts in international law.
|
| The court already disagreed with said panel on one of the
| charges (crime of extermination) and we aren't even at the
| stage yet where they need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
| Netanyahu and Gallant should certainly be quite worried (if
| they somehow find themselves in icc custody which seems
| unlikely) but we are still very far away from a conviction. Its
| not a foregone conclusion.
| nabla9 wrote:
| The outcome of this case will be hard to predict, but
| Netanyahu and Gallant did their best to get convicted.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| Your dark humor made me chuckle. Thanks for that in this
| dire world.
|
| May the persecution of all innocent Jews, Palestinians,
| Ukrainians, and Africans (e.g. Ugandans) end and a world of
| peace and justice be established, for one and all.
| buran77 wrote:
| The double edged sword is that proving an ongoing crime
| maybe stops it from unfolding but anything other than a
| conviction is presented as an endorsement and
| encouragement to continue. That could be fine if there's
| really no crime, not so fine if the crime just couldn't
| be proven.
|
| Considering here the old adage that absence of evidence
| isn't evidence of absence. They both lead to the same
| verdict from a court of public opinion point of view, and
| realistically the same consequences from a court of
| justice.
| GordonS wrote:
| > Keep in mind the conviction rate at ICC is pretty low.
|
| My understanding is that's because it's usually difficult to
| show _intent_. However, in this case, not only do we have an
| incredible amount of video evidence of war crimes, but we
| also have a huge catalogue of Israeli politicians explicitly
| calling for the genocide of Gaza.
|
| My biggest concern over this is what the US and/or Mossad
| will do...
| edanm wrote:
| > However, in this case, not only do we have an incredible
| amount of video evidence of war crimes, but we also have a
| huge catalogue of Israeli politicians explicitly calling
| for the genocide of Gaza.
|
| I disagree that there is an incredible amount of video
| evidence of war crimes that are relevant here.
|
| And I also disagree that there is a huge catalogue of
| Netanyahu and Gallant making statements that show intent.
| For the purposes of these warrants, it doesn't matter what
| other Israeli politicians have said as I understand it.
| bawolff wrote:
| Usually when people say that they are talking about
| genocide. War crimes and crimes against humanity may have
| some intent requirements but they don't have the double
| intent that genocide has, which is the part that is super
| difficult to prove.
|
| To over simplify (also ianal) with genocide you basically
| have to prove that the only possible rationale for the
| action was to try and destroy the protected group and that
| there is no other plausible explanation. With normal war
| crimes its more just proving the act wasn't done
| accidentally. [This is a gross oversimplification]
|
| > but we also have a huge catalogue of Israeli politicians
| explicitly calling for the genocide of Gaza.
|
| I don't think that is relavent here, as genocide is not one
| of the charges. Additionally, that would probably be more
| relavent to state responsibility for genocide (what the icj
| decides) and not personal responsibility (what icc has
| juridsication over). Even for state responsibility, its a
| bit iffy how much those statements matter if they aren't
| said by people who have the power to issue orders to the
| military (they of course matter a lot if the charge is
| failing to suppress incitement of genocide). I'm not saying
| its totally irrelavent, it is probably a bit relavent to
| the prosecution charge, but largely it matters more what
| the individuals themselves have said as they are being
| charged in an individual capacity not as agents of the
| state.
|
| Basically the ICC and ICJ are different and what you are
| saying is more applicable to the ICJ case not the ICC case.
| nielsbot wrote:
| Also important to note that Khan, who filed the warrant
| requests, was one of Israel's preferred appointees to the ICC
| as chief prosecutor.
| starik36 wrote:
| Why would it be preferred or not? Israel is not an ICC
| member.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| One can express a preference without having the right to
| participate in the selection.
|
| Quite a few non-US citizens express a preference on who
| wins the Presidency, for example.
|
| https://www.timesofisrael.com/uks-karim-khan-elected-next-
| ic...
|
| > Israel's Kan public broadcaster reported that Israeli
| officials supported Khan's candidacy behind the scenes, and
| consider him a pragmatist who shies away from
| politicization.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Also note that the US imposed heavy sanctions on Ethopia and
| Eritrea's entire government party, head of state, spouses and
| businesses under the exact same observations of provoking
| famine and starvation
|
| EO 14046
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| My question, though, is does pushing these kinds of toothless
| resolutions make any difference beyond showing that the ICC
| essentially has no power to enforce its warrants?
|
| It's clear that the most powerful militaries in the world (US,
| Russia, essentially China too) have declared the "rules-based
| world order" dead. Does it do anyone any good to pretend this
| hasn't happened? It reminded me of the post Elizabeth Warren
| put out complaining that Trump was breaking the law because he
| didn't sign some ethics pledge:
| https://x.com/SenWarren/status/1856046118322188573. I couldn't
| help but roll my eyes. All Warren was doing was showing how
| pointless these laws are when there are no consequences for
| breaking them.
|
| The rules-based world order was always a bit of convenient
| fiction, but I'm afraid it's a fiction that a large part of the
| world no longer believes in anymore.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| _" It's clear that the most powerful militaries in the world
| (US, Russia, essentially China too) have declared the "rules-
| based world order" dead."_
|
| Correct, and that's what happened only about a decade after
| WWI--the _War to End All Wars_ and look what happened.
|
| I'm fearful history might repeat itself. It has a bad habit
| of doing so and often with unexpected twists.
| com wrote:
| Justice has to be declared as an essential principle of
| human organisation.
|
| If the 1984 vision of a boot stamping on a human face
| forever is going to work out to be true, then so be it.
|
| The ICJ is at least holding out against that future.
|
| What will you (as a human) choose to do?
|
| These days and years are going to be definitional I think.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| _" The ICJ is at least holding out against that future."_
|
| ICJ? Are you implying that what I said, implied or
| inferred was against the ICC?
|
| Let me be clear, I nether said, meant nor inferred any of
| those things. In fact I'm in favor of the ICC despite the
| fact it's a paper tiger in areas where it's most needed.
|
| _Edit: that said, like many, I 've some criticisms all
| of which other comments have echoed. Like most things the
| ICC is a compromise in an imperfect world, it's better
| than nothing though._
| ben_w wrote:
| Merely getting "declared" is not enough -- North Korea
| "declares" itself to be a democracy -- what matters is
| actually doing it.
|
| The relevance of the ICC etc. is rooted in how much
| people actually do, not just say.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > have declared the "rules-based world order" dead
|
| I have hunker are confusing two things here - there is
| international law, which the US and other delinquents break
| regularly.
|
| And there is Rules based world order, which is what US talks
| about and attempts to impose.
|
| For example imposing sanctions on Russia does not have basis
| in international law, but is part of 'rules based order'
| aguaviva wrote:
| _For example imposing sanctions on Russia does not have
| basis in international law,_
|
| Of course it does.
|
| Every country is free to choose which countries it does
| business with.
| cue_the_strings wrote:
| Bear in mind that most of the time, sanctions not only
| prevent you from doing business with the sanctioned
| entity, but also with any other entity that's doing
| business with them.
| aguaviva wrote:
| Bear in mind that this has no bearing on the point under
| discussion.
| mianos wrote:
| I think you are agreeing with that. There is not some
| international law that says countries must deal.with
| countries they don't want to. It's a national thing.
| fmajid wrote:
| Netanyahu and Gallant will no longer be able to travel to
| Europe, and likely will not want to fly over Europe either
| (thus not to the US either).
| andrewinardeer wrote:
| Why not the US?
|
| The aren't signatories to the ICC.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The typical route _to_ the US from Israel passes over
| much of Europe.
| tzs wrote:
| If they just wanted to hop on a regular commercial flight
| to the US that might be a problem, but I'd expect they
| would fly on military aircraft.
|
| Instead of taking the most direct route which would fly
| over Europe they could stay over the Mediterranean until
| they reach the Atlantic and then head straight to the US.
|
| That adds about 500 miles or so to the trip which probably
| isn't a big deal on a trip that long.
| ben_w wrote:
| Now I'm wondering if airspace spreads out horizontally
| from the coast the same way that shipping rights do.
|
| I'd assume so, but a quick skim-read didn't tell me
| either way.
|
| If it does, then they'd pick between going through
| Spanish or Moroccan airspace, because the straights of
| Gibraltar are narrow enough you can see Africa _from
| Gibraltar_.
| edanm wrote:
| > My question, though, is does pushing these kinds of
| toothless resolutions make any difference beyond showing that
| the ICC essentially has no power to enforce its warrants?
|
| Absolutely this matters.
|
| This effectively limits where Netanyahu and Gallant can
| travel to. That's a big deal for a head of state. It sends a
| signal to all of Europe to be wary of doing business with
| Israel, which is a big deal.
|
| We also don't know if there are any hidden warrants for other
| Israelis, and more importantly, if this is a precedent for
| future warrants. If the court starts issuing warrants for
| other IDF military personnel, that becomes a huge negative
| for Israelis.
| Animats wrote:
| At some point Netanyahu will be out of power. He's been
| voted out of office before. He's in trouble politically. He
| promised a short, victorious war over Gaza, and got into a
| long major war against Iran and more countries instead. The
| next government might decide to turn him over to the ICC
| simply to get him off the political stage.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > Gallant provided plenty of evidence of the intent. Did they
| really think that when they talk Hebrew to their audience, rest
| of the world does not hear them.
|
| Absolutely, I can not find the BBC or most other major news
| networks broadcasting and translating any of that.
|
| I only see that on social media
| xenospn wrote:
| When was the last time a head of state was arrested by the ICC?
| nabla9 wrote:
| Omar al-Bashir is currently jailed in Sudan, but has not been
| transferred to ICC custody yet.
|
| Gaddafi was killed before he could be arrested.
| bhouston wrote:
| > When was the last time a head of state was arrested by the
| ICC?
|
| It also acts as a deterrent as much of the world will now
| likely be out of bounds for travel for either the Israelis or
| Hamas leadership who were issued warrants.
| jacob019 wrote:
| Dead men don't travel.
| ssijak wrote:
| Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic was arrested and deported
| by the government of Yugoslavia after him. Of course, under
| immense pressure from the west. My preference would be that we
| tried him under our courts and sent him to jail in
| Yugoslavia/Serbia.
|
| Now, imposing "justice" obviously only works when you do it to
| small nations like Yugoslavia or Rwanda. Of course it will not
| apply to the Israel leader, let alone to somebody from even
| more powerful nation.
| nabla9 wrote:
| That was ICTY, not ICC as OP asked.
| KSteffensen wrote:
| I don't understand how a tiny country like Israel has become
| so important in global politics. By population Rwanda is ~30%
| larger than Israel.
| beng-nl wrote:
| From my weak understanding, it's the only ally the west
| (USA) has in the Middle East, so they're important
| strategically - for military bases and other reasons I
| don't really understand, and so are propped up by financial
| aid and weapons and other help (intelligence etc?) beyond
| what would normally happen to a similar country.
| sofixa wrote:
| > From my weak understanding, it's the only ally the west
| (USA) has in the Middle East, so they're important
| strategically
|
| Nope, the US has bases in Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Djibouti
| and is friendly with the regimes in Saudi Arabia and
| Egypt.
| beng-nl wrote:
| Sorry, that'll teach me to state beliefs rather than
| facts. Thanks for the correction.
| ignoramous wrote:
| In Jordan, Kuwait, and Lebanon, too. Believe the US arms
| and trains the Lebanese army?
|
| In Syria, the US has friendlies and bases setup to help
| them. In Iraq, the US maintains strategic presence.
| derektank wrote:
| The US has several allies in the middle east. Egypt,
| Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar all have major non-
| NATO ally status with the US, the same status as Israel.
| Jordan in particular is a very close US partner.
|
| I should add, none of these countries are treaty allies
| of the US, i.e. none of them have a mutual defense treaty
| with the US. The one country that is a treaty ally of the
| US in the region is Turkey, though that relationship has
| been strained in the last couple of decades
| beng-nl wrote:
| Thanks for the correction. The downvote I got was
| justified.
| toyg wrote:
| That strategic relevance has long gone.
|
| The current relevance is strictly dictated by internal
| political and demographic balances in the United States.
| maccard wrote:
| They're a western bastion in very close proximity to the
| Middle East, with a cultural and religious tie to a not
| insignificant number of Americans. It's also a wealthy
| country.
| runako wrote:
| > very close proximity to the Middle East
|
| Israel is _in_ the Middle East.
| neom wrote:
| Given Israel is the motherland for many Jewish people, plus
| almost 2.5% of the USA is Jewish, plus there are almost 16
| million Jewish people globally, I would imagine that.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| They've worked really hard at it.
|
| Israel for instance has a special relationship with Germany
| because of remorse for the 1940s. This incident in the
| 1970s
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre
|
| further gives Germany a reason to crack down on pro-
| Palestinian protestors. Although supporters of the
| Palestinians have not staged international attacks for a
| long time the history of this in the 1970s explains why my
| Uni suddenly instituted a clear bag policy at sports games
| a few weeks after the lid blew off in Gaza last year. (When
| I started doing sports photography at the beginning of the
| semester I could pack a big camera bag and even take extra
| lenses)
|
| Also Israel has a high GDP and involvement in international
| trade, academia, etc. Israel has 50x the GDP per head of
| Rwanda so they have a large impact in terms of Intel's
| Haifa office, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Sodastream, etc. My
| thesis advisor traveled to Tel Aviv a lot to work with
| collaborators.
| phantompeace wrote:
| Not to mention Israel has been receiving absolutely
| immense amounts of financial, military and political
| support from the USA for decades, to the tunes of
| billions.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| It goes both ways, but I'd say it is more driven by the
| value of Israel's economy rather than the other way
| around. Of course you have to consider that Israel's
| defense sector is also part of their economic dynamism.
|
| Big picture here is my take. Since 1948 there have been
| conservatives in Israel such as Ariel Sharon and Benjamin
| Netanyahu who have had a policy of ethnic cleansing in
| that they cannot tolerate there being a non-Jewish part
| of the polity which is large enough to have political
| power. The plan has elements such as (a) dividing the
| population into different fragments such as the West
| Bank, Gaza and Arab Israelis that don't work together,
| (b) developing occasional crises that result in the
| killing or expulsion of large numbers of Palestinians,
| (c) most of all making sure that the Palestinians do not
| develop effective leadership, economic connections, soft
| power, etc. The destruction of academic organizations is
| critical to this plan because they don't want
| Palestinians to succeed the way that Jewish people have,
| instead they want ignorant stupid and desperate
| Palestinians to make bad moves such as the attacks last
| year, Munich, numerous 1970s airplane hijackings, the
| attempt to take over Jordan and such which justifies
| their persecution in the minds of Israelis and many
| others
|
| I had a harrowing conversation with a Jewish
| mathematician about 15 years ago where he explained that
| it wasn't genocide because the Palestinians were not "a
| people" which at the time my answer was "boy you sure
| sound like the leader of Germany from 1933 to 1945" but
| I've chewed on and have an interpretation of:
|
| Say the remnants of the Iroquois contacted aliens or got
| some machine like Drexler talked about and decided, now
| that they had the means, they wanted to take back New
| York. Are the people who live in the boundaries of New
| York really a "people" or "nation" or they are just
| people who live in a certain boundary? (Certainly you
| find every kind of white, black, Asian and indigenous
| person from absolutely everywhere here.)
|
| The Ottoman empire despite claiming to be a Caliphate was
| actually very cosmopolitan and all sorts of people could
| live everywhere in much of the middle east (a Jewish
| friend had family that came from Iraq!) so they can make
| the case that the pre 1948 population of Palestine was
| just a bunch of randos like us New Yorkers.
|
| Genocide is a crime on top of mass murder because of not
| just the harm to those killed or the trauma to the
| survivors and children of the survivors who recapitulate
| the crime 80 years later, but also the the whole world in
| the sense that the extinction of a species is a loss to
| the whole world. Germany is worse off today because of
| the holocaust because of all the things that aren't there
| and all of the richness that Jewish people brought to
| Germany that was lost. (20 years ago I could not find a
| good bagel shop wherever I went in Germany!)
|
| It's a technicality whether it is genocide or just mass
| murder in my mind, but it's a good line to get into mind
| of people like Netanyahu who are thinking ahead hundreds
| or thousands of years with events like
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora
|
| as clear in their minds as if they happened yesterday. On
| a bad day I think the polities of liberal democracies are
| like children in the hands of gods when it comes to
| facing those kind of people as our politicians often seem
| to be thinking two or three days ahead, at most to the
| next election and we are so self-centered and focused on
| stupid little things like the price of eggs that they can
| do what they want with us.
|
| On the other hand there are so many positive things about
| Israel and Israelis but they cannot find it within
| themselves to constrain Netanyahu and they are paying a
| price for it now and will continue to pay a price for it.
| It is likely that if Netanyahu's program succeeds they'll
| face a crisis of meaning when they no longer have an
| enemy and they might lose their culture in just a few
| generations and at best continue start the cycle of
| losing their way and getting dispossessed which is
| repeated several times in the Old Testament and in
| history.
| ckemere wrote:
| This is the kind of longer response that I come to HN to
| see. (Not intended as an endorsement of the ideas, but
| appreciation of the approach.)
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| this has always been the key reason, going back to the
| '60s
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| > I don't understand how a tiny country like Israel has
| become so important in global politics.
|
| Here are some of my favorite sources on that! These are all
| leftist and pro-Palestinian sources, but they are academic
| and studied. These are about why Israel is important to the
| "interests of the USA" (ie, what those with power to decide
| national interests think).
|
| * "Framing Palestine: Israel, the Gulf states, and American
| power in the Middle East" by Adam Hanieh
| https://www.tni.org/en/article/framing-palestine
|
| * The first chapter of "Palestine: A Socialist
| Introduction", "How Israel Became the Watchdog State: US
| Imperialism and the Middle East" by Shireen Akram-Boshar.
| The publisher Haymarket is giving away the ebook for free.
| https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/1558-palestine-a-
| social...
|
| * "No, the US Doesn't Back Israel Because of AIPAC" by
| Joseph Massad https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/no-the-us-
| doesnt-back-israe...
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| (Odd to me that I'm getting downvoted for suggesting the
| US support for Israel has to do with US interests, and
| providing sources going into detail on that, and people
| are getting upvoted for saying it's because Jews have a
| lot of influence! It's really not mostly because Jews
| have a lot of influence.)
| throw310822 wrote:
| Sorry, but it's really, really hard to read anything
| about US politics and not to think "wow, Jews really _do_
| have an enormous amount of power ".
|
| From the lobbies (e.g. AIPAC), to the actual members of
| the government and leading institutions, to the CEOs of
| the biggest companies and chiefs of financial
| institutions, to the media and newspapers, to Hollywood,
| etc...
|
| Not saying they don't deserve it, but still, just to
| think how _over-represented_ they are...
| sekai wrote:
| > I don't understand how a tiny country like Israel has
| become so important in global politics. By population
| Rwanda is ~30% larger than Israel.
|
| Iran and basically the rest of the Middle East, US needs an
| ally to keep the region in check.
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| > Iran and basically the rest of the Middle East, US
| needs an ally to keep the region in check.
|
| The US (and also UK/France/Germany) have been bending
| over backwards to prop up Israel since LONG before Iran
| switched to an anti-US theocratic government.
| dwater wrote:
| Many scholars argue that the US uses Israel to
| destabilize the region so that all other countries
| besides Israel are unable to form a bloc and resist US
| hegemony, but perhaps that's what you meant by "keep the
| region in check".
| jumping_frog wrote:
| This video is relevant.
|
| US President Joe Biden: "If there were not an Israel,
| we'd have to invent one."
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HZs-v0PR44
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| "We're also going to discuss the iron-clad commitment--
| and this is-- I'll say this 5,000 times in my career, the
| iron-clad commitment the United States has to Israel
| _based on our principles, our ideas, our values_. They
| 're the same values. And I've often said, Mr. President,
| if there were not an Israel, we'd have to invent one."
|
| Added emphasis to clarify the context of the quote.
| xenospn wrote:
| Even if Israel did not exist, the regional Middle East
| governments would not agree on much. And definitely not
| form a bloc.
| n4r9 wrote:
| Right now? For sure. But in the 50's and 60's there was a
| growing pan-Arab movement in the Middle East.
| xenospn wrote:
| Israel and Iran used to be BFFs.
| derektank wrote:
| Because members of the largest religious faith in the world
| identify with one party to the conflict and the global
| hegemon supports the other
| xenospn wrote:
| History.
| jumping_frog wrote:
| According to Sachs, Israel has masterfully manipulated US
| influence to extend its global reach, primarily through
| AIPAC's incredibly efficient lobbying - spending just
| hundreds of millions to secure billions in aid and
| trillions in military spending. Netanyahu's strategy has
| been particularly clever, pushing the US to overthrow
| Middle Eastern governments that oppose Israeli policies, as
| seen with Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Through campaign
| financing, Israel has basically bought out Congress for
| surprisingly little money, ensuring the US consistently
| backs them internationally - like vetoing UN resolutions
| that favor Palestinians. This US shield is so strong that
| when the UN voted on Palestinian self-determination, only
| the US, Israel, and a couple other countries opposed it.
| Even when Biden sets boundaries for Israeli actions, they
| just ignore them without consequences. The whole system's
| genius lies in how Israel's managed to maintain its
| policies despite global opposition, though Sachs thinks
| this might backfire by making Israel too isolated and
| blocking any chance of a two-state solution.
| hn-throw wrote:
| The Scofield Bible created ardent Christian zionists in the
| South among evangelicals.
|
| Israel basically uses them to manipulate DC, whilst its
| allies in media ensure that Christians getting spat at in
| Jerusalem isn't widely reported.
| M3L0NM4N wrote:
| Israelis are smart and work hard.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Everyone else is stupid and lazy? Stop it.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _don 't understand how a tiny country like Israel has
| become so important in global politics_
|
| The simple reason is that global politics (at the UN) led
| to the partition of the Mandate, against the will of entire
| regions, which, right now, represent 30% of world's
| population. Besides, anti-Muslim racism and anti-Semitism
| always rears its very ugly head during this conflict,
| especially in the US.
|
| Subsequently, the lack of stability in the Middle East did
| Israel no favours in how it is perceived, even if it may
| not be solely its fault (it isn't).
|
| Plus, the silencing of voices (particularly against
| patently unfounded claims such as, "the most moral army",
| "anti-Israelism is anti-Semitism", "the only democracy in
| the middle east") themselves come with their own Streisand
| Effect.
|
| Also, socio-culturally, after Tibet & Cuba, it is one of
| the last/few remaining geo-political global movements with
| the added disadvantage of cutting through all 3 major
| Abrahamic religions.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Israel is a colony of US imperialism and functions as the
| US attack dog in the middle east, taking actions and
| expressing rhetoric in support of US hegemony that are
| politically infeasible.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| He was a former head of state by then.
| 28304283409234 wrote:
| How is this 'flagged'?
| docdeek wrote:
| Hacker News Guidelines: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics,
| or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of
| some interesting new phenomenon... If they'd cover it on TV
| news, it's probably off-topic.
| Qem wrote:
| This is a significant update on an event of historical
| impact.
| 1over137 wrote:
| If they get arrested it'd be of historical impact. These
| warrants mean little really.
| lesuorac wrote:
| It's not a significant update. When the evergiven got stuck
| in the suez canel; if a court issued an arrest warrant for
| the captain that wouldn't have a historical impact.
|
| In a hundred years from now, the leaders of Isreal that
| people talk about will be the first, the last and the
| second to last. Similar to how when people talk about the
| Roman Empire (~500 year span) it's just Cesear.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| Eh...
|
| I've never heard of a warrant being more than a footnote in
| history. Results are what ends up in the history books.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| So let it be discussed on HistorianNews
| dang wrote:
| Users flagged it, as is common for the most divisive topics.
|
| I've turned the flags off now, in keeping with HN's standard
| practices: some (but only some) stories with political overlap
| are allowed, and in the case of a Major Ongoing Topic (MOT) we
| prefer the stories that contain Significant New Information
| (SNI).
|
| [1]
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
|
| [2]
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
|
| [3]
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
|
| Here are a bunch of past explanations I've posted about how we
| approach this topic:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41744331 (Oct 2024)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40586961 (June 2024)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40418881 (May 2024)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39920732 (April 2024)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39618973 (March 2024)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39435024 (Feb 2024)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39237176 (Feb 2024)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38947003 (Jan 2024)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38749162 (Dec 2023)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27252765 (May 2021)
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Stories with flags turned off should display a banner. These
| moderation decisions deserve transparency.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| I agree, so long as the people who flagged a given
| submission or post should also be displayed, for the same
| reason of transparency. Also the items a user flags should
| be included in their profile, for the same reason of
| transparency.
|
| In the interest of full disclosure and the same
| transparency, I say this as someone who has had such a
| flag-bombed submission saved, an NPR report about one of
| the first systemic uses of gun-armed, AI-powered flying
| drones to mass-shoot people (not to mention that location
| targeting for the shootings is largely AI-driven as well).
| I struggle to think of a good reason to flag that as off-
| topic for Hacker News:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42199969
| TheGuyWhoCodes wrote:
| It's interesting it's always the anti Israel posts that have
| nothing to do with tech that you allow.
| fldskfjdslkfj wrote:
| Just one of those funny coincidences.
| TheGuyWhoCodes wrote:
| Bias in moderation is wrong, it's clear cut. If Dan can't
| be unbiased, allegedly, I thank him for his work on HN
| but he should step down.
| ars wrote:
| It seems like all the pro-Israel comments in the story are
| getting flagged.
|
| This is giving a very biased view to the discussion.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| Would you mind giving a few examples?
|
| I looked at a few myself, many are off-topic, or engage in
| whataboutism, or openly supported war crimes like
| collective punishment. Others are plain insults or racism.
| ars wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42206068
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42208721
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42205267
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42208229
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42208765
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42207363
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42207487
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42209050
|
| Should I continue?
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| 1. Off-topic whataboutism.
|
| 2. Shallow dismissal, Arguably incorrect as well.
|
| 3. Shallow dismissal, Insult.
|
| 4. Supporting the forced displacement of civilians and
| destruction of their home.
|
| 5. Not sure about this one! I'd prefer the poster didn't
| advocate for the country of Palestine or Israel to lose
| rights, but that's just my 2 cents.
|
| 6. Shallow dismissal, Insult.
|
| 7. Blatant racism and religious discrimination. Classy.
|
| 8. Shallow dismissal.
| ars wrote:
| And you think "shallow dismissals" deserve to be flagged,
| and marked dead?
|
| Really?
|
| And the one-sided nature of flagging is also fine with
| you?
|
| Not to mention I quite disagree with your analysis of
| things, for example #1 is not offtopic at all, it's a
| direct reply.
|
| What about this comment (my comment):
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42206831 which got
| flagged as well? Is that also a "shallow dismissal"?
| cwkoss wrote:
| There are a significant number of zionist users on this site
| that immediately flag any comment or article they percieve as
| anti-israel.
| bhouston wrote:
| This shouldn't be flagged.
| 1over137 wrote:
| Why not? How is it "hacker news" at all? It's just news news.
| dang wrote:
| On HN, having some stories with political overlap is both
| inevitable and ok--the question is which particular stories
| those should be. We try to go for the ones that contain
| significant new information. See more at
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42204689.
|
| This approach has been stable for many years and there's no
| intention to allow HN to become a primarily-political site
| (quite the contrary) but it also doesn't work to try to
| exclude these things altogether.
| EvgeniyZh wrote:
| I don't think I've seen any pro-Israeli post in top since
| the beginning of the war. Definitely anything I submitted
| was flagged to death almost immediately, even if it was
| hacker-ish (say, the analysis of the Hamas statistics). You
| can say of course that users decide what they want, but for
| political stories at least I don't think it is
| straightforward
| almogo wrote:
| The HN community is strongly anti-Israel. Which is
| surprising, but then again, what's really still
| surprising these days?
|
| I do think this news is major enough to justify being on
| HN. There is at least some useful discussions on the ICC
| that I found interesting, intermixed between the typical
| antisemitic messaging we're all-too used to seeing.
| cwkoss wrote:
| The vast majority of the world opposes the Zionists
| policies of ethnic cleansing, land expansion and
| genocide.
| aliasxneo wrote:
| Why would that be surprising? I've found the HN echo
| chamber to primarily be left-leaning, and an anti-Israel
| bias fits that model perfectly.
| samatman wrote:
| Dang, it's a serious problem when discussions like this
| result in any serious attempts to engage from one side
| getting flagged to death.
|
| That's what happens here, and on any news involving the
| Gaza War, for quite some time. To someone who doesn't use
| [showdead] this creates an impression of partiality in this
| community which is not borne out by reality.
|
| Which makes Hacker News appear complicit in supporting that
| point of view.
|
| If you're going to keep overriding the flag mechanism and
| letting these posts hit the front page, you need to disable
| flagging of individual posts except by you or another
| moderator (if there is one?) after manual review. The
| status quo is unfair.
| grumple wrote:
| Dang, these comments are filled with misinformation and
| heavily biased against Israel. I don't personally have the
| energy to combat all of it. Leaving it up does a disservice
| to all, because this heavily political issue has been
| hopelessly infected by this bias and disinformation. It's
| not a subject that HN is particularly well informed about,
| and the critical lens with which we treat data sources
| under normal circumstances is not applied here.
| cwkoss wrote:
| I think the disinformation and bias in this thread is
| coming from the Zionist propaganda or those influenced by
| it. The antizionist perspective is more often aligned
| with the truth.
| kombine wrote:
| Because Israel is an integral part of our industry. Most
| major corporations have their presence in Israel. Moreover,
| Israel is using AI extensively in their war on Palestinian
| people, which they develop in partnership with the US.
| cwkoss wrote:
| A significant portion of the US economy uses Israeli
| developed cybersecurity products. I wonder if there are any
| backdoors Mossad uses to consolidate influence.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| Wow, this took a _long_ time to come after the application for
| the warrants. 185 days compared to 23 days for Putin 's arrest
| warrant -- but then again, one was against the wishes of the USA
| and the west while the other was at their behest.
| cies wrote:
| And the US has threatened to invade NL if ICC warrants one of
| them.
|
| So much for the ICC: a banana court.
|
| It felt so real when Milosovic was trialed: now we all know the
| true nature of these show trials.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Milosevic was not tried by the ICC.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribuna.
| ..
| lostlogin wrote:
| It's a banana court because the US doesn't recognise it?
| rangestransform wrote:
| it's a ~~banana~~ kangaroo court because the US turning
| over soldiers to the ICC would violate their 6th amendment
| right to a jury trial
| h8dh8es8edh8 wrote:
| I wouldn't say "and the west" without more qualifications. The
| USA and Germany are solidly behind whatever the Israeli
| government does. England a bit less so and the rest of "the
| west" (however you want to define it) is more ambivalent. My
| point is that if only two countries (the USA and Germany) would
| make their support more conditional (conditional on the israeli
| government not commiting war crimes for example), then things
| could change a lot
| umanwizard wrote:
| There is no sovereign state called "England"; you mean the
| UK.
| Zigurd wrote:
| How often do people refer to the USA as "America." It's not
| quite as pedantic as "it's a republic not a democracy,"
| but...
| umanwizard wrote:
| The difference is that "America" has no other meaning (in
| English, that is. In some other languages it means the
| landmass we call "the Americas"). Whereas "England" means
| something different from the UK.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| You're right, there are notable exceptions in the form of
| western nations that have backed the enforcement of
| international law to put an end to the mass killings and
| starvation taking place in Gaza. Ireland, Spain, Norway,
| France, Switzerland, Slovenia, Denmark, and Belgium come to
| mind, ranging from "supporting the independence of the ICC
| and not commenting on proceedings" to "welcoming the
| investigation and the end of the killings."
|
| But while the US (not an ICC member) simply insulted the
| court and the notion of holding an Israeli leader
| accountable, it was the UK that demanded hearings on the
| legality of pursuing arrest warrants against Netanyahu and
| Gallant. Aside from Germany's staunch and unconditional
| support for Israel, other Western countries that heavily
| criticized the decision included Hungary, Austria, Czechia,
| Canada, Australia, and Italy - important to note that some of
| which also mentioned that despite their long list of
| misgivings and outrages they nevertheless respected the
| independence of the court.
| jowea wrote:
| My guess is that it's simply a matter of how difficult it is to
| prove the issue. The Putin case was very simply because there
| is an official state program to do things that are considered
| genocide. Israel is at least pretending they are letting aid
| in.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| But that's what the court itself is for! You get plausibly
| charged with a crime, you go to court, and the case is
| determined one way or the other.
|
| What happened in this case is that Israel beseeched its
| allies to lobby the court not to look into what was happening
| [0]. And the UK demanded hearings to impede the ICC warrants
| from being issued (purely politically, as this was done under
| Sunak and then Starmer/Lammy dropped the objection, but the
| delays were already underway).
|
| [0]: https://www.axios.com/2021/02/07/israel-icc-political-
| pressu...
| nickff wrote:
| Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 (and was responsible for many
| civilian deaths, including shooting down an airliner), if we
| count from then, it has taken the ICC a very long time indeed.
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court...
| seydor wrote:
| I m afraid this fruitless pursuit will distract from the effort
| to stop the cleansing, which has to be diplomatic and
| international
| user982 wrote:
| What effort?
| lordofgibbons wrote:
| I think gp, by "cleansing", means ethnic cleansing.
| Mystery-Machine wrote:
| I think gp, by "What effort?", means "Not much effort has
| been made to stop the ethnic cleansing."
| Mystery-Machine wrote:
| So you want to say that the reason for _not_ doing this is: it
| will distract from the effort to stop the cleansing.
|
| Would that be the same as saying that we shouldn't issue a
| warrant against a school shooter because it wouldn't stop the
| shooting? Would it distract from gun laws?
|
| Maybe not the best analogy, but I know that I cannot say for
| certain whether it will negatively or positively affect the
| effort. It might positively affect if this makes (especially
| EU) countries put more pressure on Israel.
| NickC25 wrote:
| >It might positively affect if this makes (especially EU)
| countries put more pressure on Israel.
|
| That would never happen. Israel is above any and all
| criticism, how do people not realize that by now?
|
| Pressure, sanctions, whatever - nothing will actually happen.
| Likud can trot out the tired trope of antisemitism and any
| and all criticism, legitimate or not, is automatically waved
| away. Like it or not, that's objective reality.
|
| Before the shills come in and accuse me of this or that, let
| me be clear: NO, I don't support Hamas, Likud, or any
| organization that supports the killing of innocent people.
| Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, Palestine has
| a right to exist and defend itself.
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| What cleansing?
| dankai wrote:
| "The Chamber therefore found reasonable grounds to believe that
| Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility for the
| war crime of starvation as a method of warfare."
|
| Whats perhaps interesting to note is that this charge was made
| for "just" 41 [1] confirmed starvation deaths among a population
| of 2,141,643 people [2].
|
| Of course every death caused by intentional starvation is a
| severe crime and must be punished, but in the context of the
| victim numbers that most past crimes against humanity have had,
| it sets a relatively low new bar.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip_famine
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip
| guipsp wrote:
| > Researchers at the Watson Institute for International and
| Public Affairs at Brown University estimated deaths from
| starvation to be 62,413 between October 2023 and September
| 2024.
| zarzavat wrote:
| Given that the accused is currently in control of the crime
| scene, it's not surprising that the prosecution chose to
| prioritise the crimes that are easiest to prove.
| jowea wrote:
| Same reason an warrant on Putin was issued over the official
| children "adoption" program.
| culi wrote:
| The ICC does not state only 41 deaths ocurred. GP is pulling
| that number from an unrelated Wikipedia article that is
| undergoing an edit war. It went from "63k" to "41+". None of
| the commentors here justifying the low number realize its
| completely made up and unrelated to the ICC
| peppers-ghost wrote:
| "confirmed" data from Gaza at the moment is unreliable. The
| people who were doing the counting have either been killed or
| cleansed from the area. The official death toll is still around
| 40k despite the reality being closer to 100-200k.
| bawolff wrote:
| Regardless, total deaths don't matter, only deaths that were
| the result of crimes matter, in this context.
|
| Some of those deaths are going to be legal targets killed
| during combat, which is not evidence of a war crime. You have
| to split things out for the numbers to mean anything.
| xg15 wrote:
| But the problem is that Israel's style of warfare is
| (intentionally or not) blurring the distinction between
| those numbers, by using methods of combat that have
| exceptionally high rates of collateral damage.
|
| The most extreme instances of this are the deliberate
| withholding of aid, both in the "total siege" in the
| beginning of the war, as well as operations like now in the
| north.
|
| You might hit a lot of legitimate targets with this, but
| it's also guaranteed you will impact _all_ the civilians in
| the area.
|
| Generally, in this entire war (and also long before),
| Israel is far too quick with the "Human
| shields"/"collateral damage" argument to my liking, and
| using it as an excuse to basically disregard considerations
| for civilians at all.
|
| (It's also instructive to see how different the hostages
| and palestinian civilians are treated in IDF
| considerations, despite both groups technically being
| "human shields")
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _the problem is that Israel 's style of warfare ... The
| most extreme instances_
|
| Yep. The complication is, the Strip is close to being
| totally dependent on Israel, and yet chose war. I doubt
| any other country ruled by right-wingers, with that much
| power over their already (diplomatically, economically,
| socially) cornered enemy, would have acted any
| differently. I guess, the sequence of events reeks of
| desperation & despair from all sides and has ended up
| exposing one & all.
| xg15 wrote:
| It's not as if life was particularly pleasant there
| before the war. Israel was already before restricting the
| maximally attainable quality of life. Or as if the
| Palestinian control group in the West Bank who had chosen
| cooperation was faring any better.
|
| Also that stuff is exactly what international
| humanitarian law is supposed to prevent. Obligations of
| the occupying power and all.
| ignoramous wrote:
| Agree. Like I said, this war has exposed facists,
| racists, hawks, hypocrites and their nexus (on every
| side).
| xg15 wrote:
| Agreed.
| edanm wrote:
| > But the problem is that Israel's style of warfare is
| (intentionally or not) blurring the distinction between
| those numbers, by using methods of combat that have
| exceptionally high rates of collateral damage.
|
| I think Israel has a lot to answer for, especially as you
| say with regards to the withholding of aid.
|
| But you're ignoring a much bigger factor in why the
| "style of warfare" has a high collateral damage - it's
| not the way Israel is fighting, it's the way _Hamas_ is
| fighting. They have spent years and millions of dollars
| to turn Gaza into a war zone - there are vast underground
| tunnels from which Hamas militants can go in and out and
| pretend to be civilians, then shoot at soldier. They can
| and do launch rocket attacks at civilians from within
| tunnels that run underneath hospitals and schools.
|
| They've also stored weapons caches in many "civilian"
| buildings, have booby trapped many civilian buildings,
| and in general colocate all their arms and militants
| among civilians, on purpose.
|
| Hamas members have said on multiple occasions that they
| don't care about the Gazan civilians and it's not their
| job to protect them. You don't have to think Israel is
| perfect (I certainly don't), but you're really ignoring
| the _main_ driver of the terrible situation the Gazans
| are in, which is Hamas.
| runako wrote:
| You're describing conditions that occur in many
| asymmetric/guerilla wars. None of these are novel tactics
| whose acceptability must be evaluated from first
| principles now.
|
| Further, none of these should come as surprises to
| Israeli commanders, who will have seen these tactics from
| Hamas in the past.
|
| The bottom line is that any military can only control its
| own conduct as it represents its citizens in battle.
| culi wrote:
| The ICC doesn't claim 41 deaths were the result of war
| crimes. That claim is made by an irrelevant Wikipedia
| article that is undergoing an edit war. It was recently
| switched from "62,413 conservative estimate" to "41+"
|
| ICC doesn't claim how many deaths are due to war crimes. GP
| is purposefully sowing misinformation
| culi wrote:
| GP is not citing the ICC. The ICC never claims 41 deaths are
| confirmed. GP is citing a Wikipedia article which is
| undergoing an edit war. The Wikipedia page had cited 62,413
| deaths and then was switched to a pro-Israel source that
| instead says "41+"
|
| ICC never claimed only 41 deaths were confirmed
| edanm wrote:
| If you think the "confirmed" data is unreliable, what makes
| you think you know the "real" number? How is your number any
| more reliable?
| bawolff wrote:
| > Whats perhaps interesting to note is that this charge was
| made for "just" 41 [1] confirmed starvation deaths among a
| population of 2,141,643 people [2].
|
| IANAL but this is probably incorrect i think - the starvation
| charge is related to allegations of intentionally restricting
| neccesities of life. Whether anyone dies as a result is
| irrelavent to that charge. The murder charge is for the people
| who actually allegedly died as a result (of the starvation that
| is. To be clear, the death has to illegal for it to be the war
| crime of murder. Normal combat death is not murder).
| shihab wrote:
| This is common and expected. Even when a serial killer
| suspected of 20 murder is apprehended, arrest is often made
| based on one or two confirmed cases, more charges are later
| added as investigation deepens.
|
| Also, keep in mind foreign journalists are completely banned by
| Israel from entering Gaza- complicating evidence gathering.
| immibis wrote:
| The Gaza ministry that would have counted the deaths was also
| destroyed several months ago, which is why news media have
| been reporting the same death total of 40,000 for several
| months.
| noman-land wrote:
| I was wondering about this. Thanks for the info. Got any
| links where I can read more?
| newspaper1 wrote:
| This is a really good independent report on the death
| toll:
|
| https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014
| 0-6...
| yyyk wrote:
| This is wrong. They are still reporting daily deaths
| counts, that counts have been going up. The Grauniad is
| good about collecting the reports (but bad about other
| unrelated things).
| legulere wrote:
| Israel does take selected journalists into Gaza on trips
| organised by the military. The issue is that journalists
| cannot make themselves an independent picture of the
| situation in Gaza.
| culi wrote:
| This is not how the ICC conducts its investigations. The
| "41+" figure is from a Wikipedia article that is undergoing
| an edit war. The very source it is citing actually says 63k
| dlubarov wrote:
| As I understand it 41 is the number of starvations recorded
| in hospitals. 63k is a highly theoretical "estimate" based
| on the IPC scale and data from food insecurity in other
| parts of the world. It seems absurd on its face, since it
| would imply that an absurdly small fraction of starvations
| were recorded in hospitals.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > but in the context of the victim numbers that most past
| crimes against humanity have had, it sets a relatively low new
| bar.
|
| Which context is this? If you mean the context of past ICC
| indictments that isn't true. There are multiple other examples
| of people indicted for specific acts that resulted in the
| deaths of a 2 digit numbers of people.
|
| The bar for "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" isn't the
| number of people you kill. Though in this case, plenty have
| been killed, this case is about what can be proved conclusively
| ebough given who it is against.
| croes wrote:
| What's the threshold for war crimes?
| bawolff wrote:
| The crimes have a definition with requisite elements in the
| rome statue.
|
| While many of them do require a certain gravity, viewing
| international crimes like a more serious version of a normal
| crime is probably the wrong way of doing it. Some war crimes
| do not require anyone to die. In other cases thousands could
| die and it wouldn't be a war crime or crime against humanity
| because the elements aren't met.
|
| In particular, starvation doesn't require anyone to have
| died, and it covers more things than just food. Keep in mind
| its a relatively new crime in international law, it was only
| made illegal in 1977 (for example during ww2, the nuremburg
| trials explicitly ruled that sieges were legal). As far as i
| know nobody has ever been persecuted for it, so the case law
| doesn't exist, so its a bit unknown.
| yyyk wrote:
| We can compare the rate to countries in more.. stable
| situations[0]. They'll have a very difficult time getting
| anywhere with that rate. But we'll see. The world would be
| better off with all these individuals having no power at all.
|
| [0] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-
| rankings/starvatio...
| megous wrote:
| Starvation vs starvation to death are different things.
|
| War crime of starvation was directed against 2.3 million people
| without distinction, incl. ~1 million children. I'd say that's
| bad enough.
| culi wrote:
| This comment is just pure misinformation. Nobody is claiming
| only 41 deaths.
|
| You're citing an irrelevant Wikipedia page as a source that has
| a crazy edit history going back and forth between "41+" and
| "62,413 conservative estimated" deaths
| threemux wrote:
| Not super meaningful in reality - any country looking to arrest
| either man should tread carefully.
|
| The American Service-Members' Protection 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".
|
| Israel is listed in the act as covered. Any means explicitly
| includes lethal force, which is why the act is nicknamed the
| "Invade the Hague" act.
| ssijak wrote:
| The Netherlands said that they would arrest anybody accused.
| That would be peculiar to see, what would actually happen if
| anybody of the accused were to travel there.
| com wrote:
| The Dutch have a very lackadaisical attitude to law, and at
| the very same time a very principled cut-off-my-nose-to-
| spite-my-face rule of law mentality.
|
| If I were a senior Israeli or Hamas leader I'd avoid the
| place for a couple of decades in case of sealed charges.
| sgjohnson wrote:
| > If I were a senior Israeli or Hamas leader I'd avoid the
| place for a couple of decades in case of sealed charges.
|
| If the Netherlands granted diplomatic immunity to said
| leaders before their visit, and then decided to arrest
| them, that by itself would be an act of war.
|
| And even worse, it would ruin basically the only treaty
| every country has agreed to - the Vienna Convention on
| Diplomatic Relations.
| alexisread wrote:
| The question here is why is only Israel covered in this act?
|
| Also anti-BDS legislation in finance, regardless of ethical
| etc. concerns?
|
| The US gives $4bn/year to Israel gratis, and so far $20bn in
| weapons over the course of this conflict, including advanced
| weapons like the F35 WITH source code access (which no other
| F35 partner has) - why?
|
| There have been no investigations of US deaths WRT settler
| violence, aid workers killed etc. Normally with any US death
| it's a huge issue.
|
| What does Israel do in return to make it such a favoured
| country? eg. 20bn in disaster relief aid to Florida would be
| probably more welcome by US citizens.
| threemux wrote:
| It's not only Israel. It's all of NATO plus "major non-NATO
| allies" specifically Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan,
| Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| We give Jordan $1.6B/year, what does it give in return? What
| about Ethiopia at $2B/yr?
| talldayo wrote:
| We gave Pakistan and Iran a few billion dollars in military
| aid a while back. What we got in return was a Bangladesh
| genocide and an Islamic revolution.
|
| Lesson learned: arms sales can be used to ideologically
| justify butchering civilians if the government receiving
| that aid is not held accountable.
| alexisread wrote:
| You could ask the same questions about that yes, but
| whataboutism does not answer the questions here.
|
| For Ethiopia it's flagged as humanitarian aid, and likely
| for Jordan as a result of the neighbouring Syria war.
|
| None of that is arms though, and critically more than the
| aid, why the legislation?
|
| What justifies making it illegal to stop investing in a
| country despite it's actions? Surely that's a commercial
| decision rather than a legislative one?
| shihab wrote:
| The biggest condition behind US aid to Jordan and Egypt is
| them continuing friendly relations with Israel. In 1970s
| when this aid was started- this condition was made very
| explicit by USA.
|
| So in other words, these two at least are nothing but
| indirect aid to Israel.
| kklisura wrote:
| Honestly, I would so like someone to test that!
| gist wrote:
| > any country looking to arrest either man should tread
| carefully.
|
| I'd imagine that if they were detained the IDF would put out
| quite a bit of effort to get them sprung from prison ... at any
| cost.
|
| (Imagine if a former US leader was put in prison anywhere but
| the US).
| newspaper1 wrote:
| So you think Israel will start attacking European countries?
| I don't think that would work out well for them.
| cwkoss wrote:
| It would be a chance to become a hero of humanity that 99% of
| the world would cheer on...
| throwaway984393 wrote:
| This will not amount to anything, but it's nice to know we aren't
| all crazy or anti-semitic for thinking the Israeli state has been
| acting very poorly in regards to the State of Palestine. Feels a
| little bit like trying to get organized crime on tax evasion.
| 0xDEAFBEAD wrote:
| >In his first response to the ICC issuing a warrant for his
| arrest on allegations of war crimes, Benjamin Netanyahu's office
| has described the ruling as "absurd and false lies" and said the
| decision is "antisemitic."
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/nov/21/internati...
|
| If Netanyahu and Gallant really think they are innocent, and the
| allegations are absurd and false, they should cooperate with the
| ICC. Have your day in court and show how absurd the accusations
| are. If you're not willing to do that, it seems reasonable for
| the public to draw a proverbial negative inference.
| bluGill wrote:
| You are assuming the court isn't a political thing that is
| trying to get him regardless of evidence. The court is at least
| partially political, and Netanyahu will tell you this is
| entirely political and he wouldn't get a fair trail.
| TrueDuality wrote:
| Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel
| chose to accept and recognize the authority of. It has a
| history of being very transparent in its decisions and is
| widely recognized as being neutral and fair in their decision
| making process.
|
| Of course the person charged and found guilty of a crime will
| argue against the court. Disagreement, even if valid, doesn't
| change the recognized authority of this court even if the
| "teeth" are extremely limited.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| Israel don't recognize the authority of the International
| Criminal Court. Palestine, however, does, and therefore the
| ICC consider these allegations within their jurisdiction. A
| relevant point is that the UK (under the previous
| Conservative party government) requested the opportunity to
| dispute the allegations of war crimes based on this
| complication, but the new British government did not choose
| to continue with the objection. No other countries have
| made objections.
| bawolff wrote:
| The challenge wasn't based on exactly that, they were
| trying to argue that a treaty palestine signed with
| israel precluded palestine from giving icc juridsiction
| that it didn't have itself.
|
| That said, if it ever gets to trial, the defendants will
| almost certainly try to challenge it on that basis.
|
| Realistically though i think the chance of that type of
| challenge succeding is unlikely. International courts
| generally are above domestic law. They probably have a
| better chance of convincing the court that palestine
| isn't a state and thus cannot sign the rome statue (which
| is also a long shot imo)
| HappyPanacea wrote:
| > Courts are political entities but this is one that
| Israel chose to accept and recognize the authority of.
|
| They were replying to this part of the comment which was
| factually incorrect (Israel did not recognize ICC
| authority) not on what the challenge on jurisdiction was
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| > Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel
| chose to accept
|
| For what it's worth, Israel signed the Rome Statute
| establishing the court in 2000 but declared in 2002 it no
| longer intends to ratify it[1]. (Which, I guess, is
| marginally better than the US, which has threatened The
| Hague with military invasion in case any arrests are
| made[2]. But not by much.) TFA specifically points out that
| "States are not entitled to challenge the Court's
| jurisdiction under article 19(2) prior to the issuance of a
| warrant of arrest."
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rom
| e_Sta...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-
| Members%27_Pr...
| mmastrac wrote:
| As a follow-up to [2], even more interesting is the text
| of covered persons:
|
| "military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and
| other persons employed by or working on behalf of the
| government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO
| ally including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan,
| Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand"
| buckle8017 wrote:
| That's not the list of covered persons.
|
| The act bars military aid to any country that is a
| signatory to the court, except those countries.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| It's both, effectively, but the GP is quoting the correct
| copy of the list.
|
| The prohibition you mention is in 22 USC 7426:
|
| > (a) PROHIBITION OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE.--Subject to
| subsections (b) and (c), and effective 1 year after the
| date on which the Rome Statute enters into force pursuant
| to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, no United States
| military assistance may be provided to the government of
| a country that is a party to the International Criminal
| Court.
|
| > [...]
|
| > (d) EXEMPTION.--The prohibition of subsection (a) shall
| not apply to the government of--
|
| > (1) a NATO member country;
|
| > (2) a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt,
| Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea,
| and New Zealand); or
|
| > (3) Taiwan.
|
| The threat I was talking about is in 22 USC 7427:
|
| > (a) AUTHORITY.--The President is authorized to use all
| means necessary and appropriate to bring about the
| release of any person described in subsection (b) who is
| being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the
| request of the International Criminal Court.
|
| > (b) PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO BE FREED.--The authority of
| sub-section (a) shall extend to the following persons:
|
| > (1) Covered United States persons.
|
| > (2) Covered allied persons.
|
| > (3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official
| actions taken while the individual was a covered United
| States person or a covered allied person, and in the case
| of a covered allied person, upon the request of such
| government.
|
| > [...]
|
| with "covered persons" defined in 22 USC 7432 by
| essentially the same list as above, as long as those
| countries do not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC:
|
| > [...]
|
| > (3) COVERED ALLIED PERSONS.--The term "covered allied
| persons" means military personnel, elected or appointed
| officials, and other persons employed by or working on
| behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a
| major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel,
| Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New
| Zealand), or Taiwan, for so long as that government is
| not a party to the International Criminal Court and
| wishes its officials and other persons working on its
| behalf to be exempted from the jurisdiction of the
| International Criminal Court.
|
| > (4) COVERED UNITED STATES PERSONS.--The term "covered
| United States persons" means members of the Armed Forces
| of the United States, elected or appointed officials of
| the United States Government, and other persons employed
| by or working on behalf of the United States Government,
| for so long as the United States is not a party to the
| International Criminal Court.
|
| > [...]
| belter wrote:
| If we are going to discuss the diplomatic and
| international implications of the ICC, it is important to
| note that the security--and even the continued existence
| as independent, sovereign entities--of the countries
| supporting the court is overwhelmingly reliant on the
| U.S. military umbrella. Without this protection, their
| sovereignty would quickly be at risk.
| pepve wrote:
| I'm not sure you are right. Take a look at this map: http
| s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court .
| I don't think "overwhelmingly reliant on the US" is an
| accurate description of the green countries on that map.
| Partially reliant sure. But not overwhelmingly.
| belter wrote:
| No countries in Africa and Latin America would enforce
| the ICC arrest request for Putin. Concerning the rest of
| Europe, with the exception of the only military power
| left: France, are you arguing they could defend their
| sovereignty without the USA military big stick?
|
| "Why Europe Is Unprepared to Defend Itself" -
| https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-nato-armed-
| forces/
| aguaviva wrote:
| _No countries in Africa and Latin America would enforce
| the ICC arrest request for Putin._
|
| That's your straight-up speculation.
|
| Meanwhile, the fact that he hasn't visited any of those
| countries -- suggests he knows better.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| It's not entirely speculation; South Africa certainly
| wanted to avoid it.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/world/south-africa-asks-
| icc-...
|
| > South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has asked
| permission from the International Criminal Court not to
| arrest Russia's Vladimir Putin, because to do so would
| amount to a declaration of war, a local court submission
| published on Tuesday showed.
|
| Brazil waffled, too.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/up-brazils-judiciary-
| decide-pu...
|
| > On Saturday, while in India for a Group of 20 nations
| meeting, Lula told a local interviewer that there was "no
| way" Putin would be arrested if he attended next year's
| summit, which is due to be held in Rio de Janeiro.
| cycomanic wrote:
| You're making two arguments it seems, 1. Who is enforcing
| the arrest warrant against Putin, which I don't get, how
| should Europe or an African or Latin American country
| enforce the warrant enforce the warrant without Putin
| travelling there? I seriously doubt Putin would travel to
| a country where risks arrest. Or are you suggesting
| countries should invade Russia to arrest Putin. I don't
| see anyone including the US (thankfully) doing that.
| AFAIK that would also constitute a violation of
| international law (mind you many western countries really
| only care as long as it suits them, the whole Israel
| situation being a clear example). 2. The question if
| Europe could defend itself against invasion without the
| US. Defend against whom I have to ask, the only possible
| aggressor would be Russia, but Russia is struggling with
| their Ukraine invasion, a much smaller, less trained,
| less equipped force than Nato even without the US. The
| suggestion that Russia is in any position to threaten
| Europe is absolutely laughable. The only way that would
| happen is using nuclear weapons, and once we go down that
| path the whole world is f*ckd.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Who does Europe need to defend itself against? Russia
| can't invade Ukraine, and it has 1/10 the population
| (less?) and arms that are leftovers from European
| armories (and US armories). Is China going to roll troops
| across a continent?
| varjag wrote:
| If North Korea does, why not China?
|
| Also worth mentioning that without the United States the
| present continental European militaries would struggle
| even against the battered ground forces of Russia. Can't
| really fight back with GDP of your service economy alone.
| belter wrote:
| Will your opinion change, when you see a photo of Polish
| soldiers looking at North Korean battalions across their
| fence border?
| int_19h wrote:
| What the war in Ukraine is showing is that Russia is
| capable of running a wartime economy, cranking out
| artillery shells etc at replacement rates, while Europe,
| so far, has not demonstrated the ability to do so, which
| is why supplies are dwindling - you can only run so far
| on existing stocks.
|
| It should also be noted that Ukraine has been preparing
| for this exact scenario since 2014, building massive
| fortifications in the east (which is precisely why the
| Russian advance there has always been such a grind).
|
| In the event of an open confrontation between Russia and
| European countries currently backing Ukraine, it's not at
| all a given that the latter can hold significantly better
| than Ukraine does today, without American help. European
| armed forces are generally in a pathetic shape, grossly
| undermanned and underfunded, and would simply run out of
| materiel before Russia runs out of bodies to throw at
| them.
| fakedang wrote:
| If that was the case, Putin shouldn't have holed up in
| Russia during the BRICS conference in South Africa
| earlier this year.
| dingnuts wrote:
| You don't? I suggest you look at the figures for who is
| providing aid to Ukraine and ask yourself why the green
| nations in Europe are paying so much less than the US to
| fight Russia.
|
| This is why Trump won again, by the way. Because Europe
| expected the US to fund their defense in this war, and
| people who do not live in cities with access to the
| global market see no benefit to aiding Europe and voted
| that Europe should pay for its own defense.
|
| I guess now we'll get to see what happens when the US
| lets those European nations that are shaded green defend
| themselves without us.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| > ask yourself why the green nations in Europe are paying
| so much less than the US to fight Russia
|
| Oh, this is simple. Ukraine would be able to defend
| itself if it kept nuclear weapons. However they signed a
| treaty with USA, UK and Russia and gave up their nuclear
| weapons in exchange for some security guarantees. Russia
| did not honor that agreement. If USA and UK fail to
| provide adequate support, nobody will sign such treaties
| again. What's even worse, nuclear arms are becoming the
| only real security guarantee, so the fate of Ukraine
| defines the fate of nuclear non-proliferation.
| bluGill wrote:
| Ukraine couldn't have kept nuclear weapons. It needs a
| lot of technical expertise to do that, particularly in
| today's world where you only test them in simulation
| which means you need great ability to trust your
| simulations. Ukraine didn't even have the keys to use the
| weapons they had (Russia did) which means they needed to
| first rebuild each with new keys. Not that Ukraine
| couldn't do all that, but they just don't have the money
| to do that and everything else they also need to do.
| Nuclear weapons are an obvious first thing to go because
| they are only useful in a situation where you want to end
| the world. In almost all cases it is better to be able to
| defend yourself without ending the world.
| snovv_crash wrote:
| Ukraine built those nuclear weapons.
| bawolff wrote:
| > Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel
| chose to accept and recognize the authority of
|
| As far as i am aware, this is a false statement. Israel has
| been opposed to the ICC since its inception (originally
| because the first version had a judge selection mechanism
| they thought was biased against them, although i am sure
| there are other reasons they object, especially relating to
| their settlements).
|
| Perhaps you are confusing the ICC with the ICJ, which are
| totally different things.
| usaar333 wrote:
| Neither Israel nor the de-facto government of Gaza they are
| fighting ever accepted the authority of the ICC; neither
| has signed the Rome Treaty.
|
| The ICC authority is being derived from the Palestinian
| Authority applying for membership and the Court deciding
| earlier in a 2-1 decision that Palestine is a state, the PA
| is the legitimate government of Palestine, and that Gaza is
| territory under its jurisdiction.
| bawolff wrote:
| > Court deciding earlier in a 2-1 decision that Palestine
| is a state, the PA is the legitimate government of
| Palestine, and that Gaza is territory under its
| jurisdiction.
|
| I think you are overstating it. They made a provisional
| decision, but just for the purpose of if the
| investigation can go forward. The decision does not
| decide whether or not palestine is a state in general,
| and if this ever goes to trial the defendants can still
| challenge this decision.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| > Israel chose to accept and recognize the authority of
|
| Israel never ratified the Rome statute. The US withdrew but
| Israel never ratified it in the first place.
|
| > It has a history of being very transparent in its
| decisions and is widely recognized as being neutral and
| fair in their decision making process
|
| There is a long section on criticism against the ICC, not
| just from Israel, that suggests otherwise:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > a political thing that is trying to get him regardless of
| evidence
|
| This is the exact line that was trotted out by Russian
| propaganda in 2023 when the ICC issued a warrant for arrest
| of Vladimir Putin
|
| Perhaps if you find yourself n the same position as Russia,
| you are in fact doing something wrong
| stanfordkid wrote:
| There is indeed, as you state, political influence being
| exerted on courts. Most of that influence is in support of
| Israel and Netanyahu -- do you really think there is
| significant political power and influence upon the ICC from
| Palestine or Hamas? Look at the amount AIPAC has contributed
| to pro-Israel politicians. It's quite frankly absurd such a
| political organization exists under the guise of representing
| American Jews yet pretty much lobbies solely for Israeli
| geopolitical issues. Kennedy even tried to get it to register
| as a foreign agent. The fact that these warrants were issued
| despite the influence and leverage of Israel is a hint at how
| egregious the crimes are.
| nimbius wrote:
| political is..sorta true. the point of these international
| legal bodies was to maintain and enforce a world order
| dominated by western powers. it was not about promoting
| justice (albeit sometimes that happened.) the selective
| application of enforcement and investigation have reduced the
| ICC to little more than a tool of neocolonial rule.
|
| the rome statute itself contains provisions that limit its
| reach. article 98 precludes extradition, which has been
| abused by the US to prevent US nationals from being tried.
|
| in short the ICC is allowed to go after western geopolitical
| rivals, however going after an ally whos committing genocide
| is a bridge too far; they _will_ be shielded. for example:
| the US pressured its allies to refuse to refer any activities
| in Afghanistan to the ICC and largely succeeded as its allies
| form the dominant half of the UN Security council. whats
| interesting here is the US seems so isolated this time as to
| have lost the ability to block the referral. perhaps a first
| in history.
| jll29 wrote:
| I once had the honor to attend a lecture by a prosecutor of
| the ICC.
|
| Out of all lawyers/attorneys/prosecutors/judges that I met
| in my life, that one was the one that I would judge to bet
| he most idealistic and justice motivated (admittedly based
| on my gut instinct); a very rare breed.
|
| It's good that there are such institutions with a good
| purpose, staffed with good people. Bad faith actors -
| including war criminals - will of course claim agendas
| (other than bringing justice), deny jurisdiction etc. but
| it is a good starting point to have them. The next step is
| to strive to give these organizations enough "teeth" to
| execute.
|
| The "individual bully" problem needs some addressing, a
| solution to that remains outstanding.
| loceng wrote:
| And the only counterweight for a person accused of genocide
| who is claiming they haven't committed war crimes or
| genocide, while they call this action "antisemetic" - the
| only way to determine if they are being genuine in claim it
| is antisemitism or political-manipulation (demonization) tool
| is to go to court and see all of the evidence presented.
|
| Either 40,000+ people dead or seemingly nearly all
| Palestinian's civilian infrastructure being destroyed, both
| warrant being witnessed and investigated by the international
| community with a fine tooth comb, no?
|
| The ICC isn't some amateur city court in some backwaters
| country, it is the current epitome and evolutionary state
| from effort and passion of humanity towards holding the line
| for justice.
| bawolff wrote:
| > And the only counterweight for a person accused of
| genocide
|
| The ICC has not accused anyone of genocide. It does have
| juridsiction over personal criminal responsibility for
| gdnocide, but so far, nothing on that front has been
| mentioned.
|
| South africa is suing israel at the icj alleging state
| responsibility for genocide, however that is different from
| personal responsibility, and different standards of
| evidence and procedures apply. Its also a totally separate
| court system.
| loceng wrote:
| Straw man argument. I didn't make the claim the ICC
| accused the ICC of genocide, however Netanyahu is now at
| minimum now officially wanted for war crimes.
|
| ICC and ICJ are different, yes.
| bawolff wrote:
| Well when you say "person accused of genocide" in the
| context of a warrant from a court that has juridsiction
| over personal responsibility for genocide, its not a leap
| to assume that is what you meant.
|
| However if you didn't mean that, what did you mean by
| "person accused of genocide"? Who is accusing them? You
| personally?
| loceng wrote:
| Can't you place that exact same argument on the side of the
| Palestinians, and add more weight to their claim - where the
| international community so far has allowed this, due to
| reason (whether money involved in politicians toeing a line
| or not), and so the courts decisions and political bias are
| more likely to favour Netanyahu over the Palestinians?
|
| There never seems to be much critical thinking on the quick
| one-liners that on the surface appear to often be one-liner
| propaganda talking points used for deflection, to give an
| easy memorable line for an otherwise ideological mob to
| learn-train them with to then parrot.
|
| (edited tran->train)
| bawolff wrote:
| You can claim anything, but i don't think it means much if
| you don't back it up with some arguments.
|
| Like this is basically only the second time that a sitting
| head of state of a functioning country has had a warrant
| issued against them. Its fairly unprecedented. I don't
| agree with the claims the icc is biased against israel, but
| the fact they are acting at all certainly shows they aren't
| biased for them.
| 1024core wrote:
| > they should cooperate with the ICC. Have your day in court
| and show how absurd the accusations are
|
| There's a reason why the US does not recognize the ICC.
| newspaper1 wrote:
| Yes, because they want to operate outside the rule of
| international law.
| Prbeek wrote:
| It looks like ICC is not part of the fantastic rules based
| order.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| For international law to "rule" over anything, it should
| start by having an enforcement arm that isn't 98% the US
| military.
| culi wrote:
| Imagine the US having to face consequences for Iraq. One of
| the most fucked up collection of war crimes and violations
| of laws of war in the 21st century. The average American
| now thinks "we shouldn't have gone into Iraq" but has no
| idea the reputation the US has in the rest of the world
| because of this act
| monocasa wrote:
| There's jurisdiction questions there since neither Iraq
| nor the US are Rome Statute signatories, however
| Palestine is a signatory.
| rangestransform wrote:
| yeah, the accused has no right to a jury trial with the ICC
|
| with the 6th amendment, signing the rome statute into law
| would be both unconstitutional and effectively subjecting US
| soldiers to a kangaroo court (in the eyes of the US)
| hilbert42 wrote:
| True, and this more than highlights the great divide across
| the globe on the matter, it screams it out. One can only
| guess what the ramifications will be.
| milutinovici wrote:
| Yet they insist that other countries should cooperate with
| the court
| favorited wrote:
| If that were true, the US wouldn't be able to extradite
| anyone to Mexico, where they do not use jury trials.
|
| Constitutional restrictions on prosecution in the United
| States do not apply to foreign criminal justice systems.
| freejazz wrote:
| If you think it's a sham, why would you participate in the
| process? I don't agree that it is a sham, but it's an absurd
| principle to think that they'd have any interest in doing so.
| megous wrote:
| Israel already participates in the process. That's why they
| file documents with the court. Claims from two of those the
| pre-trial chamber rejected today, prior to issuing the
| warrants.
|
| Re response: your claim was participation not jurisdiction,
| shift goalposts however you like
| freejazz wrote:
| Sure, and in American courts you can appear just for the
| purposes of disputing jurisdiction without submitting
| oneself to it.
| pagade wrote:
| Antisemitic. Every time I hear this word, I can't help but
| think of its irony--a term used exclusively for describing
| discrimination against one community, as if prejudice against
| them carries more weight than against any other. Perhaps,
| though, it serves as the best reflection of our hypocrisy.
| dlubarov wrote:
| The term doesn't imply that, but yes antisemitism has
| historically been more prolific than most other forms of
| discrimination. Even if we ignore the Holocaust and focus on
| recent incidents, Jewish victims are very disproportionately
| represented in hate crime statistics, for example.
| throw310822 wrote:
| > Jewish victims are very disproportionately represented in
| hate crime statistics, for example.
|
| There is a very serious issue of reporting here. Someone
| might report a wrong look as an act of hate, and members of
| a different community (poor, recent immigrants) can be used
| to being discriminated and treated with contempt, and never
| report it.
|
| If you actually check the statistics of "antisemitic acts"
| that are published (usually issued periodically by Jewish
| organisations) you will find lots of very small and
| unverifiable episodes.
| newspaper1 wrote:
| That's an absurd statement that discounts all other
| genocides, slavery... almost two continents worth of
| indigenous Americans were wiped out. Are there special
| terms for these actions like "anti-semitism"? No.
| glassounds wrote:
| > The compound word antisemitismus was first used in
| print in Germany in 1879 as a "scientific-sounding term"
| for Judenhass (lit. 'Jew-hatred'), and it has since been
| used to refer to anti-Jewish sentiment alone
|
| It's not a special term to make Jews special, it's a
| special term to make Jew hate normalized.
| newspaper1 wrote:
| How could that possibly be true when the only people
| perpetuating this word are groups like the ADL, Israel...
| If what you said was true, all of these Zionist
| institutions wouldn't be promoting it.
| glassounds wrote:
| I can promise you that "the ADL and Israel and the
| Zionist institutions" are not the only ones using the
| term "antisemitism". I'd personally prefer that it'd be
| called anti Jewish racism.
| newspaper1 wrote:
| They are the main institutions using the term as a
| weapon, and the discussion here is based on Netanyahu's
| own words.
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| I checked wikipedia, and actually it states the same as
| the parent comment. That sentence has five references. It
| doesn't shock me, given the era, but rather than
| speculate and squabble, someone could check the
| references and see if they really do support the
| statement in the wiki.
| newspaper1 wrote:
| So all of these Jewish institutions are promoting an anti
| Jewish word? Please explain why they would do that.
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| I assume hardly anyone remembered, or payed much mind, to
| the origin of that word by the 1920s. I don't know who
| coined 'homophobia' or 'feminism' or many other concepts;
| they're just common words we use.
| newspaper1 wrote:
| Right, so the word as it's used today is what we're
| talking about. It's being used as a weapon to silence
| criticism of Israel and Zionism in general.
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| I dunno. Regardless of the exact words one uses, one can
| always accuse one's opponent of bias.
|
| If the word 'antisemitic' didn't exist, the accusation,
| phrased in different words, would still carry weight.
| newspaper1 wrote:
| And I would complain about the false accusation if that
| was the case. As it stands "antisemitism" is what's being
| used to label people who oppose Zionism. It's just like
| how "communism" was used during McCarthyism.
| glassounds wrote:
| They're using the current common terminology for the
| phenomenon, which does not have the roots you claimed it
| has.
| newspaper1 wrote:
| That's the point, it doesn't matter what the origin was,
| how it is being used now is what is being critiqued.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Does Israels actions over the years have any impact on how
| Jews are treated elsewhere?
| yread wrote:
| Not to mention there are more semitic people than Jews. And
| Holocaust targeted more people, too. And there were pogroms
| against other poeple, too.
| culi wrote:
| The Romani people for example (derogatorily called
| "gypsies". The term "gyp"--to scam--derives from
| stereotypes of Romani people) faced some of the most
| gruesome programs in history before facing the Romani
| Genocide in WW2. Yet we rarely talk about antiziganism the
| way we talk about antisemitism and people still casually
| throw around terms like "gyp"
| glassounds wrote:
| The word has never, in its history, been used for anything
| other than racism against Jews. There are Semitic
| languages, not people.
|
| > Due to the root word Semite, the term is prone to being
| invoked as a misnomer by those who incorrectly assert (in
| an etymological fallacy) that it refers to racist hatred
| directed at "Semitic people" in spite of the fact that this
| grouping is an obsolete historical race concept. Likewise,
| such usage is erroneous; the compound word antisemitismus
| was first used in print in Germany in 1879 as a
| "scientific-sounding term" for Judenhass (lit. 'Jew-
| hatred'), and it has since been used to refer to anti-
| Jewish sentiment alone
| ada1981 wrote:
| Especially when you consider "semites" are a member of an
| ancient or modern people from southwestern Asia, such as the
| Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, or Arabs. It can also refer
| to a descendant of these peoples.
|
| So, many Palestinians are Semites as well. And one may
| conclude when Ovadia Yosef, a former Chief Rabbi of Israel,
| says:
|
| "It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send
| missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and
| damnable. The Lord shall return the Arab's deeds on their own
| heads, waste their seed and exterminate them, devastate them
| and vanish them from this world."*
|
| That this is "Anti-Semitic" speech as well.
|
| It's amazing how buying off 98% of US Representatives can
| change a cultural and media narrative.
|
| *https://adc.org/racist-incitement-by-israeli-leaders-must-
| en...
| loceng wrote:
| I first thought you were going to point out how the misuse of
| the word "antisemitic" is especially problematic here:
|
| Do the vast majority of people not understand correlation vs.
| causation? Because Netanyahu is Jewish does not mean an action
| against him is because he's Jewish.
|
| That they are willing to use such "cry wolf" tactics, abusing
| it, dilutes their credibility at minimum - and then should
| bring their integrity into question, just for this
| misrepresentation of calling this action antisemitic.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| I mean, this has been standard operating procedure for the
| State of Israel for a long time now. Any criticism is
| dismissed as antisemitic.
|
| Personally, I don't think that's fair, but it's
| understandable why they would use it as a defence.
| throw310822 wrote:
| Because it works. Well, it used to work- today, I think it
| has lost all its value. Good riddance.
| glassounds wrote:
| Regardless of whether a group of politicians use it
| maliciously or not - Antisemitism exists and happens all
| the time. It has not "lost its value", and if it has then
| so has western society.
| gspencley wrote:
| > If Netanyahu and Gallant really think they are innocent, and
| the allegations are absurd and false, they should cooperate
| with the ICC. Have your day in court and show how absurd the
| accusations are.
|
| I don't know if I agree with this.
|
| If the ICC is an honest organization that stands for individual
| rights, liberty and justice then sure.
|
| If, on the other hand, the ICC is a corrupt organization that
| invites the worst of the worst in terms of rights-violating
| countries and dictatorial regimes to the table, then no way. In
| any compromise between right and wrong, good and evil, the
| wrong has everything to gain and the good has everything to
| lose.
|
| In other words, I don't have all of the facts when it comes to
| the ICC and its history. I know that it is separate from the
| UN, but I don't know very much about it. Therefore I don't know
| which alternative I ultimately land on.
|
| But in general and in principle, when it comes to those that
| are objectively and morally wrong, there is every reason to not
| grant them legitimacy through recognition or participation.
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| what do you mean by 'invite to the table'? it's a criminal
| court, so it's going to deal with criminals
|
| you're also assuming that israel is a good faith actor in all
| of this
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#I.
| ..
| gspencley wrote:
| > what do you mean by 'invite to the table'? it's a
| criminal court, so it's going to deal with criminals
|
| "Criminals" in this context is meaningless. Please hear me
| out.
|
| We're dealing with the concept of "International Law",
| which is largely understood as agreements / treaties
| amongst different countries.
|
| This means that those agreements are no more valid or
| better or righteous than the countries that enter into
| them. If the nations involved share certain basic
| principles and make an agreement that aligns with those
| principles, the enforcement of these "laws" would come from
| those nations that are party to the treaty.
|
| BUT - if one nation changes its mind, or changes its
| internal laws or decides "nah, no thanks" then how do you
| enforce these so-called "laws"? Do the other nations
| declare war on this nation?
|
| It gets even worse than that. Because the very concept of
| "International Law" contains a logical contradiction.
|
| The idea is that we are going make war (force, violence,
| death, destruction, conflict) subject to some kind of
| rules. The problem is, you can't. You can have two parties
| to a conflict agree to certain things: like not to murder
| civilians, or prisoners etc. if it can be helped. But at
| the end of the day it's an agreement that doesn't have any
| kind of binding power or significance because the idea of
| war means that two groups have decided that they can't
| reach any kind of rational agreement and so they have
| resorted to violent conflict.
|
| War, by definition, is the absence of law. The absence of
| reason. The breakdown of civilization. It comes about when
| two groups cannot reason with one another; cannot agree
| with one another on what the rules ought to be.
|
| Law is not a concept that comes out of nowhere. It is the
| idea that in order to protect individual rights and
| liberty, the element of force and violence is going to be
| taken out of civil existence and placed into the hands of a
| monopoly: the government, which sets the rules and
| enforcement mechanisms around when force is and is not
| justifiable within their respective operating
| jurisdictions.
|
| When you have multiple nations that operate independently,
| each with their own laws and rules, all you can do is get
| them to agree to certain things, as long as they have some
| basis upon which to enter into an agreement.
|
| My thesis is that a free, rights-protecting nation has no
| basis for an agreement with a dictatorship that routinely
| violates peoples' rights. That the dictatorship has
| everything to gain by getting the free nation to agree to
| what its evil desires want, while the free nation has only
| things to lose (through compromise, which is part and
| parcel of coming to terms).
|
| That's what I mean by "invite to the table."
| bawolff wrote:
| > We're dealing with the concept of "International Law",
| which is largely understood as agreements / treaties
| amongst different countries.
|
| Well this is true of a lot of international law, it
| doesn't apply here. The ICC largely deals with things
| that are preemptory norms which apply regardless of if
| you sign the treaty.
| gspencley wrote:
| > The ICC largely deals with things that are preemptory
| norms which apply regardless of if you sign the treaty.
|
| That's irrelevant. Anyone can form an independent
| organization and proclaim that nations of the world are
| subject to the rules set forth by that independent
| organization.
|
| The point is that they have no intrinsic authority.
|
| Authority comes from either moral sanction (of the
| people, by the people / consent of the governed) or
| through force.
|
| In other words, the enforcement mechanism has to come
| from those that opt-in to that organization. i.e: through
| mutual agreement.
|
| Which means that any "violator" nation can then say "GTFO
| and I dare you to come at me and see the full force of my
| police (if you try to arrest my citizens) or my military
| (if the participating nations declare war on me in an
| attempt to enforce these 'laws')."
|
| So it still can only come about through mutual agreements
| between nations. Otherwise it is nothing more than a
| rogue body that sends armed thugs to try and enforce its
| rules while nations get to say "We neither recognize nor
| agree to those rules, nor do we recognize your authority
| to enforce them. However, you are subject to our laws
| while you are trying to execute your 'warrants' on our
| soil. And we will arrest YOU and throw you in our jails
| if you interfere with the rights of any one of our
| citizens."
| bawolff wrote:
| > In other words, the enforcement mechanism has to come
| from those that opt-in to that organization. i.e: through
| mutual agreement.
|
| Tell that to the germans who were hanged at the nuremburg
| trials. They certainly didn't consent.
|
| You are right to a certain extent, that enforcement
| requires agreement or force, but at the same time the
| general rules and procedures of international law do have
| some force to them. They have this force because they are
| widely agreed on. This includes Israel which broadly
| agree all these things are illegal, they just take issue
| with that specific court. However their donestic courts
| recognize all the things the icc prosecutes as crimes
| locally broadly speaking. (Well there is some dispute
| over what forced population transfer means, but that
| isn't one of the crimes in question for this warrant)
| jll29 wrote:
| > a free, rights-protecting nation has no basis for an
| agreement [between any two or more states] with a
| dictatorship that routinely violates peoples' rights.
|
| Wikipedia quote: "States and non-state actors may choose
| to not abide by international law, and even to breach a
| treaty but such violations, particularly of peremptory
| norms, can be met with disapproval by others and in some
| cases coercive action ranging from diplomatic and
| economic sanctions to war."
|
| I think isolating bad actors can be a limited solution to
| the absence of physical power/not wanting to start a way,
| which ultimately as you rightly state corresponds to a
| situation of absence/breakdown of law that is best
| avoided.
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| I'm using "criminals" as a short-hand for "the worst of
| the worst in terms of rights-violating countries and
| dictatorial regimes" which is what you initially said.
|
| If there is no such thing as international law, then what
| "rights" are these countries violating?
|
| > When you have multiple nations that operate
| independently, each with their own laws and rules, all
| you can do is get them to agree to certain things, as
| long as they have some basis upon which to enter into an
| agreement.
|
| It sounds like you do think all countries should be
| 'invited to the table' unless they fail to meet a
| standard which you yourself don't think exists.
| Confusing.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _I don 't have all of the facts when it comes to the ICC
| and its history. I know that it is separate from the UN, but
| I don't know very much about it. Therefore I don't know which
| alternative I ultimately land on._
|
| If you can put in the time & effort required to make an
| empirical assessment of the ICC, go ahead and do so; then
| come back here and enlighten us all. Otherwise, this is just
| more of the same kind of denialism & deflection we're all too
| familiar with post WW2 from the many (and vocal) mass crime
| apologists.
| grecy wrote:
| > _and said the decision is "antisemitic."_
|
| It is incredible how many actions are being hidden behind this.
|
| I couldn't care less what imaginary person someone believes in,
| or what their culture or heritage is. If they're killing
| massive numbers of people - especially children - they're doing
| something wrong. I have no interest in commenting on their
| beliefs. I'm saying their actions are wrong, and that is true
| no matter who is doing it and what they believe.
| jll29 wrote:
| Yes, if there is any moral norm that anyone, especially any
| parent would accept - as closely to universal as possible,
| perhaps - it is that killing children is evil.
| rmbyrro wrote:
| The Israeli will not recognize the authority of this ICC bench,
| because it's a politically motivated prosecution. They've lost
| before the trial even began.
| StefanBatory wrote:
| Netanyahu I'm not surprised, but Gallant?
|
| EDIT: Asking genuinely on Gallant all I know is he was minister
| of defence and had a felling out with Netanyahu.
| bawolff wrote:
| He's the minister of defense (not anymore but was at the time).
| If the allegations are true, then as minister of defense he
| probably ordered the things in question (or failed to stop
| them)
| StefanBatory wrote:
| Okay, failing to stop them is a fair point I haven't
| considered - thanks.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Being the minister of defense gives you culpability for the
| military actions the ICC has decided are war crimes, I'd think?
| But I am not an expert in international law, just don't find it
| surprising.
| sofixa wrote:
| Yep, commanders are responsible for the actions undertaken by
| their troops.
|
| It's called Command responsibility or sometimes the Yamashita
| principle/doctrine, after a Japanese general who was executed
| for horrific crimes committed by troops not even under his
| command, but in his area of responsibility (they were naval
| troops in the Philippines, he was commander of the
| Philippines, the navy and the army hated each other; he
| pulled out of Manilla in order to wage war in favourable
| terrain, the naval infantry commander refused to follow him
| and fought a brutal urban battle that destroyed the city, and
| on purpose killed more than a hundred thousand civilians).
| sku11gat wrote:
| Some Japanese officers take responsibility very seriously.
|
| >Hitoshi Imamura was a Japanese general who served in the
| Imperial Japanese Army during World War II, and was
| subsequently convicted of war crimes. Finding his
| punishment to be too light, Imamura built a replica of his
| prison in his garden and confined himself there until his
| death.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitoshi_Imamura
| sofixa wrote:
| Most just ordered horrific atrocities, their men to die,
| and then killed themselves.
| adhamsalama wrote:
| You're not surprised that the prime minister is accused of war
| crimes, but surprised the minister of defense is?
| shihab wrote:
| "Defense minister [Gallant] announces 'complete siege' of Gaza:
| No power, food or fuel". [1]
|
| [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-
| ministe...
| StefanBatory wrote:
| Thanks for the link, I didn't know that it was he who
| announced that. Thank you!
| runarberg wrote:
| As I understand it, he was the mastermind behind the policy of
| starvation and hindering of aid into Gaza. There is a famous
| video of him promising such in October 2023. He was also the
| defense minister in a time when several hospitals were targeted
| and damaged, so it is not hard to see the responsibility of
| this policy falling on him.
| newspaper1 wrote:
| Gallant's position is that there are no innocent people in Gaza
| and that they should be starved to death. He's said this many
| times:
|
| https://x.com/KhalilJeries/status/1853905224320372923
| StefanBatory wrote:
| I didn't know about this before, thanks :|
|
| I thought he was much more of a moderate in Netanyahu
| cabinet.
| newspaper1 wrote:
| There's a large attempt to pin all of this on Netanyahu and
| his closest cabinet but what he's saying is pretty much
| supported by nearly all of Israeli society down to
| individual citizens. I encourage everyone to find people
| who live in Israel on X and translate their tweets so they
| can see for themselves.
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| It's utterly appalling, and the main reason I tend to
| think the end of apartheid in Israel will look
| substantially different than the end of apartheid in
| South Africa.
| griomnib wrote:
| He is a moderate; which tells you all you need to know
| about contemporary Israel politics and ethical standards.
| tdeck wrote:
| Liberal Zionists like to pretend Gallant was the "moderate
| one" but in reality there is essentially no moderate in
| current Israeli society, there is only the secular far
| right and the messianic further right. The two differ only
| in small derails of their preferred strategy when using the
| military to ethnically cleanse Gaza. There is no
| significant coalition that recognizes basic human rights
| for Palestinians.
| edanm wrote:
| He is a member of Netanyahu's party, which is a right-wing
| party (though not far-right in terms of Israeli politics).
|
| He is certainly not a _moderate_ , but he is far more
| trusted than Netanyahu and is considered a moderating and
| opposing influence on him by many people. Mostly
| representing the interested of the defence establishment,
| as opposed to purely political interests (or, if you ask
| me, as opposed to Netanyahu's only real interest, which is
| himself).
| roody15 wrote:
| What is the point of the ICC? Russia doesn't recognize it, Israel
| doesn't recognize it and even the United States doesn't recognize
| it. I am confused at what these warrants even mean.
| tuvocoical wrote:
| In this case, to make a political statement against Israel and
| their leadership.
|
| Note that the only member of Hamas indicted, Mohammed Deif,
| will never see a day in court. As the ICC already knows, he was
| killed in an airstrike earlier this year.
| ktallett wrote:
| Since there has been no proof of his death bar the
| announcements from Israel, it is sensible to consider him as
| a wanted man until there is concrete evidence he is dead.
| tuvocoical wrote:
| https://english.aawsat.com/arab-world/5077358-new-
| evidence-s...
|
| Hamas sources have also confimed this.
| DasIch wrote:
| In practice these warrants mean that they cannot travel to any
| country that does recognize the ICC without being arrested,
| which means they almost certainly won't.
| jcranmer wrote:
| Just like how Putin couldn't travel to, say, South Africa,
| after a warrant was issued for his arrest. Oh wait, South
| Africa declined to enforce the ICC arrest warrant in that
| case.
|
| I don't see this meaningfully constraining Netanyahu's
| foreign travel options.
| runarberg wrote:
| It would be politically very risky for any European
| democracy to not enforce this arrest warrant, much more so
| than for South Africa or Mongolia. Israel is not popular
| among the public in Europe, and if a government invites him
| for a political visit, and don't arrest him, that
| government will have to pay for that in the next election
| (and probably sooner, with mass demonstration and public
| unrest).
|
| Now, lets talk about Putin's visit to South Africa. So
| Putin was scheduled to visit a BRICS summit in South Africa
| despite the ICC arrest warrant. South Africa claimed they
| wouldn't enforce the arrest warrant. People got very mad.
| South Africa, in response, declared that Putin would only
| participate in the summit remotely, where the arrest
| warrant couldn't be enforced.
|
| Now this was obviously a way to bypass the ICC warrant, and
| the stunt did not go well in the general public. In the
| next election the ANC, the governing party at the time,
| lost their parliamentary majority for the first time since
| South Africa became a democracy in 1994. Now South Africans
| had several other reasons to ditch the ANC, but this stunt
| certainly didn't help.
| aguaviva wrote:
| Oh wait, South Africa is just one country.
|
| In a great many other countries, including nearly all
| Western countries, the warrant is still in effect.
|
| And even in the South African case: the government's
| decision was considered quite tenuous, which is why Putin
| cancelled his visit, in was was considered to be a major
| diplomatic setback at the time. So at the end of the day --
| the warrant still had significant effect, and fulfilled its
| purpose.
| nickff wrote:
| ICC member Mongolia didn't arrest Putin when he visited.
| https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/ukraine-situation-icc-pre-
| trial...
| aguaviva wrote:
| The fact that it's the only country he's been able to visit
| since the warrant was issued (aside from North Korea)
| indicates that, by and large -- it's working as intended.
| ganeshkrishnan wrote:
| >The fact that it's the only country he's been able to
| visit since the warrant was issued
|
| Putin has visited around 20 countries after this ICC
| warrant including UAE, Saudi Arabia, China, Armenia,
| Vietnam , India (planned), Uzbekistan ...
|
| Start here and start counting: https://en.wikipedia.org/w
| iki/List_of_international_presiden...
|
| But I know you wont. Your response will be shifting some
| goal posts like "these are not real countries because
| they don't exist in my coloring book"
| aguaviva wrote:
| I stand corrected:
|
| "The fact that he's only been able to visit a relative
| handful of countries -- nearly all of which were
| traditional Cold War allies (and several of these being
| current or former vassal states) -- indicates that, by
| and large, the warrant is working as intended."
|
| BTW the number is 9, not 20.
| nickff wrote:
| Not grandparent, but where are you getting 9?
|
| I get 16 from the Wiki:
|
| Tajikistan
|
| Turkmenistan
|
| Iran
|
| Uzbekistan
|
| Kazakhstan
|
| Armenia
|
| Kyrgyzstan
|
| Belarus
|
| China
|
| United Arab Emirates
|
| Saudi Arabia
|
| North Korea
|
| Vietnam
|
| Azerbaijan
|
| Mongolia
|
| Turkmenistan
| aguaviva wrote:
| I'm looking at the bullet lists for 2023-2024, whereas it
| seems you may be looking at the table of all post-2022
| visits (several of which were before the warrant was
| issued).
| sgjohnson wrote:
| Several of the countries listed are not members of the
| ICC, so they don't really count here.
| runarberg wrote:
| There have been several pundits with opinion on the matter,
| you'll find quite a few in any news source (personally I
| recommend al-Jazeera). The gist of it is that this will have
| implication mostly around travels of Israeli officials to
| Europe. We might also see a slow and gradual policy shift in
| Europe as a result of this.
| latentcall wrote:
| Ah yes three countries accused of doing really heinous shit do
| not recognize the legitimacy of the International Criminal
| Court. How convenient.
| bawolff wrote:
| > The Chamber also noted that decisions allowing or increasing
| humanitarian assistance into Gaza were often conditional. They
| were not made to fulfil Israel's obligations under international
| humanitarian law or to ensure that the civilian population in
| Gaza would be adequately supplied with goods in need. In fact,
| they were a response to the pressure of the international
| community or requests by the United States of America. In any
| event, the increases in humanitarian assistance were not
| sufficient to improve the population's access to essential goods.
|
| I don't understand why this would matter. Does it matter the
| rationale for increasing aid? I would think the only thing that
| should matter would be weather the aid was sufficient or not. (I
| appreciate in the end icc pretrial felt it wasn't enough , but i
| think that is the only thing that should matter)
|
| Like if someone is accused of murder, but doesn't because a
| friend told them not to, we don't throw them in jail because they
| decided not to murder for the wrong reasons.
| toast0 wrote:
| The rationale for supplying aid might not matter when the aid
| is sufficient. Although, coercive aid might still be a problem;
| I'm unfamiliar with international law on this.
|
| But when aid is not sufficient, I think rationale/intent makes
| more of a difference. If you're doing it for the right reasons
| and putting in a good effort, sufficiency may not be acheivable
| and it may not be right to charge you with not acheiving it. If
| you're only doing it to keep your friends happy, and it's
| insufficient, maybe there was more you could have done.
| ncr100 wrote:
| The word intent is oftentimes used in The judicial system to
| measure culpability and punishment:
|
| whether somebody accidentally stabbed a person 90 times or
| intentionally stabbed the person 90 times, for instance, is
| captured via the concept of intent.
| vharuck wrote:
| Israel was expected, under international law, to
| unconditionally allow aid for the civilians. Israel used it as
| a bargaining chip, effectively holding civilians hostage.
| bawolff wrote:
| This doesn't seem to match what the ICC is saying. I don't
| see anywhere that the icc accused Israel of using aid as a
| bargaining chip.
| vharuck wrote:
| From the announcement:
|
| >decisions allowing or increasing humanitarian assistance
| into Gaza were often conditional.
|
| I may be misinterpreting legal jargon, but "conditional"
| implies Israel often didn't want to allow humanitarian
| assistance unless Israel received something. This isn't
| allowed under international law. Relevant excerpt from the
| announcement:
|
| >This finding is based on the role of Mr Netanyahu and Mr
| Gallant in impeding humanitarian aid in violation of
| international humanitarian law and their failure to
| facilitate relief by all means at its disposal.
|
| Parties to conflict are expected to facilitate aid, not
| just allow it, and definitely not set conditions.
| xg15 wrote:
| I think it does matter, because it's another indicator for
| intent.
|
| If the starvation is a "simple" side-effect of the combat
| situation, but you're working actively to alleviate it on your
| own volition (by doing your best to let in aid organizations,
| etc) then it's obvious to see there is no intent to it.
|
| If, on the other hand, you have to be pressured by the
| international community, including your closest allies for
| every tiny step in the direction of letting in aid, and you
| will immediately jump two steps back as soon as the pressure
| eases slightly, then it can be inferred that you really really
| _want_ the starvation to happen and your only problem with the
| situation is getting away with it.
|
| (Not even starting with all the government officials who
| spelled out the whole intent explicitly in public, documented
| quotes)
|
| > _Like if someone is accused of murder, but doesn 't because a
| friend told them not to, we don't throw them in jail because
| they decided not to murder for the wrong reasons._
|
| The problem is that the murder is happening here and the friend
| is trying - badly - to convince the person to pull out the
| knife.
| MisterTea wrote:
| > Like if someone is accused of murder, but doesn't because a
| friend told them not to, we don't throw them in jail because
| they decided not to murder for the wrong reasons.
|
| If they did not carry out any action then this holds true. But
| there were actions carried out that amounts to assault and
| attempted murder.
| tuyguntn wrote:
| If Netanyahu and Gallant declared as war criminals, does it also
| mean whoever helped them during the 2024 is complicit?
|
| Wondering what happens to so many Western leaders who supported
| Netanyahu unconditionally.
| GordonS wrote:
| Biden/Harris, Starmer, Scholz and Macron have all been
| supplying Israel with arms, all whole knowing they are carrying
| out a genocide. The US has also had boots on the ground, and
| the UK has flown hundreds of spy and missions over Gaza.
| Meanwhile, they _all_ give near carbon-copy press statements
| that read like they came straight from Israeli Hasbara.
|
| They have knowingly supported and _aided_ Israel, and I hope
| more warrants are forthcoming.
|
| Come to think of it, plenty of journalists and media orgs are
| complicit too, such as the BBC.
| alexisread wrote:
| Technically yes, and a number of UK politicians are being
| mooted for investigation
|
| https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/23/criminal-complaint-...
|
| Notably this admission by David Cameron, to knowledge of
| starvation is rather damning
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-67926799
| elAhmo wrote:
| Like the US congress giving an applause and a standing ovation.
| nashashmi wrote:
| Title doesn't mention any hamas official
| dang wrote:
| I adopted the title of one of the news articles that were also
| submitted about this. See
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42204632 for why.
| locallost wrote:
| I doubt there will be actual arrests, but there will be and there
| are already consequences. I just saw France and Netherlands
| announced they will obey the warrants, thus Netanyahu can no
| longer travel there. Presumably the whole of EU is off limits (I
| am unaware which countries recognize the court).
| immibis wrote:
| I expect Germany to declare the opposite. There is a small
| chance this incident fractures the European Union.
| locallost wrote:
| I think Germany has already said it will respect the court's
| decision but disagrees with it.
| immibis wrote:
| Quite strange coming from the country that contributes the
| second highest amount of money to the genocide, where you
| can be arrested for protesting against the genocide, and
| every institution will label you a terrorist if you do.
| locallost wrote:
| Well there are competing forces pulling in different
| directions. So yes, but... at the same times at least
| officially, the rules are the rules for Germans. In
| reality what I learned from them living in Germany is
| that they will do their best to honor the letter of the
| law, by effectively doing the opposite. But at least on
| paper they will follow the rules.
| csomar wrote:
| If Europe (ie Germany) as a whole fails to enforce the
| warrant, the court is pretty much dissolved.
| spongebobism wrote:
| Current opposition leader Friedrich Merz, who will probably
| win the snap elections in February, has even before the court
| ordered the warrant called for Germany not to obey it. But of
| course, it's easier to take strong stances when you're not
| part of that government that has to act on them yet. We'll
| see.
| shihab wrote:
| EU foreign policy chief said the court's decision should be
| implemented. Ireland also indicated they would comply with the
| warrant.
| lupire wrote:
| How is this not a declaration of war against Israel and Gaza by
| the members of the UN? Regardless of their alleged friends, these
| people are the leaders of sovereign (-ish, for Gaza) nations.
| AndrewVos wrote:
| Because a declaration of war is different to stating that a
| country committed war crimes.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Because nobody is invading Israel. Nobody's declaring war.
|
| The whole point of international law is to hold citizens of
| sovereign nations accountable, without having to go to war to
| achieve it.
|
| Nobody has legal authority to go into Israel to seize
| Netanyahu. But now he knows that if he tries to travel to
| Europe, he will be seized upon entry. That's not war, that's
| simply apprehending someone who there is an arrest warrant out
| for.
| abbe98 wrote:
| ICC is not a UN organ:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
| h_tbob wrote:
| I don't get why Israel waged war on Gaza instead of just going
| for the guy who ordered the attack. Any thoughts?
| latentcall wrote:
| Oct. 7 was incredibly useful for Israel give it the casus belli
| to destroy resistance and settle Gaza. Lebanon will be the
| cherry on top.
|
| Why kill one guy when you can kill all resistance and (future
| possible) resistance and tada you have a bunch of land and can
| expand your borders.
| underdeserver wrote:
| 1200 dead including children and elderly. Useful. Are you
| serious?
| latentcall wrote:
| Yes I am serious. Obviously 1200 dead is sad. Disregarding
| the emotions, on an Israeli political level it IS useful to
| rally the country to finally handle the Palestine problem
| once and for all, which is what is happening right now.
| jowea wrote:
| The guy is the Hamas leader who was killed recently? How would
| Israel get him? Special forces raid? He could hide anywhere in
| Gaza. And why would Israel want to do a decapitation instead of
| destroying the hostile organization? Even assuming Israel
| doesn't want to annex territory that seems like expecting the
| US to react to 9/11 by sending the Navy Seals after Bin Laden
| and stop it at that.
| cwkoss wrote:
| The Gaza invasion was never about the hostages. If Israel cared
| about the hostages they wouldn't have indiscriminately bombed
| the entire territory. The hostages are dead, and demanding the
| impossible return of people they killed is simply a pretext:
|
| They want land expansion and the total ethnic cleansing of
| Palestine. Look up 'Greater Israel'. Tim Walz accidentally let
| it slip during a debate that this is the goal of the US empires
| support.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| For context, this is only possible because the state of Palestine
| pushed hard and persisted for years to become an ICC member and
| thus give the ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed on
| Palestinian territory, whether by Israel or by Palestinian
| factions. The USA is still mad at them for doing it.
|
| The full account is worth reading, it includes considerations by
| the various resistance factions that they'd also be subject to
| ICC jurisdiction and realized threats of punitive measures by the
| USA and Israel if they continued to push for ICC membership:
| https://palepedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court%27s_...
| xenospn wrote:
| Do you think the state of Palestine would arrest Hamas
| officials on behalf of the ICC?
|
| Moreover, would any Muslim country? I think this goes both
| ways.
| tdeck wrote:
| Yes. The PA is controlled by a party that staged a coup when
| Hamas won an election in Gaza and has been able to prevent
| elections since 2006.
| TeaBrain wrote:
| This doesn't serve as evidence that the PA would be willing
| to arrest Hamas members.
| vinay427 wrote:
| To be fair, the GP comment asked what one thinks about
| the possibility, and the parent comment provided some
| limited grounding. It's a bit difficult to provide
| concrete evidence for a hypothetical.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Fatah and Hamas have engaged in open combat regularly.
|
| Willingness isn't really in question. Ability to do so
| is, though.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| The PA routinely arrests Hamas members. On the daily.
| Locks them up or hands them over to Israel to lock them
| up for years. Isn't that already evidence?
| TeaBrain wrote:
| Yes, that absolutely serves as evidence. I don't think
| what was written in the comment I replied to serves as
| evidence by itself though, which is all I was pointing
| out.
| TheGuyWhoCodes wrote:
| They don't, what are you talking about? If they did
| Israeli borer police wouldn't have to go into palestinian
| town and villages arresting terrorists.
| feedforward wrote:
| The New York Times and Haaretz reported in the summer and
| autumn of last year (just prior to the current flareup),
| Netanyahu had sent the Mossad head to Qatar in order to
| convince them to send money to prop up the Hamas government
| in Gaza. As Netanyahu said publicly in 2012, he wanted Hamas
| strong and the Palestinian Authority and Fatah weak, as the
| PA was pursuing measures at the United Nations.
|
| You're pointing the finger at the State of Palestine and "any
| Muslim country", when the real supporters of Hamas for years
| has been Israel and Netanyahu.
| dlubarov wrote:
| Those were ostensibly aid funds; it's not as if Qatar was
| sending rockets. Do you think Israel should block such aid?
| criddell wrote:
| The person you are replying to didn't imply that it was
| military aid. They said it was to strengthen Hamas and
| weaken the Palestinian Authority. I have no idea if
| that's true or not, but it's a different claim than you
| are challenging.
| edanm wrote:
| > You're pointing the finger at the State of Palestine and
| "any Muslim country", when the real supporters of Hamas for
| years has been Israel and Netanyahu.
|
| You said true things before about Netanyahu propping up
| Hamas, and he certainly has a lot to answer for.
|
| But you then went way too far in this statement. The "real
| supporters" or Hamas are not the Israelis or Netanyahu.
| They existed before Netanyahu, and they're armed and funded
| to massive degrees by Iran. And while Netanyahu certainly
| had a certain symbiosis with Hamas, and used them to weaken
| the PA, Hamas is its own organization; the diversion of the
| funds that Netanyahu helped secure them to creating the
| October 7th attack was certainly not anyone's desire except
| Hamas's own.
| netsharc wrote:
| The whole "The Muslims/Muslim countries won't do X, and
| therefore why should we?" argument is funny and depressing to
| me. Why won't they do X? Because maybe in your mind you think
| they're savages/less civilized. Less, that is, compared to
| you/your community's (in whatever scale: nation, race,
| hemisphere). But if you're saying "If they don't do X, we can
| behave the same", isn't that a call for you/your community to
| abandon your civilization and embrace the "equal" savagery?
|
| How is it a winning argument? "In our eyes we're civilized
| and they're savages, and if they don't act civilized we're
| also free to abandon or civilized ways and act the way we
| condemn...".
| nujabe wrote:
| It's typical hasbara propaganda tactics, deflect, deflect
| and deflect.
| jojobas wrote:
| >Because maybe in your mind you think they're savages/less
| civilized.
|
| No, rather because they want to use the international law
| to their advantage, not to their detriment.
| culi wrote:
| Yes, the PA has stated that they would comply with the ICC
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > For context, this is only possible because the state of
| Palestine pushed hard and persisted for years to become an ICC
| member and thus give the ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed
| on Palestinian territory, whether by Israel or by Palestinian
| factions. The USA is still mad at them for doing it.
|
| That sounds biased.
|
| Why -shouldn't- Palestine be able to be a member of the ICC?
| Your verbiage makes it sounds like they basically bullied the
| ICC into membership.
|
| And frankly, so what if the US is still mad at them for it? The
| US won't join organizations like this because it'd rather
| protect people like Kissinger who openly committed war crimes
| (and wants the freedom to be able to do whatever it wants,
| wherever, without consequence).
| tsimionescu wrote:
| I think the GP intended to congratulate the Palestinians for
| their digged resilience in pursuing this, despite the
| extraordinary opposition they faced. I think they were using
| this language specifically to suggest how hard the fight was,
| not to imply that it was a bad thing.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| You are correct. But given the normal position people take
| when it comes to Palestine, I don't blame GP for
| misinterpreting! :)
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Well, I apologize for the misreading, certainly!
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > state of Palestine pushed hard and persisted for years to
| become an ICC member
|
| good for them; is there some reason they shouldn't have?
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| Absolutely not; in fact, I was commending them for it.
| idunnoman1222 wrote:
| Article is pretty light on the details of the Hamas officials. I
| wonder if they'll show up to their day in court.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| According to Israel at least, all the ones that the warrants
| were requested for are now dead. Perhaps new warrants will be
| issued, but simply taking on the mantle of Hamas leadership
| will not make someone retroactively culpable for the crimes of
| October 7th. Culpability at this level is personal, not
| collective. So even though anyone who becomes the next leader
| of Hamas will be, by this act itself, a terrible human seeking
| to advance some horrible ideals, that will not make them
| culpable for everything Hamas has already done.
| recroad wrote:
| No because dead
| giardini wrote:
| Have they issued any warrants for Hamas leaders for the 7 October
| Hamas-led attack on Israel?
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Yes, for those that are still alive, that is indeed the case.
| warrenmiller wrote:
| Yes. Read the posts
| ArnoVW wrote:
| they have, at the same time, issued a warrant for Mohammed Diab
| Ibrahim Al-Masri, who is (or was) the commander of the armed
| part of Hamas.
|
| https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p...
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| I really don't think this belongs on the front page. It is a
| highly divisive political issue with strong radicalisation at the
| edges of any discourse on it.
|
| I have my own strong opinions on it, but arguing it does not in
| my opinon belong on the front page here.
|
| There are plenty of places you can go and have this discussion in
| as heated of a version as you prefer.
| 11101010001100 wrote:
| Legal issues seem to attract plenty of attention on HN. We
| could see what sort of precedent has been set.
| carb wrote:
| I disagree. #1 this topic is not as divisive as it may seem.
| There is consensus as to what is happening and only a minority
| of the world thinks otherwise.
|
| #2 Israel is a major tech partner and most large tech companies
| have offices in Tel Aviv. Many startups that we discuss here
| are headquartered in Tel Aviv. The head of state of the country
| having an ICC arrest warrant and the situation at large have
| major consequences to the tech world and thus HackerNews users
| have a unique lens through which to have discourse. Discourse
| with an angle that you won't find elsewhere this is discussed.
| loeg wrote:
| > There is consensus as to what is happening and only a
| minority of the world thinks otherwise.
|
| Well, that's obviously false. GP is right; this topic
| produces more heat than light.
| lynndotpy wrote:
| There is a strong but not unanimous consensus that Israel
| is committing war-crimes and enforcing an apartheid state
| in the territories it occupies. There is consternation over
| whether Israel's actions constitute genocide.
|
| That said, I think it's fair to assume that people from the
| US and other Israel-allied nations are disproportionately
| represented on Hacker News. So, we should not expect the
| global consensus to be reflected here.
|
| But I think think this topic both (1) is on topic for
| HackerNews given Israel's outsized prevalence in the tech
| industry, (2) has geopolitical implications that I think
| are worth discussing.
|
| Either way, HackerNews is an outlier in terms of the
| quality of the discussion, among social media or forums
| where people will argue both for and against Israel's
| actions. While I am very much on the "against Israel's
| actions" side, I do think there is value in this
| discussion, and so I am happy this topic is here on
| HackerNews.
| underdeserver wrote:
| What is it that you believe there is consensus about?
| recroad wrote:
| It's only divisive if you support genocide. For anyone else
| it's perfectly normal to discuss.
| loeg wrote:
| The HN title says "and Hamas officials," but this appears nowhere
| in the article.
| guerrilla wrote:
| https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p...
| loeg wrote:
| That isn't the linked article.
|
| > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is
| misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
| loceng wrote:
| dang,
|
| Any strange upvote/downvote activity going on in this thread?
|
| Watching my own replies votes going up and down, makes me think
| of the "THERE WAS A FIREFIGHT!" GIF:
| https://tenor.com/search/there-was-a-fire-fight-gifs
|
| E.g. Going to 2 then down to 0, back up, back down and
| stabilizing again at 0; of course sophisticated coordinated
| activity will pace itself, even if across real users, as to not
| "waste their ammo" or be blatantly obvious; makes me wonder if
| there have been any studies analyzing this.. anywho. Back to
| life.
| cwkoss wrote:
| I'm sure that zionist 'civilians' exist within the HN
| community, but the speed at which zionists find and downvote
| critical comments really makes me wonder if there are Israeli
| state funded accounts posting here with the intent of steering
| discourse.
| 50208 wrote:
| I support these warrants.
| StriverGuy wrote:
| This does not belong on hacker news
| cwkoss wrote:
| Its interesting to me that whenever I see this sort of "off
| topic concern" comment in this thread, the poster has a history
| of pro-Zionist comments.
|
| I suspect you don't so much disagree with this topic being
| discussed, but rather are uncomfortable seeing such a large
| majority of the HN community disagree with your sentiment.
| tomohawk wrote:
| What the ICC is saying is that if you study the laws of war and
| create a strategy to hide behind those rules while putting non-
| compatants at peril, you get to win.
|
| This is what Hamas and Hezbollah have done. They have built their
| combat infrastructure inside of and underneath schools,
| hospitals, houses, etc. To say that to attack them after they do
| that is to invite prosecution is risable.
| wslh wrote:
| It is enough to check the ICC track record on Maduro [1][2] to
| laugh. It is taking too long... while the people who have direct
| and daily contact with Venezuelans [3] already know about its
| attrocities from direct witnesses.
|
| [1] https://www.dejusticia.org/en/justice-in-tension-the-role-
| of...
|
| [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_i...
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_refugee_crisis
| rixed wrote:
| As a European, I find the reactions from the US politicians as
| related in this Al-Jazeera article quite choking :
| https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/21/how-us-politicians...
|
| But maybe biased though. Anyone would have a link to some more
| nuanced statements with officials who do not sounds just like
| thugs?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-21 23:00 UTC)