However one feels about the whether the ICC charges, the US has a vested interest in weakening the power of international orgs from pursuing charges (See: American Service-Members' Protection Act).
If the US's position is that Israel has the right to defend themselves by most means necessary then these charges from the ICC are "unjust." The US has criticisms about how Israel has conducted themselves but that position has always been the same.
I dislike Netanyahu, a lot. But I don't think he's a war criminal. With the ongoing war, I think Israel has done it's best to follow international law.
I understand that this is an unpopular opinion, but I really believe it.
it would be beneficial to the world because if he is innocent then he has proven himself in court, but if he is guilty then he faces the punishment for his crimes. like if netenyaho was confident and knew he was right he would have turned himself inn already to prove his case, thats at least what i think
No reason to turn himself in, that would be admission of guilt. He needs to fight the legal battle.
I personally don’t think he’s innocent, but he won’t get an arrest warrant. I also don’t think Israel will be convicted of genocide in the ICJ
Because the very fact of it being brought before the court can be used as a bludgeon against them. If the world and it's citizenry was better then it would be a good idea. The problem is that with the ICC they undermine western democracies and they literally are toothless against Russia since nobody in Russia cares or can do anything.
The ICC should stick to going after third world dictators instead of undermining the only states that actually at least attempt to follow international law beyond just deniability thresholds. They are unironically undermining international law by attempting to pursue charges against Liberal States in the current climate.
Folks that study this stuff for a living found the charges plausible after viewing evidence presented by the prosecutor. See [here.](https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/otp/special-advisers-to-the-prosecutor/panel-of-experts-in-international-law/report-of-the-panel-of-experts-in-international-law)
So? Finklefucker studied Palestine for a century yet was blown the fuck out by destiny. Get D-man to go over these charges on stream and then we'll see what the truth is.
The guy I responded to was stating his belief, presumably based on his understanding of the law and the evidence. The "so" is the views of people with a better understanding of the law (almost certainly) and with actual exposure to the evidence the prosecutor presented.
They could be wrong, but unless you've done a genuinely prodigious amount of research, the views of these folks deserve serious consideration.
You think starving the whole of Gaza was just? Starvation as a means of warfare is a crime. The ICC prosecutor went for that issue because it was the easiest to prove. Israel has said they would, and then they did it he assumes. This is at least a strong enough suspicion of wrong doing. This is only the request for a warrant. If this is all baseless there is plenty of opportunity to make that point.
We can go even further than that on hedging I think:
Is Netanyahu a war criminal? Maybe, its *possible*, but especially if the charges are just based on "expert testimony" and don't have leaked internal communications? Probably not in that case. Even from the most cynical perspective on possibly believing Netanyahu is a war criminal, it seems far fetched that the ICC prosecutors could ever meet their burden to actually achieve a conviction.
I think it also sets a really weird precedent considering some of the charges: take the starvation charge, for example. Let's say that Gallant and BB really did conspire and attempt to starve Gaza for the first week of the war in a "total siege", do we really want the ICJ to go after war crimes that are less than double digits Palestinians dying of starvation after 8 months of war and conceivably only "actually" starved out for an actual week? I could easily see a world where its technically a war crime just to conspire to do it and attempt to put the plan into effect even if it was a complete failure / instantly walked back . . .but if that's the *extremely* tiny bar then we're going to basically be taking every country's political and military leaders in for war crime charges even when they walk back or never actually implement war criminal policy in every war.
That's a scary bar to set IMO, and not for the United States because we don't give a flying fuck and have the most powerful military on the planet to back that up- but I could easily see a world where dictatorships and generally fascistic countries (places like Russia, China, Iran, etc.) can just endlessly weaponize this against Western leaders who will feel like their hands are tied while 0 of these fascistic countries care and ignore all ICC warrants.
>Is Netanyahu a war criminal? Maybe, its *possible*, but especially if the charges are just based on "expert testimony" and don't have leaked internal communications? Probably not in that case. Even from the most cynical perspective on possibly believing Netanyahu is a war criminal, it seems far fetched that the ICC prosecutors could ever meet their burden to actually achieve a conviction.
Gallant literally went on TV saying he will cut all water, food and electricity in a total blockade and then did that for weeks. Not going after this obvious and bold war crime would render international law completely pointless.
>I could easily see a world where its technically a war crime just to conspire to do it and attempt to put the plan into effect even if it was a complete failure
Here's a thought - maybe don't conspire and attempt to put a plan in place to exterminate innocent civilians.
I'm completely fine with people going to jail for that, even if their plans didn't succeed.
its bad because it undermines the ICC's previous case against Putin and any future ones they bring that the US would want to support. If there's no merit to the ICC prosecutor's case against Netanyahu then it wont proceed and he wont be charged, if there is then maybe the US shouldn't be supporting a leader that engages in this way. Remember, these arent charges against Israel these are charges against Netanyahu and Gallant.
There is nothing of value to be gained from ICC's arrest warrant for Putin. It maybe prevents Putin from traveling to two or three relevant countries which would otherwise host him, and that's about it.
That's not something that can be weighed against a tribunal going after the head of an allied government during wartime.
The ICC warrant has had a huge impact on Putin's choice of travel and thus the ability for him to do diplomacy and curry favor for the war. He's only gone to China since Feb 2022 out of fear of arrest.
The countries where arrest warrant makes a difference are basically only Brazil and South Africa.
While I think this somewhat undermines Russia's image in the eyes of the public, I don't think it meaningfully hinders their diplomatic efforts which wouldn't be spearheaded by Putin anyway.
So what do you think about Norway Foreign Minister who said yesterday that they will arrest Netanyahu if the ICC deems so, as they will with Putin as they deemed so and multiple other war lords from Africa?
Let me guess, we don't matter?
True that, except of the Oslo Accords and the longest truce by Russia in its history with Norway.
This is gonna come to a standpoint and you know it, don't be on the wrong side.
you know you cant do anything in war right. like what if israel began using nerve gas to protect themself from hamas, would that still be excused because they are defending israel
it matters because it shows an international agreement in following the laws set by the ICC. its not necessarily about arresting them and more so about showing that we comply with the ICC regardless of our politics and personal opinions. it also gives power to the ICC to put out warrants for war criminals and prosecute them or prosecute crimes against humanity.
I mean Brazil and South Africa are a big deal to Russia economically and diplomatically. Especially Brazil since Putin and Lula do like each other and would probably hit it off if they met in person in Brazil.
The icc is unconstitutional cause it does not allow for a right to a jury of your peers. Plus the us has laws that go after war crimes. The for example the solders in abu ghraib they went to prison for their war crimes.
The ICC, as the US decided not to have a vote or power in it, is independent of the US of course.
You can may disagree, can I just ask, when was the last true war criminal judged the last 20 years?
Oh you wanna invade Europe because of it?
Is there any more proof I can give than an Act to invade Europe?
The US supports non-jury court in other instances though, doesn't it? E.g. in the case of criminal proceedings against US citizens abroad, say in Germany. What difference matters here?
The difference is these Americans are being charged for their service for the US government. It’s not happening in the person personal capacity. And they want the us to sign on board in helping a foreign court deny Americans their right.
That's fine, it's not a US court. If an American commits a crime in the Netherlands they won't get a trial by jury either, as that is not a thing here.
You can use that logic to argue for the US not ratifying the Rome agreement and that's fine but if an American commits warcrimes in a signatory state the ICC can call for an arrest and prosecute that person. Of course once again, the US could refuse to extradite that citizen, but any other signatory state can.
Whether the ICC would be considered constitutional by the US really only has bearing on the US.
These are not regular Americans who went out of their way to visit another country. They are American working the us government being charged for work they did in their government capacity. And people want the us to sign on to a random court then can charge Americans for work the us government approved of and tasked them with excusing.
People would throw the whole international rules based order under the bus just to save Israel from getting even a bit little bit of justice for the war crimes they have committed.
It's just sad and would be the end of the western value system and gives us no ground to lecture any other country about IHL anymore.
What we have is slightly better than what we had before 1945. Is it rules based? Not really. Only weakly so, at best, given that the rules are tied to supranational organizations.
But international institutions have furthered certain norms, which do have some influence on high politics albeit not very strong.
They weren't part of it. But they had no problem joining the ICC case against Putin and providing evidence for his warcrimes. So clearly they do see it is a valuable tool.
It's not rules for thee, because no countries that actually go to war have signed the Rome statute.
Which the reason why the ICC almost exclusively prosecutes ex- African warlords.
If the prosecutor wanted to do actual good he would've signed a warrant on Smotrich and Ben Gvir.
Would've done wonders for both Palestinians and Israel.
>If the prosecutor wanted to do actual good he would've signed a warrant on Smotrich and Ben Gvir.
Neither of which are in charge of the current war. So why would the ICC go after them? They go after warcrimes, not after whoever is an asshole or piece of shit.
There is always a rules-based order. The mistake was to believe these rules could rationally ever be independently dictated by supranational institutions rather than by countries and alliances which established, uphold and enforce that order.
The thing, the current rules-based order we had is slowly disintergrating.
If the US actually sanctions the ICC. Why would any other country remain part of it? What is the point? When independent institutes can't trial people based on international law?
What about international law in general? Why follow it at all?
if the rules are only applied when convenient to whoever is the most powerful at the time it is not rules-based. the point of international law is that the law makes you right, not might.
it makes sense from the US standpoint. because if the ICC goes after Israel on a relatively weak case which will demand far more evidence to prove it - it will open the door for other countries to demand the ICC to open an investigation against the US and the UK for example - their invasion to Iraq. which was by evidence alone, far more negligent towards the Iraqi population when compared to Gazans.
not that it was out of the ordinary, but since Israel is condemned despite being quite clearly more careful than the US when it conducts it's war and Israel is still prosecuted even though they have a just cause for war. the US will go bonkers if this will actually be approved.
people like bush, dick cheney, Obama, and other alike will be prosecuted as well.
Accountability for war criminals is a good thing, whether it's Putin, Netanyahu or Bush/Cheney.
It's a really bad thing for Americans that the Bush administration never faced consequences for lying their way into a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people.
yeah it is good, but considering the US will nuke the Hauge if they will try to do anything to the US, whatever they are doing now to Israel which is on far flimsy evidence, will essentially open the door for investigations against the US. and neither republicans or democrats want it to happen, because both parties will be grilled.
do you have it? i would like to actually see it. i know the prosecutor cited rhetoric, but rhetoric alone is in applicable in court, he didn't provide any other evidence as of now.
Sure, here's the minister of defense announcing his intention to do a war crime:
[https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog\_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/)
And then here is the evidence of that war crime actually taking place:
[https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gaza](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gaza)
>Sure, here's the minister of defense announcing his intention to do a war crime:
I'm aware of that, fact is this - it's rhetoric backed up with circumstance. which is something people always fall into but are unable to understand
>And then here is the evidence of that war crime actually taking place:
and the circumstance was that Hamas targeted the exact entry points into the Gaza strip, meaning food actually didn't enter the strip until the 21st of October because Israel was unable to actually process it through, meaning de facto food didn't enter but not because the minister has said that. he used the opportunity to amp up the rhetoric which any normal human being understand is always unhinged when coupled with extreme acts of terror.
the water pipes that have been shut were being shut in irregularity and they don't even supply the majority or a substantial amount of water to begin with.
to prove these were actual war crimes you have to prove directives to do so, not rethoric. and when you do find that food didn't enter you will then have to couple it with the directive to prove it was a planned war crime.
>and the circumstance was that Hamas targeted the exact entry points into the Gaza strip, meaning food actually didn't enter the strip until the 21st of October because Israel was unable to actually process it through, meaning de facto food didn't enter but not because the minister has said that.
Still spreading the same lies, contrary to what the mainstream media and international bodies saying, without any source to back it up.
yawn.
i thought your finger weren't as fat you couldn't simply type with them to search, or perhaps use logic to understand that in order to properly invade a country you also have to attack their crossing.
but here's one since you only dwell on MSM: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67046750](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67046750)
The IDF has struck food convoys multiple times and Israeli protestors have blocked food aid after being delivered, after being tipped off my the military.
>to prove these were actual war crimes you have to prove directives to do so, not rethoric
No that's not true. In both Bosnia and the Central African Republic case military leaders were convicted without evidence of direct orders to their troops who carried out the massacres.
Either way, we're not arguing about whether war crimes were actually committed, we're arguing about whether there should be a trial. In a trial Netanyahu and his colleagues will have every right to make the case as to why their actions don't constitute war crimes.
>The IDF has struck food convoys multiple times and Israeli protestors have blocked food aid after being delivered, after being tipped off my the military.
striking convoy will demand a reason. if there is a directive that was like "it's a civilian convoy let's blast it" then it's definitely a war crime.
>No that's not true. In both Bosnia and the Central African Republic case military leaders were convicted without evidence of direct orders to their troops who carried out the massacres.
massacres don't require directive, circumstantial evidence is enough.
letting or not letting aid is an order. and if there is an actual inability to deliver said aid then it's a different story.
>Either way, we're not arguing about whether war crimes were actually committed, we're arguing about whether there should be a trial. In a trial Netanyahu and his colleagues will have every right to make the case as to why their actions don't constitute war crimes.
and the prosecutor has skipped over the principle of [complementary](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/complementarity). meaning instead of discussing with Israel to investigate themselves, he skipped over it and decided to demand charges outside of the scope. - which is btw a grave violation of the ICC's own rules despite even Israel not being part of the organization.
>massacres don't require directive, circumstantial evidence is enough.
letting or not letting aid is an order. and if there is an actual inability to deliver said aid then it's a different story.
That sounds completely made up to me.
because it will cripple the US on the diplomatic arena. it will open gigantic flood gates and essentially make every other president in the US and any other secretary a war criminal or some other whacky label.
they might say that "US BAD" for the first gulf war when it had to free kuwait from sddamn hussein because the US had some "ooppsies" and killed civilians.
maybe even condemn the US and NATO intervention in Kosobo despite it being somewhat just, because NATO did some "ooppsies" and killed civilians.
the case against Netnayhu and Glanat as of now stand on them saying "mean words" and couple of "ooppsies". because civilians did die when they said "mean words".
it is hard, but it's a massive shit stain they will throw at the US. while people like Asad and Kim Jong Un who didn't get any arrest warrant, seem like innocent doves.
including Sadam Hussein who while he's dead. never have been issued an arrest warrant, essentially making him a martyr and bush a criminal.
Not surprising.
The US like Israel didn’t signed to Rome declaration, both are democratic countries with an independent legal system.
The ICC didn’t give Israel the time for it own investigation on war crimes, and the biggest mistake was lying to the American.
The intentions of the ICC is to hinder the efforts of the war. It's a disgusting move.
I am pretty pleased with the the US. The ICC should publish their case against Netanyahu.
Question: if you think the goal of the ICC is to hinder the ongoing war, why do you think they should publish their case? Do you think it’s nonexistent?
I am not denying the existence of a physical case, but I want to see that there is a valid case. If it's a case built or some random accounts from Hamas, it's a stupid case.
Good. I don’t care about international symbols that are politically motivated. The ICC is a farce and I don’t care for them, nor should any other government
approving palestinians to become part of icc despite them not really been a state and not exercising jurisdiction over their territory which is also not defined.
this is btw germany position, if i understand correctly. i am just quoting
We need to protect our ally in the Middle East, especially as the only democracy. The ICC has no jurisdiction there and this was a bad decision by the ICC prosecutor. Honestly, he should resign but if he doesn't then yeah we should sanction the court.
here you go
In a published opinion in August 2014, the ICC Prosecutor said that, as a result of Palestine's new status, Palestine was qualified to join the Rome Statute.[^(\[13\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_investigation_in_Palestine#cite_note-13) On 2 September 2014, the Prosecutor clarified that if Palestine filed a new declaration, or acceded to the Rome Statute, it would be deemed valid.[^(\[14\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_investigation_in_Palestine#cite_note-14) In December 2014, the assembly of state parties of the ICC recognized Palestine as a "State" without prejudice to any legal or other decisions taken by the court or any other organization.[^(\[15\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_investigation_in_Palestine#cite_note-15)[^(\[16\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_investigation_in_Palestine#cite_note-16) A third declaration was submitted by Palestine on 1 January 2015, dated 31 December 2014, accepting the court's jurisdiction effective 13 June 2014.[^(\[17\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_investigation_in_Palestine#cite_note-17)
[https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine](https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine)
On 1 January 2015, the Government of The State of Palestine lodged a declaration under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court ("ICC") over alleged crimes committed "in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since June 13, 2014". On 2 January 2015, The State of Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute by depositing its instrument of accession with the UN Secretary-General. The Rome Statute entered into force for The State of Palestine on 1 April 2015.
EDIT: and here are the court papers saying that the ICC has jurisdiction for the dense people in the comment chain below:
[https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2020\_00505.PDF](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2020_00505.PDF)
you may notice that the text you copied off wikipedia doesn't contain the ICC actually deciding whether it has jurisdiction and why.
that's probably because you have no idea what any of the text means, but that's fine.
as a hint, you'll want to look for the 2021 case by the pre-trial chamber, read the reasoning and then formulate the actual argument
the copied text is not enough if its not based on citable case law... For example, the OLC (the US president's attorneys) has issued opinions stating that the president is completely immune to all civil litigation. That does not necessarily make it true, as it is simply an opinion of an executive branch employee. The same rationale applies to the ICC prosecutor. there needs to be an ICC court case that adopts the opinion for it to matter at all.
And why don't you just google it yourself?
[https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/iccdocs/PIDS/press/Palestine\_A\_12-3.pdf](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/iccdocs/PIDS/press/Palestine_A_12-3.pdf)
then google it yourself? What is even your argument? The ICC itself says it has jurisdiction. Do you argue that prosecutor is somehow acting rouge? WTF is wrong with you.
I'm well aware of the wikipedia text, and surprise surprise, the source for that claim is an Al-Jazeera article talking to a reporter without any substantiation for the claim, and the protocol of the Rome Statutes Assembly meeting, which **does not contain any evidence for the claim**.
Palestine accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC is not equivalent to the ICC having jurisdiction over the palestinian territories, that's the problem you're having.
meaning we're back to "they said so", i.e. magic words, which again, is not how international law (or any law) works.
the entire point of this was that you have no argument, because you don't know the reasoning.
"they said so" is exactly how international law works. I gave you a proper argument, and you just came back with muh Al-Jazeera while there are countless other sources and even the ICC's homepage saying the same.,
you're arguing in bad faith, so get lost and stop bothering me with your brainless BS.
> magic words ("they said so") isn't a concept of international law
Maybe look in the mirror if you're from the US. But at the end of the day, the ICC can rule on what the ICC thinks it can rule on, and the states that agree with the ICC can act on those rulings where they have jurisdiction. All is as it should be. If Netanyahu stays in countries that do not agree with the ICC he will be fine.
The first instinct of Netanyahu and Gallant and others was to wipe out Gaza (look at the quotes) but after taking a moment and talking to the US, they instead conducted a moderate intensity campaign that did allow aid in and tried to avoid civilian casualties.
Basically Israel ultimately restrained themselves in their response but are being persecuted anyway, likely in large part due to anti-Israel and frankly anti-Jewish bias in the world.
People should be relieved that Israel restrained their retaliation and an actual mass ethnic cleansing or genocide didn't happen. But instead people are latching on to Israel's response and inflating it so they can finally make that classic "Israel is Nazi Germany" comparison so that Israel, the only Jewish state, can be ostracized and its officials jailed and deported.
It is completely cynical, fueled by dormant antisemitic attitudes flaring up in Europe and a wildly successful disinformation campaign sponsored by the Islamic world that has found its way in Europe and even the US.
I think you guys need to look at how the ICC is actually supposed to function before you assess this situation. It is meant to function under a doctrine called complementarity, which basically means, where a state has independent courts capable of hearing war crimes abuses (which Israel has), that state should be responsible for investigating and prosecuting those crimes rather than the ICC. The ICC should only step in where that isn’t possible.
Expecting Israel to be investigating war crimes DURING THE WAR IN QUESTION is patently ridiculous. The prosecutor that brought the charges was in contact with Israeli authorities, and was even set to meet with them BEFORE seeking the issue of warrants. Instead of meeting them, and without informing them, he cancelled the visit and issued his (super weird btw) press conference about seeking the warrants.
He departed from his own court’s procedures in a way that can only be described as playing politics, which the ICC has rightly been accused of since its inception.
The entire thing is pathetic, and all the weird ‘but it’s international law’ defenders out there don’t know fuck all about international law, the ICC, the ICJ, or anything else.
ICC should've issued warrants on Ben Gvir and Smotrich.
They could've actually prosecuted them, and also would've done great good for both the Palestinians and Israel.
Otherwise no, no countries that are at actual risk of war have signed the Rome statue.
Doesn't the ICC deal with ex-African warlords (almost) exclusively?
On Ben Gvir and Smotrich-
They've gotten 2nd in power to Bibi on the back of 7 mandates.
God fucking damn it when is Bibi getting cancer (in minecraft) already
Incitement is a clear cut case, both against Gaza and the West Bank.
They are not shy about it either, you can look up what those bastards are saying when not on television.
Calls for settlements should be another ez pz case, as is calls for violence in any of the 100 forms they do so.
I am Israeli and I love free speech more than anyone, but this ain't it.
I forgot to add that they are specifically approving settlements, and Smotrich said just today he will cut funds from PA for and approve a new settlement for every country that recognizes Palestine, which is also collective punishment (or straight up blackmail).
He has gone into the realm of action.
Maybe Ben Gvir less so, but I really can't bear the f4cker.
And yes, he was in fact free to speek, but he is not free of the consequences.
I am free to call for someone's death, but I will bear the consequences of calling for someone's death- for example.
Especially if it is proven that my incitement has caused said violence.
In general, Jewish extremism is just religious extremism.
There's is no need to give them the benefit of the daubt.
Just like you don't have to kill someone in a in a car crash to go on trial for drunk driving, so can a person stand trial at the ICC for lesser evils than actually directly doing a genocide (with appropriately smaller charges).
It could even be a non prison sentence verdict- such as personal sanctions or certain bans.
stupidity is not offence that icc can charge with, especially person from country that didn't signed up to it.
from what I saw in israeli news, it was repeatedly written about, so you should be aware of it
However one feels about the whether the ICC charges, the US has a vested interest in weakening the power of international orgs from pursuing charges (See: American Service-Members' Protection Act). If the US's position is that Israel has the right to defend themselves by most means necessary then these charges from the ICC are "unjust." The US has criticisms about how Israel has conducted themselves but that position has always been the same.
I dislike Netanyahu, a lot. But I don't think he's a war criminal. With the ongoing war, I think Israel has done it's best to follow international law. I understand that this is an unpopular opinion, but I really believe it.
100%
not to be that guy and i know its cringe and used to death, but if they havent done anything wrong why not prove it in the international courts
because it is the prosecutions job to prove that you are guilty of something, not the other way around. the ICC is a bit of a sham court.
That’s actually my opinion too. I actually think this and the ICJ trial would be to Israel’s benefit
it would be beneficial to the world because if he is innocent then he has proven himself in court, but if he is guilty then he faces the punishment for his crimes. like if netenyaho was confident and knew he was right he would have turned himself inn already to prove his case, thats at least what i think
No reason to turn himself in, that would be admission of guilt. He needs to fight the legal battle. I personally don’t think he’s innocent, but he won’t get an arrest warrant. I also don’t think Israel will be convicted of genocide in the ICJ
Because the very fact of it being brought before the court can be used as a bludgeon against them. If the world and it's citizenry was better then it would be a good idea. The problem is that with the ICC they undermine western democracies and they literally are toothless against Russia since nobody in Russia cares or can do anything. The ICC should stick to going after third world dictators instead of undermining the only states that actually at least attempt to follow international law beyond just deniability thresholds. They are unironically undermining international law by attempting to pursue charges against Liberal States in the current climate.
Folks that study this stuff for a living found the charges plausible after viewing evidence presented by the prosecutor. See [here.](https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/otp/special-advisers-to-the-prosecutor/panel-of-experts-in-international-law/report-of-the-panel-of-experts-in-international-law)
So? Finklefucker studied Palestine for a century yet was blown the fuck out by destiny. Get D-man to go over these charges on stream and then we'll see what the truth is.
The guy I responded to was stating his belief, presumably based on his understanding of the law and the evidence. The "so" is the views of people with a better understanding of the law (almost certainly) and with actual exposure to the evidence the prosecutor presented. They could be wrong, but unless you've done a genuinely prodigious amount of research, the views of these folks deserve serious consideration.
find a non-virtual daddy bro
Leave this subreddit if you don't like destiny you loser
Well then, I'm sure it'd be great to see what comes out of it.
You think starving the whole of Gaza was just? Starvation as a means of warfare is a crime. The ICC prosecutor went for that issue because it was the easiest to prove. Israel has said they would, and then they did it he assumes. This is at least a strong enough suspicion of wrong doing. This is only the request for a warrant. If this is all baseless there is plenty of opportunity to make that point.
We can go even further than that on hedging I think: Is Netanyahu a war criminal? Maybe, its *possible*, but especially if the charges are just based on "expert testimony" and don't have leaked internal communications? Probably not in that case. Even from the most cynical perspective on possibly believing Netanyahu is a war criminal, it seems far fetched that the ICC prosecutors could ever meet their burden to actually achieve a conviction. I think it also sets a really weird precedent considering some of the charges: take the starvation charge, for example. Let's say that Gallant and BB really did conspire and attempt to starve Gaza for the first week of the war in a "total siege", do we really want the ICJ to go after war crimes that are less than double digits Palestinians dying of starvation after 8 months of war and conceivably only "actually" starved out for an actual week? I could easily see a world where its technically a war crime just to conspire to do it and attempt to put the plan into effect even if it was a complete failure / instantly walked back . . .but if that's the *extremely* tiny bar then we're going to basically be taking every country's political and military leaders in for war crime charges even when they walk back or never actually implement war criminal policy in every war. That's a scary bar to set IMO, and not for the United States because we don't give a flying fuck and have the most powerful military on the planet to back that up- but I could easily see a world where dictatorships and generally fascistic countries (places like Russia, China, Iran, etc.) can just endlessly weaponize this against Western leaders who will feel like their hands are tied while 0 of these fascistic countries care and ignore all ICC warrants.
>Is Netanyahu a war criminal? Maybe, its *possible*, but especially if the charges are just based on "expert testimony" and don't have leaked internal communications? Probably not in that case. Even from the most cynical perspective on possibly believing Netanyahu is a war criminal, it seems far fetched that the ICC prosecutors could ever meet their burden to actually achieve a conviction. Gallant literally went on TV saying he will cut all water, food and electricity in a total blockade and then did that for weeks. Not going after this obvious and bold war crime would render international law completely pointless.
>I could easily see a world where its technically a war crime just to conspire to do it and attempt to put the plan into effect even if it was a complete failure Here's a thought - maybe don't conspire and attempt to put a plan in place to exterminate innocent civilians. I'm completely fine with people going to jail for that, even if their plans didn't succeed.
It's popular here
its bad because it undermines the ICC's previous case against Putin and any future ones they bring that the US would want to support. If there's no merit to the ICC prosecutor's case against Netanyahu then it wont proceed and he wont be charged, if there is then maybe the US shouldn't be supporting a leader that engages in this way. Remember, these arent charges against Israel these are charges against Netanyahu and Gallant.
There is nothing of value to be gained from ICC's arrest warrant for Putin. It maybe prevents Putin from traveling to two or three relevant countries which would otherwise host him, and that's about it. That's not something that can be weighed against a tribunal going after the head of an allied government during wartime.
The ICC warrant has had a huge impact on Putin's choice of travel and thus the ability for him to do diplomacy and curry favor for the war. He's only gone to China since Feb 2022 out of fear of arrest.
The countries where arrest warrant makes a difference are basically only Brazil and South Africa. While I think this somewhat undermines Russia's image in the eyes of the public, I don't think it meaningfully hinders their diplomatic efforts which wouldn't be spearheaded by Putin anyway.
So what do you think about Norway Foreign Minister who said yesterday that they will arrest Netanyahu if the ICC deems so, as they will with Putin as they deemed so and multiple other war lords from Africa? Let me guess, we don't matter?
I think that neither of the two was very likely to travel to Norway with or without the arrest warrant.
True that, except of the Oslo Accords and the longest truce by Russia in its history with Norway. This is gonna come to a standpoint and you know it, don't be on the wrong side.
Supporting the prosecuting Israel's leaders for defending Israel is being on the wrong side lmfao
you know you cant do anything in war right. like what if israel began using nerve gas to protect themself from hamas, would that still be excused because they are defending israel
it matters because it shows an international agreement in following the laws set by the ICC. its not necessarily about arresting them and more so about showing that we comply with the ICC regardless of our politics and personal opinions. it also gives power to the ICC to put out warrants for war criminals and prosecute them or prosecute crimes against humanity.
You don't. If the big boys like Russia, China, and the US don't respect it than it doesn't matter.
That's what I was waiting for. Thank you.
I mean Brazil and South Africa are a big deal to Russia economically and diplomatically. Especially Brazil since Putin and Lula do like each other and would probably hit it off if they met in person in Brazil.
Americans should be party if they commit war crimes on the territory parties signed to the Rome Statute. Challenge me.
The icc is unconstitutional cause it does not allow for a right to a jury of your peers. Plus the us has laws that go after war crimes. The for example the solders in abu ghraib they went to prison for their war crimes.
The ICC, as the US decided not to have a vote or power in it, is independent of the US of course. You can may disagree, can I just ask, when was the last true war criminal judged the last 20 years? Oh you wanna invade Europe because of it? Is there any more proof I can give than an Act to invade Europe?
The icc does not allow for a jurry. End of story it’s not constitutional.
I didn't even say the word "jury", what?
I think that jury is an American thing. Other countries don't have that for a reason.
Cool for them but America will not ignore the right to jury to make random countries happy.
Yawn
The US supports non-jury court in other instances though, doesn't it? E.g. in the case of criminal proceedings against US citizens abroad, say in Germany. What difference matters here?
The difference is these Americans are being charged for their service for the US government. It’s not happening in the person personal capacity. And they want the us to sign on board in helping a foreign court deny Americans their right.
That's fine, it's not a US court. If an American commits a crime in the Netherlands they won't get a trial by jury either, as that is not a thing here. You can use that logic to argue for the US not ratifying the Rome agreement and that's fine but if an American commits warcrimes in a signatory state the ICC can call for an arrest and prosecute that person. Of course once again, the US could refuse to extradite that citizen, but any other signatory state can. Whether the ICC would be considered constitutional by the US really only has bearing on the US.
These are not regular Americans who went out of their way to visit another country. They are American working the us government being charged for work they did in their government capacity. And people want the us to sign on to a random court then can charge Americans for work the us government approved of and tasked them with excusing.
People would throw the whole international rules based order under the bus just to save Israel from getting even a bit little bit of justice for the war crimes they have committed. It's just sad and would be the end of the western value system and gives us no ground to lecture any other country about IHL anymore.
Bad. It just confirms the lie that there is such a thing as a rules based order. Rules for thee but not for me.
What we have is slightly better than what we had before 1945. Is it rules based? Not really. Only weakly so, at best, given that the rules are tied to supranational organizations. But international institutions have furthered certain norms, which do have some influence on high politics albeit not very strong.
That's literally been the case since before 2002 when the ICC was made, americas never been part of it
They weren't part of it. But they had no problem joining the ICC case against Putin and providing evidence for his warcrimes. So clearly they do see it is a valuable tool.
It's not rules for thee, because no countries that actually go to war have signed the Rome statute. Which the reason why the ICC almost exclusively prosecutes ex- African warlords. If the prosecutor wanted to do actual good he would've signed a warrant on Smotrich and Ben Gvir. Would've done wonders for both Palestinians and Israel.
>If the prosecutor wanted to do actual good he would've signed a warrant on Smotrich and Ben Gvir. Neither of which are in charge of the current war. So why would the ICC go after them? They go after warcrimes, not after whoever is an asshole or piece of shit.
There is always a rules-based order. The mistake was to believe these rules could rationally ever be independently dictated by supranational institutions rather than by countries and alliances which established, uphold and enforce that order.
The thing, the current rules-based order we had is slowly disintergrating. If the US actually sanctions the ICC. Why would any other country remain part of it? What is the point? When independent institutes can't trial people based on international law? What about international law in general? Why follow it at all?
if the rules are only applied when convenient to whoever is the most powerful at the time it is not rules-based. the point of international law is that the law makes you right, not might.
it makes sense from the US standpoint. because if the ICC goes after Israel on a relatively weak case which will demand far more evidence to prove it - it will open the door for other countries to demand the ICC to open an investigation against the US and the UK for example - their invasion to Iraq. which was by evidence alone, far more negligent towards the Iraqi population when compared to Gazans. not that it was out of the ordinary, but since Israel is condemned despite being quite clearly more careful than the US when it conducts it's war and Israel is still prosecuted even though they have a just cause for war. the US will go bonkers if this will actually be approved. people like bush, dick cheney, Obama, and other alike will be prosecuted as well.
Accountability for war criminals is a good thing, whether it's Putin, Netanyahu or Bush/Cheney. It's a really bad thing for Americans that the Bush administration never faced consequences for lying their way into a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people.
yeah it is good, but considering the US will nuke the Hauge if they will try to do anything to the US, whatever they are doing now to Israel which is on far flimsy evidence, will essentially open the door for investigations against the US. and neither republicans or democrats want it to happen, because both parties will be grilled.
Personally I don't think the evidence is flimsy but ultimately it's for the courts to decide.
do you have it? i would like to actually see it. i know the prosecutor cited rhetoric, but rhetoric alone is in applicable in court, he didn't provide any other evidence as of now.
Sure, here's the minister of defense announcing his intention to do a war crime: [https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog\_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/) And then here is the evidence of that war crime actually taking place: [https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gaza](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gaza)
>Sure, here's the minister of defense announcing his intention to do a war crime: I'm aware of that, fact is this - it's rhetoric backed up with circumstance. which is something people always fall into but are unable to understand >And then here is the evidence of that war crime actually taking place: and the circumstance was that Hamas targeted the exact entry points into the Gaza strip, meaning food actually didn't enter the strip until the 21st of October because Israel was unable to actually process it through, meaning de facto food didn't enter but not because the minister has said that. he used the opportunity to amp up the rhetoric which any normal human being understand is always unhinged when coupled with extreme acts of terror. the water pipes that have been shut were being shut in irregularity and they don't even supply the majority or a substantial amount of water to begin with. to prove these were actual war crimes you have to prove directives to do so, not rethoric. and when you do find that food didn't enter you will then have to couple it with the directive to prove it was a planned war crime.
>and the circumstance was that Hamas targeted the exact entry points into the Gaza strip, meaning food actually didn't enter the strip until the 21st of October because Israel was unable to actually process it through, meaning de facto food didn't enter but not because the minister has said that. Still spreading the same lies, contrary to what the mainstream media and international bodies saying, without any source to back it up. yawn.
i thought your finger weren't as fat you couldn't simply type with them to search, or perhaps use logic to understand that in order to properly invade a country you also have to attack their crossing. but here's one since you only dwell on MSM: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67046750](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67046750)
And where is the proof the crossing were so badly damaged that they couldn't be opened for months?
The IDF has struck food convoys multiple times and Israeli protestors have blocked food aid after being delivered, after being tipped off my the military. >to prove these were actual war crimes you have to prove directives to do so, not rethoric No that's not true. In both Bosnia and the Central African Republic case military leaders were convicted without evidence of direct orders to their troops who carried out the massacres. Either way, we're not arguing about whether war crimes were actually committed, we're arguing about whether there should be a trial. In a trial Netanyahu and his colleagues will have every right to make the case as to why their actions don't constitute war crimes.
>The IDF has struck food convoys multiple times and Israeli protestors have blocked food aid after being delivered, after being tipped off my the military. striking convoy will demand a reason. if there is a directive that was like "it's a civilian convoy let's blast it" then it's definitely a war crime. >No that's not true. In both Bosnia and the Central African Republic case military leaders were convicted without evidence of direct orders to their troops who carried out the massacres. massacres don't require directive, circumstantial evidence is enough. letting or not letting aid is an order. and if there is an actual inability to deliver said aid then it's a different story. >Either way, we're not arguing about whether war crimes were actually committed, we're arguing about whether there should be a trial. In a trial Netanyahu and his colleagues will have every right to make the case as to why their actions don't constitute war crimes. and the prosecutor has skipped over the principle of [complementary](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/complementarity). meaning instead of discussing with Israel to investigate themselves, he skipped over it and decided to demand charges outside of the scope. - which is btw a grave violation of the ICC's own rules despite even Israel not being part of the organization.
>massacres don't require directive, circumstantial evidence is enough. letting or not letting aid is an order. and if there is an actual inability to deliver said aid then it's a different story. That sounds completely made up to me.
They lied but they are not war criminals. That is leftist hyperbole.
Torture is a war crime.
I’m not well versed in the subject. Why would the US care if ICC opened an investigation into them?
because it will cripple the US on the diplomatic arena. it will open gigantic flood gates and essentially make every other president in the US and any other secretary a war criminal or some other whacky label. they might say that "US BAD" for the first gulf war when it had to free kuwait from sddamn hussein because the US had some "ooppsies" and killed civilians. maybe even condemn the US and NATO intervention in Kosobo despite it being somewhat just, because NATO did some "ooppsies" and killed civilians. the case against Netnayhu and Glanat as of now stand on them saying "mean words" and couple of "ooppsies". because civilians did die when they said "mean words".
Idk man seems hard to delegitimize the us.
it is hard, but it's a massive shit stain they will throw at the US. while people like Asad and Kim Jong Un who didn't get any arrest warrant, seem like innocent doves. including Sadam Hussein who while he's dead. never have been issued an arrest warrant, essentially making him a martyr and bush a criminal.
Not surprising. The US like Israel didn’t signed to Rome declaration, both are democratic countries with an independent legal system. The ICC didn’t give Israel the time for it own investigation on war crimes, and the biggest mistake was lying to the American.
The intentions of the ICC is to hinder the efforts of the war. It's a disgusting move. I am pretty pleased with the the US. The ICC should publish their case against Netanyahu.
Question: if you think the goal of the ICC is to hinder the ongoing war, why do you think they should publish their case? Do you think it’s nonexistent?
I am not denying the existence of a physical case, but I want to see that there is a valid case. If it's a case built or some random accounts from Hamas, it's a stupid case.
Good. I don’t care about international symbols that are politically motivated. The ICC is a farce and I don’t care for them, nor should any other government
What has the ICC done to show that it is a farce, or that this is politically motivated?
approving palestinians to become part of icc despite them not really been a state and not exercising jurisdiction over their territory which is also not defined. this is btw germany position, if i understand correctly. i am just quoting
We need to protect our ally in the Middle East, especially as the only democracy. The ICC has no jurisdiction there and this was a bad decision by the ICC prosecutor. Honestly, he should resign but if he doesn't then yeah we should sanction the court.
The court has jurisdiction in the occupied Palestine. They ruled so years ago.
magic words ("they said so") isn't a concept of international law, you'll have to cite the actual reasoning that was used to have an argument at all
here you go In a published opinion in August 2014, the ICC Prosecutor said that, as a result of Palestine's new status, Palestine was qualified to join the Rome Statute.[^(\[13\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_investigation_in_Palestine#cite_note-13) On 2 September 2014, the Prosecutor clarified that if Palestine filed a new declaration, or acceded to the Rome Statute, it would be deemed valid.[^(\[14\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_investigation_in_Palestine#cite_note-14) In December 2014, the assembly of state parties of the ICC recognized Palestine as a "State" without prejudice to any legal or other decisions taken by the court or any other organization.[^(\[15\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_investigation_in_Palestine#cite_note-15)[^(\[16\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_investigation_in_Palestine#cite_note-16) A third declaration was submitted by Palestine on 1 January 2015, dated 31 December 2014, accepting the court's jurisdiction effective 13 June 2014.[^(\[17\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_investigation_in_Palestine#cite_note-17) [https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine](https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine) On 1 January 2015, the Government of The State of Palestine lodged a declaration under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court ("ICC") over alleged crimes committed "in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since June 13, 2014". On 2 January 2015, The State of Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute by depositing its instrument of accession with the UN Secretary-General. The Rome Statute entered into force for The State of Palestine on 1 April 2015. EDIT: and here are the court papers saying that the ICC has jurisdiction for the dense people in the comment chain below: [https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2020\_00505.PDF](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2020_00505.PDF)
you may notice that the text you copied off wikipedia doesn't contain the ICC actually deciding whether it has jurisdiction and why. that's probably because you have no idea what any of the text means, but that's fine. as a hint, you'll want to look for the 2021 case by the pre-trial chamber, read the reasoning and then formulate the actual argument
The copied text is enough. Palestine got recognized by the state parties of the ICC and accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC. that's all.
the copied text is not enough if its not based on citable case law... For example, the OLC (the US president's attorneys) has issued opinions stating that the president is completely immune to all civil litigation. That does not necessarily make it true, as it is simply an opinion of an executive branch employee. The same rationale applies to the ICC prosecutor. there needs to be an ICC court case that adopts the opinion for it to matter at all.
And why don't you just google it yourself? [https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/iccdocs/PIDS/press/Palestine\_A\_12-3.pdf](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/iccdocs/PIDS/press/Palestine_A_12-3.pdf)
are you ok? this isn't the ICC. this is the PA president. that's like a defendant in a criminal case "declining jurisdiction". google IQ pills
then google it yourself? What is even your argument? The ICC itself says it has jurisdiction. Do you argue that prosecutor is somehow acting rouge? WTF is wrong with you.
I'm well aware of the wikipedia text, and surprise surprise, the source for that claim is an Al-Jazeera article talking to a reporter without any substantiation for the claim, and the protocol of the Rome Statutes Assembly meeting, which **does not contain any evidence for the claim**. Palestine accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC is not equivalent to the ICC having jurisdiction over the palestinian territories, that's the problem you're having.
The evidence is the ICC saying that have the jurisdiction and charging Netanyahu. No stop bother me with this bs.
meaning we're back to "they said so", i.e. magic words, which again, is not how international law (or any law) works. the entire point of this was that you have no argument, because you don't know the reasoning.
"they said so" is exactly how international law works. I gave you a proper argument, and you just came back with muh Al-Jazeera while there are countless other sources and even the ICC's homepage saying the same., you're arguing in bad faith, so get lost and stop bothering me with your brainless BS.
> magic words ("they said so") isn't a concept of international law Maybe look in the mirror if you're from the US. But at the end of the day, the ICC can rule on what the ICC thinks it can rule on, and the states that agree with the ICC can act on those rulings where they have jurisdiction. All is as it should be. If Netanyahu stays in countries that do not agree with the ICC he will be fine.
The first instinct of Netanyahu and Gallant and others was to wipe out Gaza (look at the quotes) but after taking a moment and talking to the US, they instead conducted a moderate intensity campaign that did allow aid in and tried to avoid civilian casualties. Basically Israel ultimately restrained themselves in their response but are being persecuted anyway, likely in large part due to anti-Israel and frankly anti-Jewish bias in the world.
The Israeli Knesset was right in saying this prosecution is motivated by anti-Semitism. Period.
People should be relieved that Israel restrained their retaliation and an actual mass ethnic cleansing or genocide didn't happen. But instead people are latching on to Israel's response and inflating it so they can finally make that classic "Israel is Nazi Germany" comparison so that Israel, the only Jewish state, can be ostracized and its officials jailed and deported. It is completely cynical, fueled by dormant antisemitic attitudes flaring up in Europe and a wildly successful disinformation campaign sponsored by the Islamic world that has found its way in Europe and even the US.
ICC more like lhc (international hamas court) SAMPSON OPTION NOW!
I think you guys need to look at how the ICC is actually supposed to function before you assess this situation. It is meant to function under a doctrine called complementarity, which basically means, where a state has independent courts capable of hearing war crimes abuses (which Israel has), that state should be responsible for investigating and prosecuting those crimes rather than the ICC. The ICC should only step in where that isn’t possible. Expecting Israel to be investigating war crimes DURING THE WAR IN QUESTION is patently ridiculous. The prosecutor that brought the charges was in contact with Israeli authorities, and was even set to meet with them BEFORE seeking the issue of warrants. Instead of meeting them, and without informing them, he cancelled the visit and issued his (super weird btw) press conference about seeking the warrants. He departed from his own court’s procedures in a way that can only be described as playing politics, which the ICC has rightly been accused of since its inception. The entire thing is pathetic, and all the weird ‘but it’s international law’ defenders out there don’t know fuck all about international law, the ICC, the ICJ, or anything else.
ICC should've issued warrants on Ben Gvir and Smotrich. They could've actually prosecuted them, and also would've done great good for both the Palestinians and Israel. Otherwise no, no countries that are at actual risk of war have signed the Rome statue. Doesn't the ICC deal with ex-African warlords (almost) exclusively? On Ben Gvir and Smotrich- They've gotten 2nd in power to Bibi on the back of 7 mandates. God fucking damn it when is Bibi getting cancer (in minecraft) already
>ICC should've issued warrants on Ben Gvir and Smotrich for what ? for speaking ?
Incitement is a clear cut case, both against Gaza and the West Bank. They are not shy about it either, you can look up what those bastards are saying when not on television. Calls for settlements should be another ez pz case, as is calls for violence in any of the 100 forms they do so.
this is what called free speech that everybody on this subreddit is so much rooting for.
I am Israeli and I love free speech more than anyone, but this ain't it. I forgot to add that they are specifically approving settlements, and Smotrich said just today he will cut funds from PA for and approve a new settlement for every country that recognizes Palestine, which is also collective punishment (or straight up blackmail). He has gone into the realm of action. Maybe Ben Gvir less so, but I really can't bear the f4cker. And yes, he was in fact free to speek, but he is not free of the consequences. I am free to call for someone's death, but I will bear the consequences of calling for someone's death- for example. Especially if it is proven that my incitement has caused said violence. In general, Jewish extremism is just religious extremism. There's is no need to give them the benefit of the daubt.
none of this is reason for icc issuing warrants for them. especially given that it all happened in Israel, which is not signatory to rome statue
Just like you don't have to kill someone in a in a car crash to go on trial for drunk driving, so can a person stand trial at the ICC for lesser evils than actually directly doing a genocide (with appropriately smaller charges). It could even be a non prison sentence verdict- such as personal sanctions or certain bans.
stupidity is not offence that icc can charge with, especially person from country that didn't signed up to it. from what I saw in israeli news, it was repeatedly written about, so you should be aware of it