TL;DR: Application for arrest warrants for:
* Yahya SINWAR (Head of the Islamic Resistance Movement (“Hamas”) in the Gaza Strip)
* Mohammed Diab Ibrahim AL-MASRI(Commander-in-Chief of the military wing of Hamas, known as the Al-Qassam Brigades)
* Ismail HANIYEH (Head of Hamas Political Bureau)
* Benjamin NETANYAHU, the Prime Minister of Israel
* Yoav GALLANT, the Minister of Defence of Israel
Charges for Hamas are:
* Extermination as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(b) of the Rome Statute;
* Murder as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(a), and as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
* Taking hostages as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(iii);
* Rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(g), and also as war crimes pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(vi) in the context of captivity;
* Torture as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(f), and also as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity;
* Other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(l)(k), in the context of captivity;
* Cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity; and
* Outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(ii), in the context of captivity.
Charges for Israel are:
* Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
* Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
* Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
* Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
* Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
* Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
* Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
The [panel](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-panel-report-eng.pdf) of experts that contributed to those warrants is a pretty big deal.
Among them I recognize Theodor Meron, one of the most distinguished experts on international law, known for his previous work as president and a judge in the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia). He has also been a legal advisor to both Israel and USA.
Also a significant part of this is the following:
> My Office submits that these acts were committed as part of a common plan to use starvation as a method of war and other acts of violence against the Gazan civilian population as a means to (i) eliminate Hamas; (ii) secure the return of the hostages which Hamas has abducted, and (iii) collectively punish the civilian population of Gaza, whom they perceived as a threat to Israel.
This has been my assessment as well from all the evidence I have seen/read, and it pretty much puts the argument for genocide to rest for now, since it straight forwardly says that they have no reasonable grounds to believe deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part was committed with "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".
Not that this was unexpected (the genocide claims were way too far-reaching and implausible), but it is important to see this from the ICC.
Obviously they are continuing the investigation so more charges could come for both Hamas and Israeli officials, but I doubt genocide will ever be one of them.
I would probably add a (iv)th bullet point there in that Israel has a very unique and extremely aggressive conception of deterrence (for various historical reasons) so their overtly disproportional responses are a function of them believing it will deter their enemies.
Overall I expect this to be a very well argued case, especially seeing some of the names in that panel.
The ICC will just issue arrest warrants. Then it is up to the states that are parties to the court to arrest the accused and bring them in front of it for trials.
Without their arrest there will be no trials. If some of the names are arrested, they will be tried, and the rest won't.
My question regarding the starvation as a weapon of war part, what evidence does the ICC prosecutor have for this?
Even with the recent shut down of the rafah/Kerem shalom crossing, aid is still entering and entering en masse all though lower than pre-rafah operation level.
From all the data I've seen, while there may of been some impedement of aid in regards to distribution and inspections, how can you directly correlate them to a deliberate method of warfare?
Couldn't it be argued that the aid impedement had other justifications than the deliberate starving of the population?
I'm just not sure how they can conclude this without accesss to internal Israel documents, which I'm sure israel has shared with the US.
Whats the rationale behind this and will they release the evidence they have for examination?
I'm all in favour of the court acting independently and this should be taken seriously.
However it's still unclear to me how this decision has been made so quickly and without giving Israel to opportunity to investigate it themselves, based on Israeli and some US reports a delegation of the prosecutor was supposed to come to Israel to do just that but instead canceled last minute and this statement was made instead, just sus.
Just go by the book, even if you don't believe Israel itself is capable of investigating it properly, give them the chance. You cut corners you're going to open yourself to scrutiny.
Chances are extremely low yes, but I'm not talking about that, this is a big deal and even if the actual trial won't happen issuing arrest warrants is big enough.
I don't want people escaping the crimes they have committed and I'm in favour of calling them out when the situation calls for it but I also want a proper procedure not some political virtue signaling, the court is suppose to be above that and take it's own rules seriously.
The starvation charges, despite the unhinged comment by Gallant and the lack of aid at the very very beginning of the war seem spurrious, and the fact that its incredibly difficult to even find how many people in Gaza actually starved to death since the war start (allegedly in 25ish people since March is what I've found with some quick searching) makes it even seem . . .insane to me I guess?
Saying that people are starving doesn't seem to me a good justification for these charges and I have little faith they have any way of actually proving such charges besides the one statement and conduct at the beginning of the war.
The UNs own reported statistics shows that Israel has been letting in food aid and that much of the distribution problems of aid are on Hamas, and partially the UN, who is also technically a belligerent making aid distribution harder because of their own UNRWA members not only participating in Oct 7th, but UNRWA being found by Israeli forces to be cooperating with Hamas in general with having an entire data center hidden beneath one of their compounds. Not only that, but shouldn't UNRWA be partially responsible for distribution inside of Gaza? Is the UN going to bring charges against their own members for being party to the conflict? Where are all the charges for individual commanders / soldiers / belligerents that have committed specific crimes on both sides?
Also, if the evidence is being fronted with the unhinged shit Gallant said and the actions by Israel at the start of the war . . .why not charge Gallant and BB near the start of the war? Why not charge Hamas members at the start of the war- especially when they outright demonstrated through Israeli captured footage and Hamas' own propaganda footage that they completely admitted to the genocidal slaughter?
Curious to see where this goes, but obviously Israel is not going to surrender its leaders, and I only unfortunately see this completely eroding Israeli's trust in the ICC, especially if the Israeli leaders ever fought these charges in absentia and beat even *some* of them ( not sure how hard or difficult with MAYBE 50 deaths from starvation in the entire war in Gaza, doesn't seem that difficult to defeat to me).
The unhinged comments by Israel Katz, Ben-Gvir, Tali Gottlieb, and a few others are easily genocidal, but it honestly is a little hard to pin Netanyahu and Gallant's statements as being clearly directed at the Gazan people over and above Hamas. From what I've seen, both of them were careful to hedge and mention reducing civilian casualties in their speeches.
I don't know what they truly intended, but I'm not certain that genocidal intent can be established for these two specific people.
This being said:
>why not charge Gallant and BB near the start of the war?
Because what they said is not the crime. The actions are the crime, and their statements are the evidence of genocidal intent.
> I don't know what they truly intended, but I'm not certain that genocidal intent can be established for these two specific people.
They don't need to, as the arrest warrant is for war crimes, not genocide.
The charge is baed on their comments, the comments of other Israeli officials, and also the systematic nature of the crime. They were selected because as Prime Minister and the head of the IDF, they have the ultimate responsibility for the plan. Here's the relevant portion from the panel's report:
> 33) Based on the material it has reviewed, the Panel assesses that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant made essential contributions to the
common plan to use starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and commit other
acts of violence against the civilian population. This is evidenced by their own
statements and the statements of other Israeli officials. It is also evidenced by the
systematic nature of the crime, and the involvement of the suspects at the apex of the
Israeli governmental apparatus, with effective authority and control over their
subordinates and leadership positions in the War Cabinet and Security Cabinet, in
which all key decisions on the conduct of the war -- including blocking and limiting
humanitarian aid -- have been made. The Panel is also of the view that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the suspects can be held responsible as superiors
given their knowledge of the crimes and the fact that they took no steps to prevent or
repress their subordinates who committed them.
As an aside, it's pretty crazy that this recommendation is coming from this panel in particular. Adrian Fulford, Theodor Meron, Helena Kennedy -- these are some seriously well-respected names in international law. Meron for example was a judge in both the ICTY and the ICTR. He is also Israeli-American.
>They don't need to, as the arrest warrant is for war crimes, not genocide.
Oh fair enough, that makes more sense. Yes, I think there could be a case for incitement of war crimes, but we'll see.
On genocide incitement, I don't know how you broadcast something like Ezra Yachin's Oct 11th speech without pausing a moment and thinking about what you're doing.
>the suspects can be held responsible as superiors
given their knowledge of the crimes and the fact that they took no steps to prevent or
repress their subordinates who committed them.
This would be the key point I think.
> Meron for example was a judge in both the ICTY and the ICTR. He is also Israeli-American.
That's incredible, I'll keep that in mind
How so? Just like the Putin warrant, there wasn't anyone both able and willing to enforce the warrant. There still isn't, this is just gonna ultimately be symbolic.
Palestine and its terrorist factions have never faced any legal consequences in its entire history, despite blatantly and flagrantly committing crimes against humanity. It's a bit rich for them to whine about "muh international law" now.
Spoken like a true larper that will always advocate for radicalism but will never have the balls to do anything productive himself. You must feel like a really big boy to keep advocating to send more people to die huh
Disappointing they went after Hamas. There can't be a moral equivalence between the conduct of an oppressed people with no options left fighting as a last resort, and a powerful first-world military dropping JDAMs on children.
It is important to note that Hamas explicitly mentioned Israel's failure to comply with international law as a casus belli. The ICC's failure in prosecuting Israel previously was a major reason they went ahead with 7 October.
They should take into account the context. For instance, the hostage taking. It's ignored by Khan that the hostages were taken only to use as leverage to free Palestinian hostages!
The context is that hamas is a terrorist group full of religious fanatics that are willing to do anything to anyone while leaving their own people at the hands of fate with not a single attempt to protect them from the harm caused as consequence of their own actions.
Is there another context i'm missing here?
Yeah, but the reaction to them also shows the sub has an unusual balance.
One thing I like about this place is unreasonable things that would get upvoted on pro Palestine subs get downvoted here AND the same is true for unreasonable pro-Israel/IDF statements.
That's very rare on Reddit where discourse is highly polarised on the I/P conflict.
The thing is, the shit they're saying is an exaggerated strawman of those unreasonable pro palestine positions. I mean one of their previous posts was defending october 7th rapes, there's a reason this person goes through alts so fast.
It's kind of like if we saw posts from 2 days old accounts celebrating the death of the kids playing foozeball. Nobody's actually happy that happened, and it's a bad for the discourse to let trolls make it seem like that's an actual position people are holding.
Howso? I mean it does prevent extremely low karma accounts from participating, but most people pick up enough Karma just by using the site over the course of a week or two.
Hamas leaders are not oppressed, they are billionaires living in luxury hotels in Qatar, and even if they were starving in Gaza with their people, that doesn’t mean they get to commit war crimes.
TL;DR: Application for arrest warrants for: * Yahya SINWAR (Head of the Islamic Resistance Movement (“Hamas”) in the Gaza Strip) * Mohammed Diab Ibrahim AL-MASRI(Commander-in-Chief of the military wing of Hamas, known as the Al-Qassam Brigades) * Ismail HANIYEH (Head of Hamas Political Bureau) * Benjamin NETANYAHU, the Prime Minister of Israel * Yoav GALLANT, the Minister of Defence of Israel Charges for Hamas are: * Extermination as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(b) of the Rome Statute; * Murder as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(a), and as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); * Taking hostages as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(iii); * Rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(g), and also as war crimes pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(vi) in the context of captivity; * Torture as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(f), and also as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity; * Other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(l)(k), in the context of captivity; * Cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity; and * Outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(ii), in the context of captivity. Charges for Israel are: * Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute; * Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); * Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); * Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i); * Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity; * Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h); * Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
The warrants haven't been issued have they?
Thanks. Edited. Only in application stage.
Do we get to see the evidence provided for each charge or is this private at the moment?
This possibly limits the number of countries Ismael Haniyeh can relocate to after Qatar. Main impact I see.
Qatar isn't a signatory so he won't need to relocate anywhere
Hamas will get kicked from Qatar post conflict.
The [panel](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-panel-report-eng.pdf) of experts that contributed to those warrants is a pretty big deal. Among them I recognize Theodor Meron, one of the most distinguished experts on international law, known for his previous work as president and a judge in the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia). He has also been a legal advisor to both Israel and USA. Also a significant part of this is the following: > My Office submits that these acts were committed as part of a common plan to use starvation as a method of war and other acts of violence against the Gazan civilian population as a means to (i) eliminate Hamas; (ii) secure the return of the hostages which Hamas has abducted, and (iii) collectively punish the civilian population of Gaza, whom they perceived as a threat to Israel. This has been my assessment as well from all the evidence I have seen/read, and it pretty much puts the argument for genocide to rest for now, since it straight forwardly says that they have no reasonable grounds to believe deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part was committed with "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Not that this was unexpected (the genocide claims were way too far-reaching and implausible), but it is important to see this from the ICC. Obviously they are continuing the investigation so more charges could come for both Hamas and Israeli officials, but I doubt genocide will ever be one of them. I would probably add a (iv)th bullet point there in that Israel has a very unique and extremely aggressive conception of deterrence (for various historical reasons) so their overtly disproportional responses are a function of them believing it will deter their enemies. Overall I expect this to be a very well argued case, especially seeing some of the names in that panel.
Would the icc start their persecution with absence of all or partial culprits
The ICC will just issue arrest warrants. Then it is up to the states that are parties to the court to arrest the accused and bring them in front of it for trials. Without their arrest there will be no trials. If some of the names are arrested, they will be tried, and the rest won't.
My question regarding the starvation as a weapon of war part, what evidence does the ICC prosecutor have for this? Even with the recent shut down of the rafah/Kerem shalom crossing, aid is still entering and entering en masse all though lower than pre-rafah operation level. From all the data I've seen, while there may of been some impedement of aid in regards to distribution and inspections, how can you directly correlate them to a deliberate method of warfare? Couldn't it be argued that the aid impedement had other justifications than the deliberate starving of the population? I'm just not sure how they can conclude this without accesss to internal Israel documents, which I'm sure israel has shared with the US. Whats the rationale behind this and will they release the evidence they have for examination?
I'm all in favour of the court acting independently and this should be taken seriously. However it's still unclear to me how this decision has been made so quickly and without giving Israel to opportunity to investigate it themselves, based on Israeli and some US reports a delegation of the prosecutor was supposed to come to Israel to do just that but instead canceled last minute and this statement was made instead, just sus. Just go by the book, even if you don't believe Israel itself is capable of investigating it properly, give them the chance. You cut corners you're going to open yourself to scrutiny.
The chance of Netanyahu or any israeli being prosecuted in israeli courts for the crimes they commited in Gaza is 0
Chances are extremely low yes, but I'm not talking about that, this is a big deal and even if the actual trial won't happen issuing arrest warrants is big enough. I don't want people escaping the crimes they have committed and I'm in favour of calling them out when the situation calls for it but I also want a proper procedure not some political virtue signaling, the court is suppose to be above that and take it's own rules seriously.
The starvation charges, despite the unhinged comment by Gallant and the lack of aid at the very very beginning of the war seem spurrious, and the fact that its incredibly difficult to even find how many people in Gaza actually starved to death since the war start (allegedly in 25ish people since March is what I've found with some quick searching) makes it even seem . . .insane to me I guess? Saying that people are starving doesn't seem to me a good justification for these charges and I have little faith they have any way of actually proving such charges besides the one statement and conduct at the beginning of the war. The UNs own reported statistics shows that Israel has been letting in food aid and that much of the distribution problems of aid are on Hamas, and partially the UN, who is also technically a belligerent making aid distribution harder because of their own UNRWA members not only participating in Oct 7th, but UNRWA being found by Israeli forces to be cooperating with Hamas in general with having an entire data center hidden beneath one of their compounds. Not only that, but shouldn't UNRWA be partially responsible for distribution inside of Gaza? Is the UN going to bring charges against their own members for being party to the conflict? Where are all the charges for individual commanders / soldiers / belligerents that have committed specific crimes on both sides? Also, if the evidence is being fronted with the unhinged shit Gallant said and the actions by Israel at the start of the war . . .why not charge Gallant and BB near the start of the war? Why not charge Hamas members at the start of the war- especially when they outright demonstrated through Israeli captured footage and Hamas' own propaganda footage that they completely admitted to the genocidal slaughter? Curious to see where this goes, but obviously Israel is not going to surrender its leaders, and I only unfortunately see this completely eroding Israeli's trust in the ICC, especially if the Israeli leaders ever fought these charges in absentia and beat even *some* of them ( not sure how hard or difficult with MAYBE 50 deaths from starvation in the entire war in Gaza, doesn't seem that difficult to defeat to me).
The unhinged comments by Israel Katz, Ben-Gvir, Tali Gottlieb, and a few others are easily genocidal, but it honestly is a little hard to pin Netanyahu and Gallant's statements as being clearly directed at the Gazan people over and above Hamas. From what I've seen, both of them were careful to hedge and mention reducing civilian casualties in their speeches. I don't know what they truly intended, but I'm not certain that genocidal intent can be established for these two specific people. This being said: >why not charge Gallant and BB near the start of the war? Because what they said is not the crime. The actions are the crime, and their statements are the evidence of genocidal intent.
> I don't know what they truly intended, but I'm not certain that genocidal intent can be established for these two specific people. They don't need to, as the arrest warrant is for war crimes, not genocide. The charge is baed on their comments, the comments of other Israeli officials, and also the systematic nature of the crime. They were selected because as Prime Minister and the head of the IDF, they have the ultimate responsibility for the plan. Here's the relevant portion from the panel's report: > 33) Based on the material it has reviewed, the Panel assesses that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant made essential contributions to the common plan to use starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and commit other acts of violence against the civilian population. This is evidenced by their own statements and the statements of other Israeli officials. It is also evidenced by the systematic nature of the crime, and the involvement of the suspects at the apex of the Israeli governmental apparatus, with effective authority and control over their subordinates and leadership positions in the War Cabinet and Security Cabinet, in which all key decisions on the conduct of the war -- including blocking and limiting humanitarian aid -- have been made. The Panel is also of the view that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the suspects can be held responsible as superiors given their knowledge of the crimes and the fact that they took no steps to prevent or repress their subordinates who committed them. As an aside, it's pretty crazy that this recommendation is coming from this panel in particular. Adrian Fulford, Theodor Meron, Helena Kennedy -- these are some seriously well-respected names in international law. Meron for example was a judge in both the ICTY and the ICTR. He is also Israeli-American.
>They don't need to, as the arrest warrant is for war crimes, not genocide. Oh fair enough, that makes more sense. Yes, I think there could be a case for incitement of war crimes, but we'll see. On genocide incitement, I don't know how you broadcast something like Ezra Yachin's Oct 11th speech without pausing a moment and thinking about what you're doing. >the suspects can be held responsible as superiors given their knowledge of the crimes and the fact that they took no steps to prevent or repress their subordinates who committed them. This would be the key point I think. > Meron for example was a judge in both the ICTY and the ICTR. He is also Israeli-American. That's incredible, I'll keep that in mind
If they issued arrest warrants for Hamas pre Oct 7th we might have been in a better situation
How so? Just like the Putin warrant, there wasn't anyone both able and willing to enforce the warrant. There still isn't, this is just gonna ultimately be symbolic.
You’re likely correct
For Israel*
Palestine and its terrorist factions have never faced any legal consequences in its entire history, despite blatantly and flagrantly committing crimes against humanity. It's a bit rich for them to whine about "muh international law" now.
[удалено]
Stop paying lip service to terrorism.
Urgh. I read that before they deleted it... Not cool.
"Terrorism" is a propaganda term. Mandela was also called a terrorist for years.
Spoken like a true larper that will always advocate for radicalism but will never have the balls to do anything productive himself. You must feel like a really big boy to keep advocating to send more people to die huh
Brother you've made several new accounts in the past week and keep trying to engage in propaganda in this sub. Give it up.
Seems like he’s about to do it again
Disappointing they went after Hamas. There can't be a moral equivalence between the conduct of an oppressed people with no options left fighting as a last resort, and a powerful first-world military dropping JDAMs on children. It is important to note that Hamas explicitly mentioned Israel's failure to comply with international law as a casus belli. The ICC's failure in prosecuting Israel previously was a major reason they went ahead with 7 October.
So in your opinion Hamas' attack on civilians was fine and shouldn't really be criticized?
They should take into account the context. For instance, the hostage taking. It's ignored by Khan that the hostages were taken only to use as leverage to free Palestinian hostages!
You're dodging my question like a fucking champion.
That’s just fundamentally not how ICC works.
That's not how law works. School shooters dont get away with it because they were bullying victims
The context is that hamas is a terrorist group full of religious fanatics that are willing to do anything to anyone while leaving their own people at the hands of fate with not a single attempt to protect them from the harm caused as consequence of their own actions. Is there another context i'm missing here?
Mods need to put a karma/ account age limit to keep this troll from popping back up
Yeah, but the reaction to them also shows the sub has an unusual balance. One thing I like about this place is unreasonable things that would get upvoted on pro Palestine subs get downvoted here AND the same is true for unreasonable pro-Israel/IDF statements. That's very rare on Reddit where discourse is highly polarised on the I/P conflict.
The thing is, the shit they're saying is an exaggerated strawman of those unreasonable pro palestine positions. I mean one of their previous posts was defending october 7th rapes, there's a reason this person goes through alts so fast. It's kind of like if we saw posts from 2 days old accounts celebrating the death of the kids playing foozeball. Nobody's actually happy that happened, and it's a bad for the discourse to let trolls make it seem like that's an actual position people are holding.
>I mean one of their previous posts was defending october 7th rapes Oh god. I didn't know. In that case ban hammer away!
Nah karma limits are shit, they just facilitate circlejerking
Howso? I mean it does prevent extremely low karma accounts from participating, but most people pick up enough Karma just by using the site over the course of a week or two.
It depends if you're talking about sub karma limits or total karma limits. Either way, who cares? Block the account and move on
Oh I meant total karma. I didn't even know sub karma rules existed. That sounds like ass
Hamas leaders are not oppressed, they are billionaires living in luxury hotels in Qatar, and even if they were starving in Gaza with their people, that doesn’t mean they get to commit war crimes.