61 ms·

ICC prosecutor seeks arrest warrants against Sinwar and Netanyahu for war crimes

• bhaney 2y ago
  The ICC is seeking arrest warrants from the ICC for people who don't care what the ICC says, and one of them isn't even in a country that's a member of the ICC? What exactly are they going to be able to do once they manage to grant themselves these warrants?
  • loceng 2y ago
    Any countries part of the ICC then have the ability to arrest anyone with warrants. Whether those countries will do the arrests or not will be up to whomever is in political power and if they are toeing the same line or not. Those with arrest warrants then would have to risk traveling.
    • throwup238 2y ago
      Not anyone. As long as he’s in power he’s protected by diplomatic protocol. No one is going to break international law and risk their reputation and ability to host diplomats for an ICC warrant. Just makes his predicament more desperate long term though.
      • jeltz 2y ago
        But what will happen is that many countries would say no to official visits.
      • somenameforme 2y ago
        This is also what I thought when they issued the warrant against Putin, but it does not seem to be the case. There's a lot of inscrutable legal precedent regarding diplomatic immunity and high crimes, of which there is none higher than genocide. This is exactly why Putin did not make a personal appearance in South Africa for the BRICS summit. South Africa felt that they would be legally obligated to arrest him due to the ICC warrant, and that was all over a far lesser charge of unlawfully deporting children.
      • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > As long as he’s in power he’s protected by diplomatic protocol Not true. That’s why Putin shied from visiting South Africa [1]. [1] https://apnews.com/article/putin-brics-summit-south-africa-icc-arrest-3c67877a198f25ceee9adad9f1dbe495 https://apnews.com/article/putin-brics-summit-south-africa-i...
  • richrichie 2y ago
    Mere existence of arrest warrants for war crimes against a serving Israeli prime minister has great symbolic value. This will have big impact on media discourse not controlled by the Israeli lobby. Also, one does not have to choose sides. We can condemn both sides as barbaric.
    • bhaney 2y ago
      > We can condemn both sides as barbaric I agree entirely but I'm not really trying to make any political statement here. I'm purely interested in the mechanical aspect of how this court works and how it can manage to accomplish anything in this situation. It seems to me that this story isn't much worth following, because nothing of consequence will happen if these warrants end up being served.
      • jeltz 2y ago
        It makes the people with arrest warrants much less welcome to visit other countries. While they still may not actually arrest a leader of state many countries would say no to a visit to not risk a media scandal by having an accused war criminal visit.
        • bhaney 2y ago
          > It makes the people with arrest warrants much less welcome to visit other countries Yeah, that's fair. I guess I'm just kind of unimpressed that that's the worst punishment something called the "International Criminal Court" can inflict on leaders that they've judged to be war criminals.
          • lazyasciiart 2y ago
            Since this is an actual court, I’d say it’s important to differentiate between “has judged as being war criminals” and “has charged with being war criminals”. There are hopefully more penalties for someone who has been tried and found guilty.
          • 2y ago
  • belter 2y ago
    The ICC is not doing that. A prosecutor is requesting the court to approve them. Now, why is the court accepting legal challenges on legal issues, and independently of the merits of those issues, from countries like South Africa, who publicly said they would not arrest Putin, who actually DOES have an ICC arrest mandate against him?
    • ben_w 2y ago
      > from countries like South Africa, who publicly said they would not arrest Putin, I thought they either outright said they would arrest Putin, or at least equivocated just enough to convince Putin to not want to find out if they would or not? Did they later clarify "no we won't"?
      • belter 2y ago
        "South Africa grants Putin and Brics leaders diplomatic immunity for summit" - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/30/south-africa-grants-putin-and-brics-leaders-diplomatic-immunity-for-summit https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/30/south-africa-g... "...South Africa has issued blanket diplomatic immunity to all leaders attending an August summit, meaning Vladimir Putin might be able to travel to Johannesburg and not fear the country acting on an international criminal court warrant for his arrest..." It's the ultimate hypocrisy on South Africa to undermine the same court where is currently arguing, and a major legal failure on the court to accept South Africa claims.
        • ben_w 2y ago
          Thanks, but the second paragraph begins: > South African officials insisted the broad offer of immunity, issued in a government gazette, may not trump the ICC arrest warrant. Which is exactly the same uncertainty I had before.
  • mannyv 2y ago
    My understanding is that the ICC is only supposed to do this for countries/areas without a functioning and functionally independent judicial system. I expect the request for the Israelis will not be approved. Hamas will be interesting. Hamas' territory has no functioning judicial system, but does the ICC have jurisdiction? In any case the "warrants" if issued would only apply to countries who signed the ICC treaty.
    • toast0 2y ago
      The ICC claims jurisdiction [1], which is enough for it to issue warrants and hold trials and issue judgements. The question is always if the warrants will be executed and the judgements enforced, as the ICC cannot enforce its rulings itself. At the time of the declaration accepting jursdiction of the ICC by the State of Palestine[2], there was a unity government of Palestine, so it feels like maybe. In April 2012, the ICC declined to assert jurisdiction over Palestine, as it was not recognized as a State by the UN [3], but in November 2012, Palestine was granted the status of a non-member observer State, which seems to satisfy the ICC. [1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine [2] 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/pre... [3] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/9B651B80-EC43-4945-BF5A-FAFF5F334B92/284387/SituationinPalestine030412ENG.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/9B6...
      • mannyv 2y ago
        At some point the claim of jurisdiction has to be adjudicated, as it states here: "The Chamber provided a legal answer based on the strict interpretation of the Rome Statute. It emphasised that the issue of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court would have to be further examined when the Prosecutor submits an application for the issuance of a warrant of arrest or summons to appear. The Chamber declined to address the arguments regarding the Oslo Accords in the context of the present proceedings and indicated that these issues may be raised at a later stage of the proceedings." https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/palestine/210215-palestine-q-a-eng.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/p... Did the legal government of Palestine do the initial request in 2015? That would have been Hamas, since Hamas was the last elected government of Palestine. I would be surprised if Hamas acceded to the ICC's jurisdiction. Can a non-state actor be accorded the same rights as a state under the Rome accords? Is the "government of Palestine" an actual entity? If an entity other than the authorized government accepts jurisdiction of the ICC, does that count? I mean, this isn't even getting the actual meat of the case and it's already a mess.
  • dragonwriter 2y ago
    > The ICC is seeking arrest warrants from the ICC for people who don't care what the ICC says, and one of them isn't even in a country that's a member of the ICC? Neither Galant nor Netanyahu is currently in an ICC state, but that's not entirely novel territory for international criminal tribunals. > What exactly are they going to be able to do once they manage to grant themselves these warrants? If the judges of the court grant the prosecutor’s application, the court will issue warrants and seek cooperation of its 124 member states and any willing cooperating states in enforcing them.
• loceng 2y ago
  dang, perhaps updating link to the official ICC statement would be ideal: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-... ? Edit to add: I tried submitting that link to submit it myself, and can't?
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• loceng 2y ago
  "More than four months ago, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court asked me to assist him with evaluating evidence of suspected war crimes and crimes against humanity in Israel and Gaza. I agreed and joined a panel of international legal experts to undertake this task. Together we have engaged in an extensive process of evidence review and legal analysis including at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The Panel and its academic advisers are experts in international law, including international humanitarian law and international criminal law. Two Panel members are appointed as expert 'Special Advisers' by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Two Panel members are former judges at criminal tribunals in The Hague. Despite our diverse personal backgrounds, our legal findings are unanimous. We have unanimously determined that the Court has jurisdiction over crimes committed in Palestine and by Palestinian nationals. We unanimously conclude that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, including hostage-taking, murder and crimes of sexual violence. We unanimously conclude that there are raasonable grounds to believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant have commited war crimes and crimes against humanity including starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution and extermination. I served on this Panel because I believe in the rule of law and the need to protect civilian lives. The law that protects civilians in war was developed more than 100 years ago and it applies in every country in the world regardless of the reasons for a conflict. As a human rights laywer, I will never accept that one child's life has less value than another's. I do not accept that any conflict should be beyond the reach of the law, nor that any perpetrator should be above the law. So I support the historic step that the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has taken to bring justice to victims of atrocities in Israel and Palestine. Today, my colleagues and I have published an oped and a detailed legal report of the Panel's findings. My approach is not to provide a running commentary of my work but to let the work speak for itself. I hope that witnesses will cooperate with the ongoing investigation. And I hope that justice will prevail in a region that has already suffered too much." - Amal Clooney
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• sigma5 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • invalidname 2y ago
    Pro Israel articles get flagged much faster.
    • dang 2y ago
      On any topic this divisive, everyone with strong feelings is certain that their side gets the worse treatment.
  • giraffe_lady 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • sigma5 2y ago
      My point of view is that censorship is still censorship no matter what it tries to hide. If today we accept to censor posts about war crimes, anything can be censored tomorrow. I don't think creating value for the americain tech industry can thrive under censorship.
      • giraffe_lady 2y ago
        Yeah I wasn't trying to endorse that position or anything. More pointing out that this website is somewhere between trade mag, promotional publication, and propaganda arm of a US tech venture capital firm. It's not so much censoring posts about war crimes in the traditional sense as taking the editorial stance that some war crimes are beneficial for the entity it represents.
  • me_me_me 2y ago
    cuz people are sick of same thing being pushed by both sides. ICC just said both sides are guilty of warcrimes. Paint me shocked and surprised.
• dang 2y ago
  All: if you're going to comment in this thread, please review the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Make sure that your comment is following them, and that you are posting in the intended spirit: intellectually curious, respectful conversation. "Respectful" here means respectful to the people who are wrong (in your view) and most respectful to the people who are most wrong (in your view). If you can't do that, that's ok, but please don't post until you can. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Hellish flamewars in deep subthreads are not ok. I'm going to lower the bar for banning accounts that do this, so please don't do this. If you're hotly indignant, step away from the keyboard until that changes. Nobody 'wins' on the internet anyway, and it's not worth destroying this community for. Not to mention your heart.
• blackhawkC17 2y ago
  The ICC just gave Netanyahu more strength. Israelis would likely rally around their leader. Netanyahu will be emboldened to do maximum damage on his way out. What more does he have to lose at this point? Besides, the U.S. government is on Netanyahu's side, so he will never be arrested.
  • Georgelemental 2y ago
    Unfortunately I think this is correct. All the people cited in this warrant request are fully guilty of the crimes of which they are accused—but a peace deal that lets the murderers off scot-free is preferable to more endless war. The reputational damage to Israel, from being put on the same level as Putin, is significant though.
  • Klaus23 2y ago
    > The ICC just gave Netanyahu more strength. Israelis would likely rally around their leader. Netanyahu will be emboldened to do maximum damage on his way out. What more does he have to lose at this point? His support is waning on both sides of the political spectrum. Gantz is threatening to quit the war cabinet. I don't think the ICC decision will give Netanyahu much of a boost. If he goes crazy, the Knesset could oust him. > Besides, the U.S. government is on Netanyahu's side, so he will never be arrested. I don't think the US has that much influence in this case. They would have to push hard to threaten the Israeli president, and even then I am not sure what would happen. Netanyahu will not be arrested because he will just stay in Israel. Israel will probably not extradite him, even if they agree with the arguments, simply because it would look bad to allow an international court to arrest a former president. However, he could be arrested on corruption or other charges if he loses his position.
• tda 2y ago
  Leaving out personal opinions, I would love to hear some thoughtful speculation on how this might pa out. Will the ICC actually approve the warrants? How far will the US and/or Israel go to threaten or discredit the ICC leadership? Will Egypt or other neighbours respond? What is the reaction in China? Will Europe and the Netherlands stand by the ICC unconditionally?
  • blackhawkC17 2y ago
    Biden has already called the indictment "outrageous." [1]. The U.S. Secretary of State has also spoken out against the indictment [2]. Needless to say, they're backing him, and the ICC can't arrest Netanyahu. At worst, the U.S. government will sanction ICC officials as they did under the Trump administration. I personally can't believe the ICC is equating the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government. What a shameful organization. 1- https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/20/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-the-warrant-applications-by-the-international-criminal-court/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... 2- https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-international-criminal-court/ https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-internatio...
    • bawolff 2y ago
      > I personally can't believe the ICC is equating the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government. I think that is an unfair statement. Just because they asked for a warrant to be issued for both does not imply that they think both are the same.
      • ars 2y ago
        It took them 7 MONTHS! To issue an arrest warrant for some blatantly obvious crimes. Issues warrants for both sides at the same time is utterly repugnant and calls the entire court into question.
      • strulovich 2y ago
        It does mean that in the realm of logic. But media, PR and politics don’t play by these rules. Mention two things together and the messages will go through. A similar example would be Whataboutism, a logical fallacy, but it seems to work very well in politics.
• abtinf 2y ago
  Would it be correct to think of an ICC warrant not as a “warrant” in the traditional sense, but as sanctions? That is, a court ordered warrant is typically executed by a government’s law enforcement. There is no such proactive enforcement mechanism available to the ICC. Instead, the governments that have ratified the ICC-related treaties have simply agreed to arrest warrant targets if they happen to travel to their jurisdiction. As such, it seems more like a “travel-ban” or “house arrest” than a warrant. Is that correct?
  • akira2501 2y ago
    A warrant is a standing order to arrest someone on sight. A warrant may additionally grant the police extrajudicial powers to enforce the warrant but that's a separate legislative concern. In the case of the ICC the enforcement is left up to individual member states. There may be consequences for not enforcing a warrant when the opportunity presents itself.
  • duskwuff 2y ago
    It's a real arrest warrant when its target is in a country which is a party to the Rome Statute. The ICC has conducted a number of investigations involving war crimes and crimes against humanity in Africa, for example; many of those have led to convictions.
  • swashboon 2y ago
    This is more akin to empaneling a grand-jury in the USA - it is driven by the prosecutors office and is the first step before review to see if adequate evidence exists to justify a "real" warrant that would lead to arrests. If they get a warrant - its just like a warrant in the USA, maybe the cops bother looking for you i.e. go to your house / work / last known address but more often they just wait until you get a traffic ticket or something where you happen to interact with them. If you had a warrant from another state, the local cops would need a pretty good reason to bother actually looking for you.
    • reaperman 2y ago
      > If you had a warrant from another state, the local cops would need a pretty good reason to bother actually looking for you. Often goes slightly further than this. The state issuing the warrant must pay “transport fees” to the state doing the arresting. The arresting state calls the warrant state to see if their transport fees will be authorized. Most of the time, those fees are not authorized by the issuing state. So the suspect is let go, if the police interaction wasn’t otherwise justified in an arrest. The reasons for why transport fees are generally declined vary, but I’d imagine that as long as the suspect stays out of the issuing state, they can’t commit more crime in that state, so the outstanding warrant is itself an effective deterrent against crime in the issuing state…the suspect generally will avoid returning. Also jails/prisons are overcrowded, dockets are overflowing, etc. But generally any police interaction which shows a valid warrant in another state, the “local police” will by default attempt an arrest. It’s not “unimportant” to them. Just they can’t do anything with the suspect if they arrest them without approved transport fees so there’s simply no point in completing the arrest. I learned all this just last week by picking up a homeless fugitive hitchiking along the interstate. But he’d had enough interactions with police in various states and seemed otherwise intelligent enough to be a reliable narrator on the matter.
• bawolff 2y ago
  One of the interesting aspects to me, is that ICC considers this both a non-international and international armed conflict (mildly different laws apply depending on which it is, but the difference is small as far as i understand) How could something be both? Palestine is either a separate state from Israel or it isn't.
  • zahma 2y ago
    I’s guess it depends on who you’re talking to: some organizations or states see Palestine as a state, others do not, and others see it as a future state but not one at this time. Keeping a definition broad lessens the chance of outright dismissal of otherwise cogent claims of wrongdoing. That’s all insofar as anyone or entity actually respects international law. It comes down to states agreeing that it’s in their best interests to cooperate on a matter. As long as the USA and Europe support Israel and don’t bring to bear any leverage to stop this insanity and form an independent state, the ICC can call Palestine whatever it wants to describe the situation.
    • bawolff 2y ago
      I don't think it matters what other groups think, it matters what the ICC thinks, and they already ruled they think Palestine is a state, at least in a preliminary fashion (i'm sure if this gets to trial the question will be relitigated). Additionally ICC only has juridsiction if Palestine is a state. So the entire thing goes away if Palestine is not a state (since only states can aceede to the rome convention). I do not think Palestine being a state is the same question as if this conflict is international. I think it may be possible for both Palestine to be a state and this conflict be non international. However IANAL and that is pure speculation.
  • keefle 2y ago
    I'm wondering the same, but also wonder if the situation off the coast of Yemen and Iran's recent response to Israel bombing their embassy made the conflict partially international?
    • 2y ago
• ashconnor 2y ago
  Parties and signatories of the Rome Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#/media/File:ICC_member_states.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#/...
  • octopoc 2y ago
    Interestingly looks like both the US and Israel withdrew their signatures at some prior point.
    • sirbutters 2y ago
      Certainly wouldn't want US or IDF soldiers to be held accountable. smh.
      • hirsin 2y ago
        I don't think the US govt gives a hoot for the common soldier except where their warrant would provide precedence for a senator or president to also be arrested.
        • NomDePlum 2y ago
          It's politically embarrassing as attempted prosecutions of soldiers in Northern Ireland have shown. It all gets swept under the carpet, on a pretence it's not good for national security. If you prosecute successfully an individual there is a reasonable chance all military personnel involved could be successfully prosecuted is perhaps another reason it won't happen. Using the military to prosecute aggressive military operations in an area the clear majority are unarmed, unprotected civilians again shows there is virtually no chance of prosecutions being taken. Add to that the severe limits added to press freedom, to the point it's obvious the plan is there is no independent reporting, the repeated and systematic targeting of hospitals, ambulances, medical and aid workers, treatment of people detained, never mind densely packed civilian areas which in similar ongoing conflicts (Ukraine/Russia) would be directly called out as war crimes without equivocation, but are ignored, then is there even any point attempting to prosecute individual soldiers? Seeking arrest warrants for those with most direct decision making powers is far more legitimate, necessary even. Demands for limitless, in all senses, military operations help no one longer term.
• jaynetics 2y ago
  Another interesting question is, will it end Netanyahu's career if it goes through? It seems like a major deficit for a PM to be unable to travel to the majority of relevant states. Most of his international trips have been to central Europe so far, and I think Europe is too invested in the ICC to circumvent it, even if some member states were to criticize this decision.
  • whimsicalism 2y ago
    Very strongly doubt it - decisions like these probably only benefit Netanyahu's rally around the flag effect. If it feels like the whole world is against you, you rally to your leaders.
    • catlikesshrimp 2y ago
      On the other hand, half of Israelis disapprove of Nethanyahu. The "warrant" would also be >something< all opposition would have agaisnt him https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/article-799279 https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/artic... (grain of salt)
      • whimsicalism 2y ago
        Significant portions of those disapproving are people who want to intensify the war in Gaza, so I doubt an ICC warrant would make them more opposed to Netanyahu. Think it is easy in the US to think Israeli public opinion somehow mirrors the US but the vast majority of people in Israel right now are pro-war (similar to the US post-9/11) and anti-two state e: not sure why I'm downvoted for something that can easily be confirmed by googling polls
        • fineIllregister 2y ago
          > Significant portions of those disapproving are people who want to intensify the war in Gaza, so I doubt an ICC warrant would make them more opposed to Netanyahu. Israel has a multi-party legislature. Netanyahu can be outflanked on the right.
• Cody-99 2y ago
  >Khan said the ICC’s prosecution team is also seeking warrants for Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as two other top Hamas leaders — Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri, the leader of the Al Qassem Brigades who is better known as Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’ political leader. That is it..? Hamas has thousands of militants and hundreds of officials in Gaza and Qatar. At minimum the ICC should be issuing warrants for every Hamas member of al-qassam (their military wing) and Hamas core leadership. 3k Hamas fighters attacked Israel and posted it openly on social media. Half of those died in the initial attack and lots have surely died in the war since but there is no reason not to get arrest warrants for these war criminals who directly posted their war crimes to the internet.
  • ugh123 2y ago
    Probably because those are "soldiers" and not leaders and decision makers.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • Georgelemental 2y ago
    Are they also supposed to submit arrest warrants for all the IDF soldiers who committed war crimes and shared them on social media? It's the job of the political/government/military leaders to keep their soldiers in check, and the job of the ICC to keep the leaders in check. (In theory at least)
    • Cody-99 2y ago
      Yes..? If someone commits war crimes and posts the evidence of them doing so on the internet one would hope the ICC would take note.
      • HL33tibCe7 2y ago
        You are ignorant of the point of the ICC
• surume 2y ago
  [flagged]
• throwitaway222 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • zer00eyz 2y ago
    Ask a US vet how they feel about whats going on over there vs their ROE (rules of engagement) Americans were NOT OK with abugrabe, most of us are not ok with what is going on in relation to women and children and hospitals in Gaza. Its not that there is a war, its how its conducted.
    • jeroenhd 2y ago
      Rules of engagement or not, the American invasion caused plenty of unnecessary civilian deaths. In this case, I think the comparison between Bush and Netanyahu is quite apt, though Bush was smart enough not to use as much incindiary language while the people serving his country hurt so many people. The October attacks and the following excessive military response was not unlike what happened after 9/11. Though there's hardly any concensus (partially because the ICC doesn't use the American court system, and therefore isn't supported by many American legal professionals), American scholars have written about how Bush would be accountable under international law. Nothing has ever come of it as far as I know, but I believe that's only the case because no country dares risk the political war with one of the world's leading military and political powers. > Its not that there is a war, its how its conducted. The shitshow that happened after 9/11 ended up with war crimes committed in a war fought over invented weapons if mass destruction. I would argue that the war being there can be reason enough to hold people accountable.
      • anon291 2y ago
        At some point, this sort of thing deserves to be mocked. Look, if civilian deaths are not allowed in war at all (like all are intolerable to the point where pacifism is the only option), then we must condemn the Allies in World War II, who caused untold civilian deaths. Are you ready to go there? The solution to belligerence cannot be wishful thinking and unicorn farts
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• throw_a_grenade 2y ago
  I find it meaningful that they're mentioned in the same document/release. Newspeople will obviously shorten that gap even further and put them in the same sentence, separated only by comma (like the CNN article currently linked). If that doesn't say "your're no better than the other side", I don't know what would. It might be especially disrespectful to the Israeli, who usually play moral high ground, but it's probably also true the other way around. Titling the official release "... in the situation in the State of Palestine" is a cherry on the top. (https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-... — thanks to sibling comment)
  • ars 2y ago
    You find it meaningful, I find it disgusting, and furthermore it calls the entire "court" into question. It's pretty obvious this is not a real court, and it should be ignored by all. Why did they wait 7 months? If the Netherlands had any morals they would have ejected these clowns long ago.
    • tivert 2y ago
      > ...and furthermore it calls the entire "court" into question. It's pretty obvious this is not a real court, and it should be ignored by all. Yeah, it's not a real court, it's just a bunch of "transnational" bureaucrats imitating the forms of a court, without the foundational basis [1], and at great remove from whatever situations they're pretending to judge. At best, it's a political prop. [1] Which would include things like de-facto power over its claimed jurisdiction, and having law known and respected by the people there.
• paxys 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • nomdep 2y ago
    Western supremacy over... eastern supremacy? Who exactly? China? Russia? If that's your answer, I'm happy with western supremacy thank you very much.
  • jeroenhd 2y ago
    The problem with holding the US accountable is that they have a law that'll let their president invade any country that arrests American citizens. Large military powers such as China, Russia, and perhaps India, could try to put out warrants, but most ICC signatories would end up having an aircraft carrier parked in front of their capital. I agree that the American war crimes should be treated the same as the Israeli war crimes and the Hamas terrorist attacks, but realistically, this will never happen. The same way the ICC won't ever get their hands on Putin for the invasion of Ukraine, or Xi Jing Ping for the Uyghur genocide. If Israel had nukes and a top-five worldwide military presence, any attempts to go after Netanyahu would be as futile as attempts to convict Bush. The unfortunate fact is that the people with the biggest guns are rarely kept to the same standards as everyone else.
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > they have a law that'll let their president invade any country that arrests American citizens Source? > If Israel had nukes It does [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel
      • jeroenhd 2y ago
        > Source? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_... Though I did misremember, it's specifically about international courts prosecuting service members and officials. Which, or course, in this case would certainly apply. >It does Interesting, I did not know that. In that case it does surprise me that the ICC went ahead and tried to take action against Israel. Perhaps the fact that Israel has very few allies and too many enemies to use them against most ICC members helps.
• nikolay 2y ago
  [flagged]
• jupp0r 2y ago
  The optics of equating a terrorist organization on the one hand with a democratic state with functioning judicial system and accountability for any crimes committed on the other hand by putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the court. I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion. On the other side you have what's a pretty clear case of a large scale terror attack against innocent civilians. In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
  • octopoc 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • TylerE 2y ago
      Huh? Your comment is frankly non-sensical. Witnesses/victims that appear in court are doing so on behalf of the prosecution, they aren't charged with any crime.
      • octopoc 2y ago
        Those are technicalities, but jupp0r was talking about how the public is going to perceive this action by the ICC. jupp0r was concerned that the ICC was equating the two sides, my point is that yes, they're being equated, in the sense that both sides are human. In other words, I don't think this is going to make people think, "huh, I guess both sides are equally guilty," I think it'll make people think, "huh, I guess both sides are being held to the same standard of justice." That's a good thing.
    • s5300 2y ago
      [dead]
    • courseofaction 2y ago
      This is a fairly charged analogy which plays into the presentation of the sides and not the facts. What if it turns out the Wealthy Businessman has been steadily murdering and Drug Addict's family, taking their land, and forcing them into such distress that they become addicted to a simple chemical escape? Wearing a suit doesn't make you respectable. Hell, these days it's a cause for suspicion.
• ajb 2y ago
  This is the statement of the panel of legal advisors to the prosecutor: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-panel-report-eng.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p... One of them, incidentally, is Judge Theodor Meron CMG, a holocaust survivor.
• tomohawk 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > If the ICC existed during WWII, their illogic would lead them to put out arrest warrants for Roosevelt, Churchill, Marshal, Eisenhower, and all the other allied leaders It’s tacitly accepted that the Allies committed war crimes to defeat the Nazis.
    • anon291 2y ago
      Right, because we were once able to properly judge / refrain from judgement. Most importantly we knew that not all sides are equal.
  • 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    > No state has gone out of their way to avoid civilian casualties to the extent that Israel has. Roof knocking is when they drop a small bomb on the roof to notify the occupants that it's time to leave. What other countries go to such lengths?
    • ceejayoz 2y ago
      It's hardly unprecedented; the Allies did it in WWII. https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/key-documents/warning-leaflets/ https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/key-documents/warning-leaf...
      • 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        That doesn't say anything about roof-knocking (impossible at the time) but yes, it's not new to notify civilians to get out of dodge.
  • hollerith 2y ago
    >No state has gone out of their way to avoid civilian casualties to the extent that Israel has. So, Tel Aviv is not to blame for the famine in Gaza? And Professor John Mearsheimer is wrong during the 3.5 minutes following this next timestamp when he says that Tel Aviv is currently trying to ethnically cleanse Gaza, meaning they're trying to make Gazans flee Gaza by making it untenable for them to stay? https://youtu.be/kAfIYtpcBxo?si=ps30vQWCdTwbaMQI&t=795 https://youtu.be/kAfIYtpcBxo?si=ps30vQWCdTwbaMQI&t=795
• teyc 2y ago
  There were some suggestions in the past that the US’s unbridled support for Israel is harmful to the long term interests of Israel. Over the years I’ve seen less and less intelligent arguments coming from Israeli leadership, particularly in a world where smartphones can turn any citizen into a reporter. Some days it is apparent that the wrath meted upon the Palestinians has turned into bloodlust. While I understand the grief and anger following such a massacre, there has long been a pattern of wilfully misplaced reaction against stone throwing kids and targeting of journalists and their families. These cannot be attributed to Oct 7. Now with Israeli funds making its way back to US politics, the crazier the politician the better his chances. With time, the benevolence of the US will be questioned by their allies and make the world a less predictable place.
  • nebula8804 2y ago
    >Now with Israeli funds making its way back to US politics, the crazier the politician the better his chances. With time, the benevolence of the US will be questioned by their allies and make the world a less predictable place. What alternative do these other "partners" have? The Ukraine war has exposed how badly atrophied all their military might has become and lets be honest, post Ukraine, its clear that is the most important thing. The EU still isn't meeting their minimum NATO commitments despite how far behind they are. It would take a massive amount of pain that the EU populations would have to bear in order to turn this around. I suspect all of a sudden EU population will become like the US population caring only about their own short term self interests more than what is "morally right". So the partnerships with the US will stay until the EU is willing to make that painful sacrifice to build out an alternative to the US military.
    • teyc 2y ago
      A war only happens when the chances of winning or losing is indeterminate. Ukraine would have achieved a sane political outcome without loss of blood and treasure if the Russians managed to roll in their tanks and replaced the government with a Russian leaning one. This may sound unpalatable it would have restored status quo to the pre-western-funded coup against the Russian-friendly government that was in place. Geopolitically, the NATO was heading towards obsolescence as Germany and Russian integrated their economies and achieve a lasting peace in the region. The US meddling in Ukraine weakens Europe and maintains the US status as the global hegemon.
• mavili 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • nebula8804 2y ago
    >One thing has been very clear during the last couple of years with Russia-Ukraine war and now this genocide: the world doesn't buy Western sht anymore. Does it actually matter though? Much of the world hasn't bought western sht for decades and it hasn't really made a dent in any of the west's operations or goals. China has proven they are just another sh*tty wannabe knockoff of the west (see BRICS and when countries default). They aren't any better.
    • mavili 2y ago
      I think we are about to see a change in that. If a country like Niger can say f* off to US military presence in the country we're seeing a shift in world geopolitics.
  • sgt 2y ago
    Downvoting you because that is a very emotional view and not necessarily rational.
    • mavili 2y ago
      Yup, very irrational to label a state guilt-free for life because "democracy".
• pyuser583 2y ago
  Is Israel a signatory of the ICC treaty? Does the ICC have universal jurisdiction?
  • xg15 2y ago
    Israel is not, however Palestine - as a UN observer state - is. This was enough for the ICC to declare jurisdiction. To my knowledge, this is also the grounds on which the US and UK dispute jurisdiction: They say, no country in this conflict that they recognise is ICC signatory, so the ICC does not have jurisdiction. (Not a lawyer, but this seems a pretty spurious and self-referential legal argument to me and in any case the UN accepted Palestine as an observer state, so I doubt that it would fly.)
    • pyuser583 2y ago
      Does Palestine, as recognized by the UN, include the West Bank? Because from what I hear, that “Palestine” doesn’t really exist. There’s Gaza, and there’s the West Bank.
      • xg15 2y ago
        See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_t... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_the_State_of_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_the_State_of_P... . Most countries which recognise Palestine as a state seem to recognise it in the 1967 borders, i.e. Gaza + West Bank + East Jerusalem. Not sure about the UN though.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • irishloop 2y ago
    From the NYT: > For now, the announcement is largely symbolic. Israel is not a member of the court and does not recognize its jurisdiction in Israel or Gaza, meaning that Israeli leaders would face no risk of arrest at home. The US is also not a member
• tndibona 2y ago
  For a quick moment, I thought Netanyahu is wanted by the International Cricket Council for ball tampering.
  • isametry 2y ago
    I, for one, realized quite soon that this is well out of International Color Consortium‘s jurisdiction and capacity (however non-compliant the color profile implementations in Gaza might be).
• octopoc 2y ago
  This is an opportunity for Israel to reverse course. They can blame everything on Netanyahu, throw him out of office, stop all attacks into Gaza, stop depriving Gaza of food and water, and start deliberately working with respected members of the Gaza community to help build local businesses. They can make an international call to all successful Palestinians around the world to bring their business back to Gaza. Make it like when Israel was formed--a call to build something good for their ethnicity. Honestly this could be a really great thing for the region. It could be an opportunity to shift blame from an entire ethnicity, the Jews, onto a single member of that ethnicity, in order to let the Jews and Palestinians be at peace with each other.
  • yyyk 2y ago
    * There isn't blame on an entire ethnicity regardless of the outcome of this case. I don't think you want to open that pandora box. * Ironically, Bibi will be temporarily strengthened. No sane Israeli leader would want to depose him and risk being seen as collaborating with the warrant or risk getting a warrant too later on. Over time Bibi will still inevitably be replaced (too many reasons for Israelis to hate him), but this may stretch to 2025. * Israel allowed aid since the beginning and especially recently. Warrants will help focus the mind here. * Result of US elections big key here.
    • istjohn 2y ago
      > The U.N. says at least 500 trucks a day of aid and commercial goods need to enter Gaza. In April, an average of 189 trucks entered a day - the highest since the war started.[0] 0. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/aid-trucks-begin-moving-ashore-via-gaza-pier-us-says-2024-05-17/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/aid-trucks-begin-m...
      • yyyk 2y ago
        '_and commercial goods_.' There's no right for 'commercial goods'. The only issue in question is food, and trucks with food going in are twice the prewar level (the rest was mostly construction goods used for we know what exactly - that's not gonna go in).
• gyudin 2y ago
  Most interesting part is that Putin on that list for “kidnapping” children, while in fact just providing a temporary refuge. While Netanyahu bombed and killed like 15,000 children and it’s not a war crime for some reason, huh.
• ggm 2y ago
  Forgive me if I misremember, but I believe the US refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC over it's own citizens and soldiers, and continues to require that its forces have effective indemnification against actions in economies they are invited into. They state that actual crimes will be dealt with by JAG, but I think the Okinawan community disputes that they were taken seriously when it comes to domestic violence and sexual assault.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • Aerbil313 2y ago
    Yes. See the Invade The Hague Act[1]. Here's a new thread on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40428730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40428730 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
• CommanderData 2y ago
  About time. Let's hope he's arrested quickly.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• karaterobot 2y ago
  > The decision puts Netanyahu in the company of the Russian President Vladimir Putin, for whom the ICC issued an arrest warrant over Moscow’s war on Ukraine How's that working out? Until proven otherwise, my assumption is the outcome will be roughly the same in most of these cases, especially for Netanyahu and Sinwar.
  • tijtij 2y ago
    Putin wanted to visit South Africa for the BRICS summit. South Africa warned him that they would be obligated to attempt an arrest if he did.
• rq1 2y ago
  The optics of equating a resistance organization on the one hand with a colonial and apartheid state with dysfunctional judicial system and no accountability for any crimes committed by settlers or its military on the other hand by putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the court. I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Palestinian resistance, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion. On the other side you have what's a pretty clear case of a large scale terror attack against innocent civilians, indiscriminately bombing schools and hospitals. In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into US and Germany conduct of delivering weapons enabling the genocide?
  • rq1 2y ago
    For comparison, the French resistance was called a terrorist organisation by the Germans, as Algerian FLN was called terrorist organisation by the French… etc. History would be kind of funny if it wasn’t tragic. And this whole “terrorist” word was jeopardised by Bush. There’s no “terrorism” per se as an emanation of evil. It’s just an asymmetrical and violent extension of political expression, where dialogue failed to reach a settlement. Otherwise you’d need to explain the ideological similarities between Al Qaeda and eg. ETA.
  • loceng 2y ago
    These aren't verdicts, so it goes to court-trial, and arguments will then be put forth. We have the Nuremberg Code now, where people including propagandists were hung simply because they should have known better - even though there weren't yet specific laws in place yet. It's been fascinating to see how fascism can rise so quickly, hidden by the veil of propaganda, different countries around the world at different stages of capture - some where turnkey authoritarianism has recently been executed on like in Canada, policies and infrastructure put in place that allows top down control so easily with so many succumbing to the fear mongering in part due to deep seeded programming. The NaZi Germans were eventually suppressed, and with the internet this next attempt will hopefully be quickly stopped in its tracks globally - however there are arguably $ trillions in the war chest of the bad actors in the global establishment toeing the same line, of which people like Catherine Austin Fitts have been sounding the alarm for years now - who saw behind the scenes the financial markets et al aligning for this. Unfortunately because so many systems are centralized at the moment, it only takes a very small amount of people to cause chaos and mass destruction-death - whether that's manufacturing consent for people to believe power outages aren't planned and "out of our control - give us $ trillions to upgrade infrastructure [which actually will mostly go to our friends while we continue suffocate society financially and extract as much of the value of your labor-productivity as we can manufacture consent to get from you]" etc. I hope, pray, that RFK in the US will win the next election - and that Pierre in Canada wins, and pray God is ready to cut the shit of these tyrant wannabes with totalitarian wet dreams - and will prevent their assassinations, etc; else the floodgates of hell are seemingly near ready to be unlatched.
• aaron695 2y ago
  [dead]
• ngcc_hk 2y ago
  If they also do putin, hamas (included), Xia etc … it is all good. But if it is just another one sided attack, then no. The question really is … whilst it is not totally useless, is it more to demo how weak this is and so dictator can free to do as they are dare. Like bombing other people places or even yours (per claim) and flattening them; would it be more war crime than war fighting in disputed land.
  • 58028641 2y ago
    They have done Hamas and Putin. https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-... https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-is...
  • SXX 2y ago
    While it mostly useless to actally prevent war crimes this hurt dictators freedom of movement as majority of countries in the world would arrest by warrant of ICC. E.g Putin dont really travel abroad much after getting his warrant. Though Putin's warrant isn't for common war crimes, but for deporting / indoctrination of children as it's something that is super easy to prove.
• YawHawHawn 2y ago
  [flagged]
• YZF 2y ago
  This video has two retired US military lawyers discussing this news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mCOi71b6AU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mCOi71b6AU "Responding to Legal Challenges to IDF Operations in Gaza" It's from a pro-Israeli viewpoint but is informed and has a lot of interesting details and maybe insight into the ICC/ICJ and the process.
• ggm 2y ago
  A Biography of the prosecutor: Trained in the UK Legal system. He's also put Putin on the block https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/may/20/iccs-karim-khan-is-a-prosecutor-in-a-hurry-to-effect-international-law https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/may/20/iccs-kar...
• andy_ppp 2y ago
  Everyone seems to be arguing as if they have lots of evidence disproving the Israeli part in war crimes and I’ve seen plenty of videos of absolutely cold blooded murders of unarmed civilians and massive destruction of civilian infrastructure. If Israel is not starving Palestinians why did the US build a jetty to take in aid? I don’t mention that Hamas are also war criminals because I think everyone can agree they are already. It’s obvious. Anyway I always thought that courts like this should have a special higher authority and any of us arguing on hacker news, I believe they are brave to take this case, will review the evidence fairly and a court case can happen at some point. If these leaders are innocent then I’m convinced the court will find them not guilty, but they should be allowed to follow any evidence, your or my opinion on hacker news really isn’t very relevant compared to that of experts in war crimes and international law.
  • schmidt_fifty 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • AmericanChopper 2y ago
    The merits of the case are mostly irrelevant because the ICC doesn’t have the authority to enforce any of its judgements. Any country that has one of its citizens (or leaders) convicted by the ICC cannot be compelled to honor the judgement, it can only do so voluntarily, whether it’s a signatory or not. If a country chooses not to comply, the only option is for the ICC to wage a war to enforce its judgement, which it can’t do, and is unlikely to convince others to do. The name of the ICC does not describe what it actually does. The only role it’s ever actually fulfilled is to punish people who have already lost wars. Which is why it’s pretty much only ever been used to prosecute WWII losers, Yugoslavian civil war losers, and random African warlord losers. The most optimistic outcomes for the ICC here are sanctions (which Israel’s closest allies wont participate in) or restricted international movement for the involved parties (which Israel’s closest allies will also ignore), and I still think that’s rather optimistic.
    • andy_ppp 2y ago
      Well I think the ICC disagrees with your assessment of them, and they are in fact proving you incorrect by doing the exact opposite of what you’re claiming; attempting to try people who have potentially committed war crimes even though they are allies of western countries. I think this is an excellent thing personally and while it might be a new development for the court I think it’s very reasonable to follow the evidence and come to a conclusion despite huge political pressure.
• gunalx 2y ago
  Isn't this politics and therefore off topic? Or is it something I missed.
  • Dowwie 2y ago
    This is very political and not appropriate. Dang yells that everyone be civil while handing out cans of gasoline for an inferno.
  • hggh 2y ago
    Read the guidelines carefully (hint: "off-topic" is inside "What to Submit"). If you think this is off-topic you can flag it.
• computerex 2y ago
  [flagged]
• globalnode 2y ago
  > Khan’s office risks attracting criticism that it places a terror organization and an elected government on an equivalent footing thats the point isnt it? edit: although ICC has had plenty of opportunities to punish war crimes from various states in the past, wonder why they decided to make a move now. because of the scale?
  • oaiey 2y ago
    War criminal is war criminal. Nothing else factors in. And that they point both out at the same time makes it easier for them to avoid being seen one sided.
  • megous 2y ago
    Ongoing attempted starvation of 2.4 million captive population and creation of conditions for famine. Attempted destruction of all means of civilized life for the entire population. I don't think there's been anything like that anytime since ICC was established. Pretty egregious.
• piokoch 2y ago
  Well, IDF soldiers themselves were adding to their social media proofs of their war crimes...
  • VagabundoP 2y ago
    It is lucky they are so concisiconscientiousous in documenting their own abuses. I'm sure it will never come back to haunt them... /s
    • megous 2y ago
      Yeah nothing better showing their true intentions than IDF soldiers posing and smiling with Palestinian equivalent of "Holocaust 2023" message they just sprayed on the wall, while still holding the can.
• cbeach 2y ago
  The ICC document describes Israel as a "territory" and Palestine as a "State" (capitalised). Their political bias couldn't be any more obvious. Among the G20, countries like China and Russia consider Palestine as a "state" but the UK, US, Germany, France, Canada and others do not. Make of that what you will. https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-...
  • cess11 2y ago
    No, it refers to the territory of Israel, and the territory of the State of Palestine. Did you read the text or just grab the talking point from someone else?
  • feedforward 2y ago
    > The ICC document describes Israel as a "territory" and Palestine as a "State" (capitalised). "...the territory of Israel and the State of Palestine" - the word and appears after the word territory. It means the territory of both. It is not just talking about the territory of Israel. Also it refers to the names these countries use for themselves and which the UN uses as well. The official names of the countries are Israel and the State of Palestine. If Israel wants to be called the State of Israel as its official country name it would have to change its name to such, it has not. > Among the G20, countries like China and Russia consider Palestine as a "state" but the UK, US, Germany, France, Canada and others do not. 143 countries recognize the State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is recognized by China and Russia along with other G20 members like Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey. Most of the countries in the world recognize the State of Palestine, the ones who don't are mainly in western Europe like the UK, Germany and France. As you say, make of that what you will.
• Kim_Bruning 2y ago
  https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-... Arrest warrants for both sides in the conflict. That actually makes a lot of sense.
• Dowwie 2y ago
  Where are the charges against the tribes of Gaza for committing the most savage acts of terrorism imaginable against men, women and children, including babies? All hostilities followed the acts of October 7th. The ICC could have chosen many issues to address but picked this one. For this reason, it cannot be considered a legitimate institution.
• EchoReflection 2y ago
  "Hellish flamewars in deep subthreads are not ok...please don't do this. If you're hotly indignant, step away from the keyboard until that changes. Nobody 'wins' on the internet anyway, and it's not worth destroying this community for. Not to mention your heart." that should be a permanent "required reading"/prologue on every forum (if that forum might be contentious). I guess part of the issue is "who decides what is 'contentious'?" Anyway, thanks for that refreshing reminder.
  • linearrust 2y ago
    > I guess part of the issue is "who decides what is 'contentious'?" You can write "russia is genociding ukrainians". You can write 'china is genociding muslims". That isn't hellish flamewar. Guess what is hellish flamewar?
    • bamboozled 2y ago
      Why haven’t Hamas returned the hostages ? See the differences between the examples you gave ? Hamas haven’t retuned the hostages because they believe their own people are dying for the glory of God as martyrs. Don’t forget the government of Palestine waged war on Israel though ? I mean what did they think was going to happen after October 7 ? A picnic ? The government of Palestine, who had a responsibility to take care of its people believed every Jew should be wiped off the face for the earth. So I’m not sure what Israel is left to do besides basically demolish the country to ensure its own security. I actually can see the difference between Russia, China and this personally. It would be like Taiwan attacking China. Which they won’t do because they’re not insane fanatics. What do you think Israelites should do instead ? Go back to Europe ? Ceasefire so their enemy can regroup and kill more?
• botanical 2y ago
  There's tonnes of video evidence that Apartheid Israel is carrying out war crimes and genocide. Intentionally targeting and killing civilian groups and infrastructure, starving the population; the IDF hasn't allowed the aid trucks through and soldiers stand by as Israelis destroy the truck contents, doctors having to do amputations of multiple limbs without anaesthesia, 25 000 women and children killed; 10 000 unaccounted for. They targeted all infrastructure needed to live, be it hospitals, universities. Apartheid Israel is ethnically cleansing Gaza and the West Bank through terror. Hamas would exist if not for the occupation. Or else there will inevitably be a Hamas 2.0 This is exactly like uMkhonto we Sizwe in Apartheid in South Africa, it doesn't exist without Apartheid. Or like Hamas isn't the West Bank. Treat people like human animals, imprison them, occupy them and expect any other outcome is foolish. Apartheid Israel needs to make the first move that doesn't include killing civilians and stealing land.