29 ms·

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 wi

by 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.
    - boomboomsubban 2y ago
      While I understand your point about the optics of it, optics should play no role in determining whether somebody is guilty of war crimes. When optics are a primary factor, war crime laws are a tool the powerful use to punish the weak. I have my issues with the ICC, but they are supposed to enforce international law impartially.
  - worik 2y ago
    > does not imply that they think both are the same. They clearly not the same. One is a modern state and one is not. The actions of both are not so different. Killing civilians is not good. Whether it be guerilla terrorism or bombs and troops
    - golergka 2y ago
      > Killing civilians is not good. International law looks at this differently. There's a huge difference between targeting civilians and striking genuine military targets that have civilian human shields, especially after issuing a warning and taking reasonable precautions. The first is a war crime, the second is actually allowed by Geneva conventions. The phrase “killing civilians” throws these differences out of the window and simply shouldn't be used in intelligent conversion about this topic.
      - worik 2y ago
        Really? I think that is a distinction without a difference If your siblings are killed or maimed in their home or at a party, do you care? Killing people is a bad thing
        golergka 2y ago
        Then you disagree with international law and common sense. If my siblings are killed with a rocket that targeted a hospital turned a weapon silo, I would blame those who put the weapons there, not those who launched the rocket.
        phatfish 2y ago
        Obviously Hamas are responsible for the hospital becoming a target. But there is version of this where weapons at the hospital are removed by force, without bombing it.
        mhb 2y ago
  - AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
    It's a PR play ultimately, they can't just say "Netanyahoo is a war criminal, K thx bai". That would call the court's judgement into question for a lot of people. If massacring civilians and aid workers is a war crime, then yeah, he's a war criminal, but they have to also address the elephant in the room, that Hamas is also wantonly committing war crimes and is calling for even more even though they're significantly less powerful in this dynamic.
    - jeroenhd 2y ago
      I don't like this "but Hamas is worse" rethoric. War crimes are ware crimes, you're not allowed to commit them because the other side is worse than you. This may be how things played out after the second world war, but it's a horrible standard to live by. If the ICC has any integrity, they won't take "but they started it" as an excuse.
      - kbelder 2y ago
        >you're not allowed to commit them because the other side is worse than you. Aren't you? I thought the Geneva convention and similar treaties all require reciprocity.
        jeroenhd 2y ago
        Under the Geneva conventions, yes, but the Rome statute only copies select passages of the Geneva convention, and I don't believe the "we can commit war crimes as long as you don't promise not to commit war crimes" is part of what's copied. The Rome Statute does allow foe the ICC to convict according to the Geneva conventions as well, but the exemptions therein don't necessarily apply.
        8372049 2y ago
        First of all, "In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience." (Article 1, second paragraph, Additional Protocol I.) Second, both Israel and Palestine have signed the main conventions. Israel with reservations, and have not signed AP I and II. Palestine have signed all of them, unconditionally. Since both are signatories, they are both bound by the conventions even if the other party breaks them.
- elzbardico 2y ago
  [flagged]
- tptacek 2y ago
  The Biden situation is predictable and calls into question the strategy behind the ICC arrest warrants. First things first: neither the Polizio di Stato, the Garda, nor the RCMP are actually going to arrest Sinwar or Netanyahu. The practical impact of the warrants will be (at least in the near term) negligible. Concurrently: unlike the ICC Genocide case, which is difficult and unlikely to succeed, the ICC war crimes warrants are probably broadly going to be seen as strong and compelling. Reporting has Biden and his team maneuvering for months to keep any kind of supply lines open to Gaza; he knows firsthand that some of these charges have validity. But the USA is Israel's most important ally; further, reporting suggests that Biden's team has been the only thing between the current situation and abyss that would kill 3-5x as many civilians. That pushback only functions because of soft power (Israel would not depend on US arms suppliers for indiscriminate bulk bombing, massed land incursions, or supply blockades). What else can Biden say in this situation? He cannot both assent to the validity of the ICC charges and continue negotiating with Israel for things like US-built supply piers on Gaza's seafront. You can't really do diplomacy wth a world leader while at the same time saying (or implying) that they belong in the Hague. There's a general vibe where people want international justice to work in simple moral terms, where everyone just lays the truth as they understand it out, a tribunal sorts out the details, and the chips fall as they may. But international law absolutely doesn't work that way; for similar reasons, Assad won't be charged by the ICC for killing half a million Syrians (Syria is not a signatory to the ICC). Once you accept that the court is fundamentally political, you're left asking: are the politics of this move effective? Will they hasten an end to the conflict, or save lives? Either way: once the warrants were announced, I think you could have taken bets on what Biden (or literally any other American president in the last 50 years, or any major party candidate for the presidency) would have said, and all the money would be on exactly this. We're not signatories to the ICC to begin with! (I think Netanyahu is a criminal; the Hague is fine with me, though I think it's more likely he'll do his time in Maasiyahu after the Israelis convict him once his coalition falls apart).
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > reporting suggests that Biden's team has been the only thing between the current situation and abyss that would kill 3-5x as many civilians Um. What? Biden's team vetoed UN calls for a ceasefire three times. Biden's team has delivered how many billions of dollars of weapons in the last 8 months? Biden's team has consistently and repeatedly lied in front of the whole world, saying that they see "no evidence" of genocide. This, during the most documented mass murder in all history. This, despite clear and unequivocal genocidal statements from Israeli leadership, media, and populace. How many people have resigned from his team now, saying they can't have this much Palestinian blood on their hands any more? To claim that Biden has prevented deaths in the last 8 months is breathtaking. At every juncture he and the team he still has have been complicit.
- harimau777 2y ago
  The ICC isn't equating the actions of Hamas and Netanyahu. They are being accused of separate crimes.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - xdennis 2y ago
    These warrants were released simultaneously even though Hamas broadcast the footage immediately after Oct 7. (The footage of the man being decapitated with a hoe was even shown live from the UN, before the news cut off the broadcast.)
- olliej 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - schmidt_fifty 2y ago
    [dead]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- schmidt_fifty 2y ago
  [dead]
- viccis 2y ago
  >I personally can't believe the ICC is equating the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government. What a shameful organization. I agree 100%! Over the past year, Israel has caused orders of magnitude more innocent deaths by terrorist actions (as outlined in the warranted issued here), has a much higher civilian death rate during military operations (Oct 7 was around 60%, while IDF's battles have been higher, with both sides hiding military targets within civilian areas) and should be taken far more seriously, as their support from other national aggressors like the US makes them far more dangerous.
- yyyk 2y ago
  The real issue with the warrants isn't 'equating'. It's the political point to cover two deeper issues: First, that Biden admin and others can't escape culpability for any such claim if it's considered credible. Second, the dubious factual basis (trucks were allowed in all the time; temporary port and air supply obviously with Israel's approval; the very low malnutrition death count according to Gaza health ministry's own reports). The first made the admin's reply inevitable. The second made it even more likely, but it's a too complex point for PR I guess, so they went with 'equating'.
- slaymaker1907 2y ago
  Biden technically has authority to invade the Netherlands if they arrest any member of the military or government of Israel under the American Service-Members' Protection Act since Israel is a major non-NATO ally.
nabla9 2y ago
Warrants requests are for five people. I think warrants issued against Sinwar, Al-Masri and Haniyeh are very likely. Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant IMHO are over 50% Proportationality and intention are important when the ICC interprets what constitutes war crime or crime against humanity. These cases also set up a precedents. Arrest warrant for Netanyahu and Gallant is for: - Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute; - Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); - Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); - Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i); - Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity; - Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h); Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
- pyuser583 2y ago
  If Netanyahu produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court allowing his actions, doesn’t that make it impossible to prosecute him? ICC works in conjunction with national courts. If a country has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong. Or not. Israel’s judiciary is both functional and independent. Very independent. Of Netanyahu in particular. And the Israeli judiciary seems to be going along with this. Source: https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works > The ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > If Netanyahu produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court allowing his actions, doesn’t that make it impossible to prosecute him? No. Israel’s courts ratifying alleged war crimes is the Israeli national system being “unwilling or unable to [apply international law] genuinely.”
HL33tibCe7 2y ago
> Will the ICC actually approve the warrants? Almost certainly
- ronjobber 2y ago
  What gives you that impression? Commentary I've seen suggests highly likely for Sinwar et al., but 50/50 on Netanyahu and Gallant.
  - tjpnz 2y ago
    It's either both or none at all. Anywhere between would destroy any and all of the ICC's remaining legitimacy.
riku_iki 2y ago
> How far will the US and/or Israel go to threaten or discredit the ICC leadership? Will Egypt or other neighbours respond? What is the reaction in China? Will Europe and the Netherlands stand by the ICC unconditionally? ICC warrant will likely just be ignored.
- Timber-6539 2y ago
  Sure. But Netanyahu will have to choose sparingly out of state visits lest he finds himself arrested in a foreign country and shipped to the Hague.
  - riku_iki 2y ago
    its well manageable risk. I am not an expert, but I am under impression that he will be jailed in Israel too once/if loses power.
    - slillibri 2y ago
      Why? Israel isn’t an ICC signatory nation.
      - eqvinox 2y ago
        I think that was meant as a reference to Netanyahu's non-ICC Israeli domestic legal problems. AIUI if he weren't PM he'd be in jail already.
        slillibri 2y ago
        Ah, that makes sense.
  - gavanm 2y ago
    He would definitely would - though I’d imagine that most his travel would be done on a diplomatic basis - so it’s possible the Vienna conventions might apply and preclude detention. (not really sure, I’m not a lawyer).
jmyeet 2y ago
It seems more likely than not that the ICC will approve the warrants. This is unprecedented for the ICC to turn its gaze toards a key US ally. As for how far will the US go, well in 2002, Congress passed (and Bush signed) the American Service Members Protection Act, more colloquially known as the Hage Invasion Act. It authorizes the president to use all necessary force including invading the Netherlands if an American servicemember or appointed official is ever taken into ICC custody. This includes officials and servicemen of key allies, including Israel. So will Betanyahu or Gallant actually be arrested? Almost certainly not. The practical effect of this is political not legal. The goal of protests, boycotting, ICJ applications, ICC warrants, UN (GA and SC) motions, "Undecided" voting in Democratic primaries and so on are to incrementally pressure the two key players here: Israel and, more importantly, the US. Why? Because the US could end the conflict with a phone call. They could end it with a press release. BDS (Boycott, divest, sanction) movements were considered successful in isolating and ultimately toppling the Apartheid South African regime in the 1970s and 1980s. Given this success, an awful lot of lobbying has been directed at US politicans to pass so-called "anti-BDS" laws that are laws in ~37 states. For example, to be a teacher in Texas, you need to sign a contract agreeing to never participate in a BDS movement against Israel. So the practical effect of ICC warrants is just to incrementally isolate and pressure Israel.
- outside1234 2y ago
  How can the US end the conflict with a phone call? I think that is unlikely because I suspect those phone calls have already been had. And really the only way we are resolving this is by actually solving the underlying issue, which is that there are a set of people essentially locked up in a prison for 30 years and/or slowly being shot by settlers in the West Bank.
  - jmyeet 2y ago
    Press release: "We're halting all arms shipments to Israel". There's even a legal basis for it, the so-called "Leahy laws" [1]. Israel cannot exist without hte largesse and political cover the United States provides. I agree about solving the underlying issues and the injustices that have historically taken place but the above is intended to answer the question and engage in analysis rather than arguing the merits, which is likely an unproductive conversation. [1]: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/PP410_INVEST_v2.1.pdf https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/PP410_INVES...
mrangle 2y ago
Support / condemnation will be staunchly factionally split from within all Western Nations. Speaking about a National Unified Will is ridiculous at this stage in history. Eventually, the anti-Israel faction will dominate everywhere except for one or two select Nations that does not include the US. Though, its possible that the US also stays loyal for an indefinite time period. Accurate predication for support / condemnation is rooted in deeper history and geopolitical logic than most people consider.
- sebzim4500 2y ago
  I think this is very much up in the air. A high profile Islamic terrorist attacks would shift the narrative, for example. On the other side, if the war cools down a bit people will gradually lose interest in the same way that no one cares about Modi's past actions.
  - mrangle 2y ago
    It could be up in the air. For perspective, I'm with Israel. Though, I'm for saving as many Palestinian lives as humanly possible. Which should be all of them, should the clerics and State Actors stop abusing them via radicalization and the Islamic World works with Israel toward offering appropriate options. But what I'm speaking about, in terms of prediction, isn't the way that the wind blows. What I'm speaking about is high level State intention. No one today can seriously believe that State political orientation is a grassroots effect. The reality is that, with the exception of extremely unstable States that are de facto puppets of other Nations, the broad political orientation of modern States is an effect of the allowable movements, opinions, revolutions, propaganda, and migrations that are facilitated by the agencies over decades. Ergo, the eventual orientation of any State toward or away from Israel has to be assumed to be in that State's geopolitical interest as dictated at the highest level. As we can easily observe, if there was an event and the resultant popular effect was not in the State's interest than, no matter what, the event would be minimized into oblivion by State Press. Conversely, the Press will manufacture events out of virtual non-events if that assists the State's interest. Only the State or God will determine whether or not it supports Israel, in any future. That's my starting point for prediction.
yyyk 2y ago
Without expressing opinion on the warrants: A) I'm told warrant approval is almost always a rubberstamp. B) There will be a discrediting campaign, but ICC's future is the least interesting thing to me. C) I'm not sure this leads to a conviction, but actual trials will probably take years by which time Bibi and co will be out of office. Again not so interesting. D) Bibi was already done for. But paradoxically this strengthens him domestically temporarily and massively strengths the Right next elections. I'll expand on this below since this is IMHO interesting. E) It makes attacking Israel a bit more 'legitimate', but in the ME legitimacy for that was already sky-high. War with Lebanon was very high likelihood anyway. F) Saudi normalization is DOA for this term (always was, but admin was blind to everyone's interests. Qatar would have had to be nuts not to put every possible roadblock here, and Biden admin could never see what was in front of its eyes). G) Hamas has not so simple problems here. The various ideas for reintegration has hit serious roadblocks, and later on I believe this will cause them bigger problems than Israel which can always change leaders. --- D is not 'rally around the flag'. It has to do with the opposition is built: its deep links with the 'security state'. The security state is outraged and itself vulnerable to possible warrants. The same logic could have easily justified adding Gantz. An Israeli Left opposition which can't claim the world likes them more (due to warrant risk) and loses its security credentials (security state links to pre and post Oct failures, warrant risk again) is dead in the water. Which means it needs more time before an election to find its footing again... But on the other hand, it wouldn't like possible ICC isolation either. So a temporary delay before losing in the elections.
- nabla9 2y ago
  ICC does not have trials or conviction in absence. After the arrest warrant goes out, everything stops until people charged are in custody. It's very unlikely that Gallant or Netanyahu will ever be arrested. Their travel will be just limited for the rest of their lives.
  - yyyk 2y ago
    True. I never assumed that, though I see now why my phrasing could imply it. You're right - they're probably not stepping in that court. But even if they did, it would take years. My other point - ICC can issue secret warrants, and no denial would be credible due to its very nature... This is poison to Gantz's political career and same for any active general who would want to join the current opposition following service. The current Israeli opposition is just not competitive without generals, and all they've left are certain people who are very... outspoken to put it mildly.
Hock88sdx 2y ago
[dead]
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> How far will the US and/or Israel go to threaten or discredit the ICC leadership? If warrants are issued, I’d bet at least the House votes to sanction the ICC [1]. If Trump wins, I’d bet it passes. (Which is ironic, since every moment of attention on Israel and Palestine is a win for Trump. This war is Biden’s abortion debate. He’s checkmated, with massive vote losses regardless of what he does.) [1] https://www.axios.com/2024/05/20/icc-netanyahu-arrest-warrant-congress https://www.axios.com/2024/05/20/icc-netanyahu-arrest-warran...
- WhackyIdeas 2y ago
  Yes. I reckon Trump will win this presidency purely on the number of conscience voters not voting for Biden this time around. I don’t think the (probably PR) building of the port is going to save Biden here. That is not to say I think Trump would have handled the situation any better. I’m sure it would have been fuel on the fire. Can we all agree on one single thing though: The Governments of USA, Germany, UK and Israel would be best informing the world of their definition of genocide as there is definitely a massive difference in opinion of what genocide is. It is super important. If they can explain why and how what is happening doesn’t match the definition of genocide agreed upon in the Genocide Convention of 1948 then maybe the world will stop using the word. But until they can change everyone’s minds, people are going to keep believing it. I think that would solve a lot of this back and forward.
  - ajross 2y ago
    > People aren’t using the ‘G’ word lightly They absolutely are. Really everyone with a non-cynical opinion in this whole mess, on both sides, is deeply unserious. There are no solutions here, at all. Everyone wants something terrible. Push one side and you eventually get to "The Palestinians Deserve What They Get". Push the other and you get to "Jews are Colonizers Who Need to be Driven Out". And BOTH SIDES use the term "genocide", largely incorrectly, to describe those horrors and are SHOCKED AND OFFENDED that anyone would describe their own opinions so. I've just given up. My general political feelings align mostly with the Palestinians here, if for no other reason than it stops the immediate bleeding faster. But there will be no peace here, not within our lifetimes.
shmatt 2y ago
Its not just the US. A western democracy has never been issued a warrant like this. It's not that hard to find crimes being committed by western leaders (is no one listening to this seasons Serial podcast? Guantanamo is still open). If this goes through every western leader past and present can have a warrant out for them at any minute, it really doesn't take much to find 1 suspected violation and a need to arrest and stand trial to see if they are guilty.
- ronjobber 2y ago
  At that point the court would effectively lose it's legitimacy, as it would be unable to enforce/execute those warrants. Not saying that that is a) good or b) isn't where we are heading... it mirrors the trajectory of the UN and it's certainly in line with trends in economic fragmentation.
  - mhuffman 2y ago
    This is the real crux of any "Rule of Law" body. Can you enforce it? With the US attached, nearly any law could be enforced globally (by force if necessary) if it got out of hand. But what do you do if the target is the US? Or now China? or even protected by them?
    - _3u10 2y ago
      Build an economy that outcompetes them, and is technologically more advanced and then build, carrier strike groups conventional forces, and nuclear weapons.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - itsoktocry 2y ago
      >But what do you do if the target is the US? Or now China? or even protected by them? You do nothing. Which is why all of hand-wringing around this ICC decision is for pointless. There is no such thing as "international law" in any practical sense.

by tda 2y ago

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.
  - boomboomsubban 2y ago
    While I understand your point about the optics of it, optics should play no role in determining whether somebody is guilty of war crimes. When optics are a primary factor, war crime laws are a tool the powerful use to punish the weak. I have my issues with the ICC, but they are supposed to enforce international law impartially.
- worik 2y ago
  > does not imply that they think both are the same. They clearly not the same. One is a modern state and one is not. The actions of both are not so different. Killing civilians is not good. Whether it be guerilla terrorism or bombs and troops
  - golergka 2y ago
    > Killing civilians is not good. International law looks at this differently. There's a huge difference between targeting civilians and striking genuine military targets that have civilian human shields, especially after issuing a warning and taking reasonable precautions. The first is a war crime, the second is actually allowed by Geneva conventions. The phrase “killing civilians” throws these differences out of the window and simply shouldn't be used in intelligent conversion about this topic.
    - worik 2y ago
      Really? I think that is a distinction without a difference If your siblings are killed or maimed in their home or at a party, do you care? Killing people is a bad thing
      - golergka 2y ago
        Then you disagree with international law and common sense. If my siblings are killed with a rocket that targeted a hospital turned a weapon silo, I would blame those who put the weapons there, not those who launched the rocket.
        phatfish 2y ago
        Obviously Hamas are responsible for the hospital becoming a target. But there is version of this where weapons at the hospital are removed by force, without bombing it.
        mhb 2y ago
- AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
  It's a PR play ultimately, they can't just say "Netanyahoo is a war criminal, K thx bai". That would call the court's judgement into question for a lot of people. If massacring civilians and aid workers is a war crime, then yeah, he's a war criminal, but they have to also address the elephant in the room, that Hamas is also wantonly committing war crimes and is calling for even more even though they're significantly less powerful in this dynamic.
  - jeroenhd 2y ago
    I don't like this "but Hamas is worse" rethoric. War crimes are ware crimes, you're not allowed to commit them because the other side is worse than you. This may be how things played out after the second world war, but it's a horrible standard to live by. If the ICC has any integrity, they won't take "but they started it" as an excuse.
    - kbelder 2y ago
      >you're not allowed to commit them because the other side is worse than you. Aren't you? I thought the Geneva convention and similar treaties all require reciprocity.
      - jeroenhd 2y ago
        Under the Geneva conventions, yes, but the Rome statute only copies select passages of the Geneva convention, and I don't believe the "we can commit war crimes as long as you don't promise not to commit war crimes" is part of what's copied. The Rome Statute does allow foe the ICC to convict according to the Geneva conventions as well, but the exemptions therein don't necessarily apply.
      - 8372049 2y ago
        First of all, "In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience." (Article 1, second paragraph, Additional Protocol I.) Second, both Israel and Palestine have signed the main conventions. Israel with reservations, and have not signed AP I and II. Palestine have signed all of them, unconditionally. Since both are signatories, they are both bound by the conventions even if the other party breaks them.
elzbardico 2y ago
[flagged]
tptacek 2y ago
The Biden situation is predictable and calls into question the strategy behind the ICC arrest warrants. First things first: neither the Polizio di Stato, the Garda, nor the RCMP are actually going to arrest Sinwar or Netanyahu. The practical impact of the warrants will be (at least in the near term) negligible. Concurrently: unlike the ICC Genocide case, which is difficult and unlikely to succeed, the ICC war crimes warrants are probably broadly going to be seen as strong and compelling. Reporting has Biden and his team maneuvering for months to keep any kind of supply lines open to Gaza; he knows firsthand that some of these charges have validity. But the USA is Israel's most important ally; further, reporting suggests that Biden's team has been the only thing between the current situation and abyss that would kill 3-5x as many civilians. That pushback only functions because of soft power (Israel would not depend on US arms suppliers for indiscriminate bulk bombing, massed land incursions, or supply blockades). What else can Biden say in this situation? He cannot both assent to the validity of the ICC charges and continue negotiating with Israel for things like US-built supply piers on Gaza's seafront. You can't really do diplomacy wth a world leader while at the same time saying (or implying) that they belong in the Hague. There's a general vibe where people want international justice to work in simple moral terms, where everyone just lays the truth as they understand it out, a tribunal sorts out the details, and the chips fall as they may. But international law absolutely doesn't work that way; for similar reasons, Assad won't be charged by the ICC for killing half a million Syrians (Syria is not a signatory to the ICC). Once you accept that the court is fundamentally political, you're left asking: are the politics of this move effective? Will they hasten an end to the conflict, or save lives? Either way: once the warrants were announced, I think you could have taken bets on what Biden (or literally any other American president in the last 50 years, or any major party candidate for the presidency) would have said, and all the money would be on exactly this. We're not signatories to the ICC to begin with! (I think Netanyahu is a criminal; the Hague is fine with me, though I think it's more likely he'll do his time in Maasiyahu after the Israelis convict him once his coalition falls apart).
- mandmandam 2y ago
  > reporting suggests that Biden's team has been the only thing between the current situation and abyss that would kill 3-5x as many civilians Um. What? Biden's team vetoed UN calls for a ceasefire three times. Biden's team has delivered how many billions of dollars of weapons in the last 8 months? Biden's team has consistently and repeatedly lied in front of the whole world, saying that they see "no evidence" of genocide. This, during the most documented mass murder in all history. This, despite clear and unequivocal genocidal statements from Israeli leadership, media, and populace. How many people have resigned from his team now, saying they can't have this much Palestinian blood on their hands any more? To claim that Biden has prevented deaths in the last 8 months is breathtaking. At every juncture he and the team he still has have been complicit.
harimau777 2y ago
The ICC isn't equating the actions of Hamas and Netanyahu. They are being accused of separate crimes.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- xdennis 2y ago
  These warrants were released simultaneously even though Hamas broadcast the footage immediately after Oct 7. (The footage of the man being decapitated with a hoe was even shown live from the UN, before the news cut off the broadcast.)
olliej 2y ago
[flagged]
- schmidt_fifty 2y ago
  [dead]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
schmidt_fifty 2y ago
[dead]
viccis 2y ago
>I personally can't believe the ICC is equating the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government. What a shameful organization. I agree 100%! Over the past year, Israel has caused orders of magnitude more innocent deaths by terrorist actions (as outlined in the warranted issued here), has a much higher civilian death rate during military operations (Oct 7 was around 60%, while IDF's battles have been higher, with both sides hiding military targets within civilian areas) and should be taken far more seriously, as their support from other national aggressors like the US makes them far more dangerous.
yyyk 2y ago
The real issue with the warrants isn't 'equating'. It's the political point to cover two deeper issues: First, that Biden admin and others can't escape culpability for any such claim if it's considered credible. Second, the dubious factual basis (trucks were allowed in all the time; temporary port and air supply obviously with Israel's approval; the very low malnutrition death count according to Gaza health ministry's own reports). The first made the admin's reply inevitable. The second made it even more likely, but it's a too complex point for PR I guess, so they went with 'equating'.
slaymaker1907 2y ago
Biden technically has authority to invade the Netherlands if they arrest any member of the military or government of Israel under the American Service-Members' Protection Act since Israel is a major non-NATO ally.

nabla9 2y ago

Warrants requests are for five people. I think warrants issued against Sinwar, Al-Masri and Haniyeh are very likely. Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant IMHO are over 50% Proportationality and intention are important when the ICC interprets what constitutes war crime or crime against humanity. These cases also set up a precedents. Arrest warrant for Netanyahu and Gallant is for: - Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute; - Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); - Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); - Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i); - Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity; - Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h); Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

pyuser583 2y ago
If Netanyahu produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court allowing his actions, doesn’t that make it impossible to prosecute him? ICC works in conjunction with national courts. If a country has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong. Or not. Israel’s judiciary is both functional and independent. Very independent. Of Netanyahu in particular. And the Israeli judiciary seems to be going along with this. Source: https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works > The ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > If Netanyahu produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court allowing his actions, doesn’t that make it impossible to prosecute him? No. Israel’s courts ratifying alleged war crimes is the Israeli national system being “unwilling or unable to [apply international law] genuinely.”

HL33tibCe7 2y ago

> Will the ICC actually approve the warrants? Almost certainly

ronjobber 2y ago
What gives you that impression? Commentary I've seen suggests highly likely for Sinwar et al., but 50/50 on Netanyahu and Gallant.
- tjpnz 2y ago
  It's either both or none at all. Anywhere between would destroy any and all of the ICC's remaining legitimacy.

riku_iki 2y ago

> How far will the US and/or Israel go to threaten or discredit the ICC leadership? Will Egypt or other neighbours respond? What is the reaction in China? Will Europe and the Netherlands stand by the ICC unconditionally? ICC warrant will likely just be ignored.

Timber-6539 2y ago
Sure. But Netanyahu will have to choose sparingly out of state visits lest he finds himself arrested in a foreign country and shipped to the Hague.
- riku_iki 2y ago
  its well manageable risk. I am not an expert, but I am under impression that he will be jailed in Israel too once/if loses power.
  - slillibri 2y ago
    Why? Israel isn’t an ICC signatory nation.
    - eqvinox 2y ago
      I think that was meant as a reference to Netanyahu's non-ICC Israeli domestic legal problems. AIUI if he weren't PM he'd be in jail already.
      - slillibri 2y ago
        Ah, that makes sense.
- gavanm 2y ago
  He would definitely would - though I’d imagine that most his travel would be done on a diplomatic basis - so it’s possible the Vienna conventions might apply and preclude detention. (not really sure, I’m not a lawyer).

jmyeet 2y ago

It seems more likely than not that the ICC will approve the warrants. This is unprecedented for the ICC to turn its gaze toards a key US ally. As for how far will the US go, well in 2002, Congress passed (and Bush signed) the American Service Members Protection Act, more colloquially known as the Hage Invasion Act. It authorizes the president to use all necessary force including invading the Netherlands if an American servicemember or appointed official is ever taken into ICC custody. This includes officials and servicemen of key allies, including Israel. So will Betanyahu or Gallant actually be arrested? Almost certainly not. The practical effect of this is political not legal. The goal of protests, boycotting, ICJ applications, ICC warrants, UN (GA and SC) motions, "Undecided" voting in Democratic primaries and so on are to incrementally pressure the two key players here: Israel and, more importantly, the US. Why? Because the US could end the conflict with a phone call. They could end it with a press release. BDS (Boycott, divest, sanction) movements were considered successful in isolating and ultimately toppling the Apartheid South African regime in the 1970s and 1980s. Given this success, an awful lot of lobbying has been directed at US politicans to pass so-called "anti-BDS" laws that are laws in ~37 states. For example, to be a teacher in Texas, you need to sign a contract agreeing to never participate in a BDS movement against Israel. So the practical effect of ICC warrants is just to incrementally isolate and pressure Israel.

outside1234 2y ago
How can the US end the conflict with a phone call? I think that is unlikely because I suspect those phone calls have already been had. And really the only way we are resolving this is by actually solving the underlying issue, which is that there are a set of people essentially locked up in a prison for 30 years and/or slowly being shot by settlers in the West Bank.
- jmyeet 2y ago
  Press release: "We're halting all arms shipments to Israel". There's even a legal basis for it, the so-called "Leahy laws" [1]. Israel cannot exist without hte largesse and political cover the United States provides. I agree about solving the underlying issues and the injustices that have historically taken place but the above is intended to answer the question and engage in analysis rather than arguing the merits, which is likely an unproductive conversation. [1]: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/PP410_INVEST_v2.1.pdf https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/PP410_INVES...

mrangle 2y ago

Support / condemnation will be staunchly factionally split from within all Western Nations. Speaking about a National Unified Will is ridiculous at this stage in history. Eventually, the anti-Israel faction will dominate everywhere except for one or two select Nations that does not include the US. Though, its possible that the US also stays loyal for an indefinite time period. Accurate predication for support / condemnation is rooted in deeper history and geopolitical logic than most people consider.

sebzim4500 2y ago
I think this is very much up in the air. A high profile Islamic terrorist attacks would shift the narrative, for example. On the other side, if the war cools down a bit people will gradually lose interest in the same way that no one cares about Modi's past actions.
- mrangle 2y ago
  It could be up in the air. For perspective, I'm with Israel. Though, I'm for saving as many Palestinian lives as humanly possible. Which should be all of them, should the clerics and State Actors stop abusing them via radicalization and the Islamic World works with Israel toward offering appropriate options. But what I'm speaking about, in terms of prediction, isn't the way that the wind blows. What I'm speaking about is high level State intention. No one today can seriously believe that State political orientation is a grassroots effect. The reality is that, with the exception of extremely unstable States that are de facto puppets of other Nations, the broad political orientation of modern States is an effect of the allowable movements, opinions, revolutions, propaganda, and migrations that are facilitated by the agencies over decades. Ergo, the eventual orientation of any State toward or away from Israel has to be assumed to be in that State's geopolitical interest as dictated at the highest level. As we can easily observe, if there was an event and the resultant popular effect was not in the State's interest than, no matter what, the event would be minimized into oblivion by State Press. Conversely, the Press will manufacture events out of virtual non-events if that assists the State's interest. Only the State or God will determine whether or not it supports Israel, in any future. That's my starting point for prediction.

yyyk 2y ago

Without expressing opinion on the warrants: A) I'm told warrant approval is almost always a rubberstamp. B) There will be a discrediting campaign, but ICC's future is the least interesting thing to me. C) I'm not sure this leads to a conviction, but actual trials will probably take years by which time Bibi and co will be out of office. Again not so interesting. D) Bibi was already done for. But paradoxically this strengthens him domestically temporarily and massively strengths the Right next elections. I'll expand on this below since this is IMHO interesting. E) It makes attacking Israel a bit more 'legitimate', but in the ME legitimacy for that was already sky-high. War with Lebanon was very high likelihood anyway. F) Saudi normalization is DOA for this term (always was, but admin was blind to everyone's interests. Qatar would have had to be nuts not to put every possible roadblock here, and Biden admin could never see what was in front of its eyes). G) Hamas has not so simple problems here. The various ideas for reintegration has hit serious roadblocks, and later on I believe this will cause them bigger problems than Israel which can always change leaders. --- D is not 'rally around the flag'. It has to do with the opposition is built: its deep links with the 'security state'. The security state is outraged and itself vulnerable to possible warrants. The same logic could have easily justified adding Gantz. An Israeli Left opposition which can't claim the world likes them more (due to warrant risk) and loses its security credentials (security state links to pre and post Oct failures, warrant risk again) is dead in the water. Which means it needs more time before an election to find its footing again... But on the other hand, it wouldn't like possible ICC isolation either. So a temporary delay before losing in the elections.

nabla9 2y ago
ICC does not have trials or conviction in absence. After the arrest warrant goes out, everything stops until people charged are in custody. It's very unlikely that Gallant or Netanyahu will ever be arrested. Their travel will be just limited for the rest of their lives.
- yyyk 2y ago
  True. I never assumed that, though I see now why my phrasing could imply it. You're right - they're probably not stepping in that court. But even if they did, it would take years. My other point - ICC can issue secret warrants, and no denial would be credible due to its very nature... This is poison to Gantz's political career and same for any active general who would want to join the current opposition following service. The current Israeli opposition is just not competitive without generals, and all they've left are certain people who are very... outspoken to put it mildly.

Hock88sdx 2y ago

[dead]

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> How far will the US and/or Israel go to threaten or discredit the ICC leadership? If warrants are issued, I’d bet at least the House votes to sanction the ICC [1]. If Trump wins, I’d bet it passes. (Which is ironic, since every moment of attention on Israel and Palestine is a win for Trump. This war is Biden’s abortion debate. He’s checkmated, with massive vote losses regardless of what he does.) [1] https://www.axios.com/2024/05/20/icc-netanyahu-arrest-warrant-congress https://www.axios.com/2024/05/20/icc-netanyahu-arrest-warran...

WhackyIdeas 2y ago
Yes. I reckon Trump will win this presidency purely on the number of conscience voters not voting for Biden this time around. I don’t think the (probably PR) building of the port is going to save Biden here. That is not to say I think Trump would have handled the situation any better. I’m sure it would have been fuel on the fire. Can we all agree on one single thing though: The Governments of USA, Germany, UK and Israel would be best informing the world of their definition of genocide as there is definitely a massive difference in opinion of what genocide is. It is super important. If they can explain why and how what is happening doesn’t match the definition of genocide agreed upon in the Genocide Convention of 1948 then maybe the world will stop using the word. But until they can change everyone’s minds, people are going to keep believing it. I think that would solve a lot of this back and forward.
- ajross 2y ago
  > People aren’t using the ‘G’ word lightly They absolutely are. Really everyone with a non-cynical opinion in this whole mess, on both sides, is deeply unserious. There are no solutions here, at all. Everyone wants something terrible. Push one side and you eventually get to "The Palestinians Deserve What They Get". Push the other and you get to "Jews are Colonizers Who Need to be Driven Out". And BOTH SIDES use the term "genocide", largely incorrectly, to describe those horrors and are SHOCKED AND OFFENDED that anyone would describe their own opinions so. I've just given up. My general political feelings align mostly with the Palestinians here, if for no other reason than it stops the immediate bleeding faster. But there will be no peace here, not within our lifetimes.

shmatt 2y ago

Its not just the US. A western democracy has never been issued a warrant like this. It's not that hard to find crimes being committed by western leaders (is no one listening to this seasons Serial podcast? Guantanamo is still open). If this goes through every western leader past and present can have a warrant out for them at any minute, it really doesn't take much to find 1 suspected violation and a need to arrest and stand trial to see if they are guilty.

ronjobber 2y ago
At that point the court would effectively lose it's legitimacy, as it would be unable to enforce/execute those warrants. Not saying that that is a) good or b) isn't where we are heading... it mirrors the trajectory of the UN and it's certainly in line with trends in economic fragmentation.
- mhuffman 2y ago
  This is the real crux of any "Rule of Law" body. Can you enforce it? With the US attached, nearly any law could be enforced globally (by force if necessary) if it got out of hand. But what do you do if the target is the US? Or now China? or even protected by them?
  - _3u10 2y ago
    Build an economy that outcompetes them, and is technologically more advanced and then build, carrier strike groups conventional forces, and nuclear weapons.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - itsoktocry 2y ago
    >But what do you do if the target is the US? Or now China? or even protected by them? You do nothing. Which is why all of hand-wringing around this ICC decision is for pointless. There is no such thing as "international law" in any practical sense.