15 ms·

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

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.

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.