8 ms·

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 ar

by 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.”
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    And to add on to JumpCrisscross, ICC warrants are only valid in countries that are currently member states of the ICC [0], though countries will gladly turn the other eye depending on mutual interests (eg. Narendra Modi's close relationship with Japan, France, Singapore, UAE, and Israel because they didn't enforce US travel sanctions on him when he was CM of Gujarat in the 2000s). Notably, the US is NOT a signatory of the ICC (this was a whole thing in the Iraq War days). [0] - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_states.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_states.sv...
    - Karrot_Kream 2y ago
      For folks interested in this process, take a look at the ICC proceedings against Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman [1] regarding war crimes in Darfur. [1]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/abd-al-rahman https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/abd-al-rahman
      - alephnerd 2y ago
        Also the Frontline documentary from 2019 about Ratko Mladić's trial [0] (Edit: I'm a dummy, this was the ICTY, not the ICC, but the ICTY was the precursor model of the ICC in the aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars). [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJh8fuaqslo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJh8fuaqslo
    - bawolff 2y ago
      I don't think this is relavent to the complementary principle. If the israeli judicial system made a good faith attempt to prosecute this crime following the standards of international law, it would probably prevent this warrant even though Israel is not a party to the court.
    - sweeter 2y ago
      It kind of gives the game away when you see that the US is not a signatory but had a big say in appointing the Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan in 2021 and have instituted the "Invade the Hague Act" that would allow the US to invade the Hague if they were to prosecute any American personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... The Biden admin cooperated with the ICC, specifically quietly handing documents to the ICC that details Putin's war crimes and urging them to submit arrest warrants for Putin. Notably Russia is also not a signatory of the ICC, so there is definitely precedent for this process that even has had the backing of the US. IMO Khan's speech today really speaks for itself. The "International Rule of Law" is nothing but a joke if we don't not apply it equally and blindly that will ultimately lead to the degradation of modern society and our species. I highly urge people to go and check out his speech on the matter and to form your own opinion.
- nabla9 2y ago
  >produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court This would mean that Netanyahu has been charged, tried and eventually acquitted of the same crimes. ICC investigates if the national proceedings are genuine. To start the process, Israeli prosecutor must prosecute.
  - pyuser583 2y ago
    Israel courts have a process of pre-clearance. If the “criminal act” was pre-cleared by the Israeli courts and found lawful, that’s a big deal.
    - rbanffy 2y ago
      That would make the Israeli court system “unwilling” to apply international law.
      - dotancohen 2y ago
        That just sounds like the term "unwilling" is to be arbitrarily applied when the ICC doesn't like the national court's decision.
        8372049 2y ago
        If Israeli courts give clearance to conduct that violates IHL, then that is certainly an unwillingness to enforce said laws.
        pyuser583 2y ago
        If Israeli courts seriously and in good faith reviews the conduct and find it lawful, then it’s simply a disagreement between two courts. Does the fact that the ICC disagrees with the Israeli courts mean the ICC is correct?
- dragonwriter 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, it does not. > ICC works in conjunction with national courts Not in the way you are suggesting. > If a country has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong No, the ICC will rule a case inadmissible if a state has investigated and/or prosecuted that specific case (not just if it has some general level of legal functionality), unless the ICC also fines that the investigation or prosecution was not genuine (e.g., was pretextual for the purpose of, say, giving the accused an exonerating document to wave around to protect against ICC prosecution.) See Article 17 of the Rome Statute.
  - Fatnino 2y ago
    Does a country have to be a signatory to the Rome Statute to be subject to it?
    - lucubratory 2y ago
      No, in fact Putin was recently subjected to it.
      - runarberg 2y ago
        Putin’s crimes were committed in Ukraine, which is a signatory (though not a party to it [yet]).
        lucubratory 2y ago
        The "State of Palestine" (the official name in this context) is a signatory to the ICC, and is the location of the committed crimes. I guess you could technically make an argument that despite Sderot et al being an occupation under international law, because they are in the actual control of Israel which isn't a signatory then crimes committed there couldn't be prosecuted by the ICC. Given that the only party who would try to escape arrest for crimes in those areas are Hamas leadership, I doubt that's what Israel wants. Also, I doubt Hamas is willing to legally state any part of Palestine is "Israel", particularly for a relatively non-existential threat like an arrest warrant.
- jd3 2y ago
  The US states: > The ICC was established by its state parties as a court of limited jurisdiction. Those limits are rooted in principles of complementarity, which do not appear to have been applied here amid the Prosecutor’s rush to seek these arrest warrants rather than allowing the Israeli legal system a full and timely opportunity to proceed.[0] --- The ICC defines: > 1. Complementarity: The principle of complementarity governs the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction. This distinguishes the Court in several significant ways from other known institutions, including the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (the ICTY and the ICTR). The Statute recognizes that States have the first responsibility and right to prosecute international crimes. The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings. The principle of complementarity is based both on respect for the primary jurisdiction of States and on considerations of efficiency and effectiveness, since States will generally have the best access to evidence and witnesses and the resources to carry out proceedings. Moreover, there are limits on the number of prosecutions the ICC, a single institution, can feasibly conduct.[1] namely, > The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings. The US argues that the ICC has not adequately allowed this process to play out through the courts in Israel. --- The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs states: > The criteria of unwillingness or inability to carry out proceedings would involve some indication of purposely shielding the accused from criminal responsibility or a lack of intent to bring the person to justice. This may be inferred from political interference or deliberate obstruction and delay, from institutional deficiencies due to political subordination of the legal system, or procedural irregularities indicating a lack of willingness and inability to investigate or prosecute genuinely.[2] --- Imo the hermeneutics are clear, though it will be up to the lawyers from either side to make arguments in favor of/against. [0]: https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-international-criminal-court/ https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-internatio... [1]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/20BB4494-70F9-4698-8E30-907F631453ED/281984/complementarity.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/20B... [2]: https://jcpa.org/article/would-judicial-reforms-in-israel-open-up-the-israeli-military-to-charges-of-war-crimes/ https://jcpa.org/article/would-judicial-reforms-in-israel-op....
- harimau777 2y ago
  If the Israeli Supreme court allows his actions, then that sounds like it would fall under the "unwilling" part of "unwilling or unable to do so".
- bimguy 2y ago
  If that was true then Putin would also be immune to ICC prosecution, so, it doesn't seem to work like that. > it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely. And if you read the last part of the sentence you quoted it should make it pretty clear that it doesn't work like you have interpreted it.
jiggawatts 2y ago
[flagged]
- cromka 2y ago
  A good example of a failed attempt at whataboutism.
- dullcrisp 2y ago
  There are also arrest warrants sought for Hamas leadership that were excluded from the headline. Edit: it does mention Sinwar.
- ReflectedImage 2y ago
  Presumably in the Israeli and US courts
- amluto 2y ago
  Being requested concurrently, by the same prosecutor. See, for example, the title and the first couple paragraphs of the article.
  - unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
    It does seem strange that the ICC is charging both the chief of a terrorist outlaw pirate gang Hamas, and the figurative sheriff that's trying to round them up. It's not like the ICC is going to raise an army to arrest Sinwar, and that's the price of admission to becoming an arbiter of what is "just" in this scenario. It's similar to the ICC's impotent protest of Putin, when they only would pose a serious concern to those who would oppose Putin, and face investigation for their methods. The ICC is demonstrating the logical flaws at the very heart of its structure.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      There are two weak points I can see in this argument. Most importantly, if a sheriff was trying to catch a murderer by burning down the hotel where the murderer was known to sleep in, with all other guests still inside, I assure you any legal system would seek to arrest the sheriff just as much as the original murderer. Secondly, while Hamas is clearly a terrorist organization, it is also the de facto and de jure sovereign power in Gaza, it's not an outlaw gang. Just like Hitler was not an outlaw pirate, even though his actions were the highest crimes against humanity.
mrbonner 2y ago
The Israeli military often cites that it is impossible to make a difference between Hamas militants and civilians. It reminds me of the VN war in which the VC often dressed as civilians to kill US military personnel. The US was condemned leading attack against VN villages allegedly housing the VC. At some point, they used mercenary like the South Korea military to squash those VC by hitting the whole village with extreme prejudice. Who was at fault?
- csb6 2y ago
  > Who was at fault? Pretty clearly the U.S. and the South Vietnamese military. Just because you can't tell who is a combatant and who isn't doesn't give you permission to slaughter entire villages.
  - Fatnino 2y ago
    The rules of war evolved specifically so armies would not feel the need to slaughter civilians. Uniforms, military facilities kept separate from civilian infrastructure, etc. are rules for a reason. If the group killing your soldiers isn't adhering to these rules of war then all the civilians in the area will find themselves at risk. There is no world where combatants can expect to be allowed to enjoy the protections civilians are afforded while still killing you.
    - tdeck 2y ago
      Bold of you to take the same stance Germany took about murdering civilians in the territory they were occupying. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francs-tireurs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francs-tireurs
      - nayaketo 2y ago
        He's taking the same stance allied forces took in Germany and Japan.
        2y ago
foreverobama 2y ago
[dead]
vkou 2y ago
Displacement of civilian populations in occupied areas, and mass settlement of occupier civilian populations into the West Bank also needs to be up there. It is also a war crime, and doesn't even have the fig leaf of an active war to justify it.
- dotancohen 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - edanm 2y ago
    > Despite the international hatred of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, there is no international rule or law forbidding it. This flies in the face of most of what I've heard/read on the subject. Israel is considered an occupying power (in WB and Gaza), and occupying powers in general aren't allowed to build settlements in occupied territories, no? I'm not sure how the Ottoman law is connected to this at all? Why is that the reigning law of that land, the Ottomans haven't had ownership of it since 1918. Isn't it considered Jordanian land, since they annexed it after 1948?
    - dotancohen 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - edanm 2y ago
        Wait, you're saying that because Israel isn't moving citizens into the WB, and it's being done voluntarily, then that makes it legal? First I've heard of this interpretation of international law, interesting. How does incentivizing civilians financially to move there fit into this? How does protecting civilians via the military fit into this?
        dotancohen 2y ago
        > Wait, you're saying that because Israel isn't moving citizens into the WB, and it's being done voluntarily, then that makes it legal? Yes. That is both the letter of the law and the intent of the law. That was the specific case with the Germans for whom this law was introduced, and that is how it has been applied in other areas as well. > How does incentivizing civilians financially to move there fit into this? How does protecting civilians via the military fit into this? There is no financial incentive, other than far more general financial considerations such as the expense of living in e.g. Tel Aviv. But one could move to Dimina, Eilat, or Kiryat Shmona for the same reasons - there is nothing special about the West Bank financially. As for the military protecting civilians, does not every military protecting it's civilians? When I was serving, we would protect Arab civilians just like we would protect Jewish civilians. The Arab clan wars are seldom discussed, but are a far greater cause of casualties than the Arab-Israeli conflict excluding wars.
mikrotikker 2y ago
Well Netanyahu should be OK given how careful, reserved and calculated the IDF has been, and this will be reflected in any court proceedings. If Netanyahu is punished for this, then GWB must face a more severe punishments for his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan which saw far more collateral damage.
dotancohen 2y ago
These reasons for the arrest warrant could apply to a dozen heads of state that I could mention offhand, and I'm just a layman in that field. Is there such a warrant issued already for Assad, president of Syria? Wasn't the recently deceased president of Iran called "The Butcher of Tehran" for a reason?
- zarzavat 2y ago
  It has to happen in a place where the ICC has jurisdiction. Palestine has ratified the Rome Statue, and the crimes are happening in Palestine. Syria and Iran have not.
  - dotancohen 2y ago
    > It has to happen in a place where the ICC has jurisdiction. Oh, convenient. > Palestine has ratified the Rome Statue There has not been a political entity called Palestine since the Rome statue was enacted. I believe that you are referring to The Palestinian Authority, the distinction is in fact important here in a conflict where words are often deliberately misapplied and misused in order to direct a narrative. In any case, The Palestinian Authority does not rule the Gaza strip. Then were overthrown in a very bloody coup, 2005 or 2006, in which Hamas threw some 100 PA members off the top of the buildings.
    - joshuamorton 2y ago
      > I believe that you are referring to The Palestinian Authority You would be incorrect [0]. The UN recognizes a "State of Palestine" independent of the specific government, which includes both Gaza and the West Bank. This entity, the state of Palestine, not the PLA (that would be weird, like saying the Tory party is signatory to the Rome statute), is signatory to the Rome statute. The state of Palestine is a non-member observer state in the UN. You're correct that it's good to be precise here, so you should do so around the specific political entity of Palestine when that is what is being discussed. [0]: Depositary notification of Accession to the Rome Statute by the State of Palestine; https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2015/CN.13.2015-Eng.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2015/CN.13.2015-E...

by nabla9 2y ago

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.”
- alephnerd 2y ago
  And to add on to JumpCrisscross, ICC warrants are only valid in countries that are currently member states of the ICC [0], though countries will gladly turn the other eye depending on mutual interests (eg. Narendra Modi's close relationship with Japan, France, Singapore, UAE, and Israel because they didn't enforce US travel sanctions on him when he was CM of Gujarat in the 2000s). Notably, the US is NOT a signatory of the ICC (this was a whole thing in the Iraq War days). [0] - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_states.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_states.sv...
  - Karrot_Kream 2y ago
    For folks interested in this process, take a look at the ICC proceedings against Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman [1] regarding war crimes in Darfur. [1]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/abd-al-rahman https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/abd-al-rahman
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      Also the Frontline documentary from 2019 about Ratko Mladić's trial [0] (Edit: I'm a dummy, this was the ICTY, not the ICC, but the ICTY was the precursor model of the ICC in the aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars). [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJh8fuaqslo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJh8fuaqslo
  - bawolff 2y ago
    I don't think this is relavent to the complementary principle. If the israeli judicial system made a good faith attempt to prosecute this crime following the standards of international law, it would probably prevent this warrant even though Israel is not a party to the court.
  - sweeter 2y ago
    It kind of gives the game away when you see that the US is not a signatory but had a big say in appointing the Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan in 2021 and have instituted the "Invade the Hague Act" that would allow the US to invade the Hague if they were to prosecute any American personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... The Biden admin cooperated with the ICC, specifically quietly handing documents to the ICC that details Putin's war crimes and urging them to submit arrest warrants for Putin. Notably Russia is also not a signatory of the ICC, so there is definitely precedent for this process that even has had the backing of the US. IMO Khan's speech today really speaks for itself. The "International Rule of Law" is nothing but a joke if we don't not apply it equally and blindly that will ultimately lead to the degradation of modern society and our species. I highly urge people to go and check out his speech on the matter and to form your own opinion.
nabla9 2y ago
>produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court This would mean that Netanyahu has been charged, tried and eventually acquitted of the same crimes. ICC investigates if the national proceedings are genuine. To start the process, Israeli prosecutor must prosecute.
- pyuser583 2y ago
  Israel courts have a process of pre-clearance. If the “criminal act” was pre-cleared by the Israeli courts and found lawful, that’s a big deal.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    That would make the Israeli court system “unwilling” to apply international law.
    - dotancohen 2y ago
      That just sounds like the term "unwilling" is to be arbitrarily applied when the ICC doesn't like the national court's decision.
      - 8372049 2y ago
        If Israeli courts give clearance to conduct that violates IHL, then that is certainly an unwillingness to enforce said laws.
        pyuser583 2y ago
        If Israeli courts seriously and in good faith reviews the conduct and find it lawful, then it’s simply a disagreement between two courts. Does the fact that the ICC disagrees with the Israeli courts mean the ICC is correct?
dragonwriter 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, it does not. > ICC works in conjunction with national courts Not in the way you are suggesting. > If a country has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong No, the ICC will rule a case inadmissible if a state has investigated and/or prosecuted that specific case (not just if it has some general level of legal functionality), unless the ICC also fines that the investigation or prosecution was not genuine (e.g., was pretextual for the purpose of, say, giving the accused an exonerating document to wave around to protect against ICC prosecution.) See Article 17 of the Rome Statute.
- Fatnino 2y ago
  Does a country have to be a signatory to the Rome Statute to be subject to it?
  - lucubratory 2y ago
    No, in fact Putin was recently subjected to it.
    - runarberg 2y ago
      Putin’s crimes were committed in Ukraine, which is a signatory (though not a party to it [yet]).
      - lucubratory 2y ago
        The "State of Palestine" (the official name in this context) is a signatory to the ICC, and is the location of the committed crimes. I guess you could technically make an argument that despite Sderot et al being an occupation under international law, because they are in the actual control of Israel which isn't a signatory then crimes committed there couldn't be prosecuted by the ICC. Given that the only party who would try to escape arrest for crimes in those areas are Hamas leadership, I doubt that's what Israel wants. Also, I doubt Hamas is willing to legally state any part of Palestine is "Israel", particularly for a relatively non-existential threat like an arrest warrant.
jd3 2y ago
The US states: > The ICC was established by its state parties as a court of limited jurisdiction. Those limits are rooted in principles of complementarity, which do not appear to have been applied here amid the Prosecutor’s rush to seek these arrest warrants rather than allowing the Israeli legal system a full and timely opportunity to proceed.[0] --- The ICC defines: > 1. Complementarity: The principle of complementarity governs the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction. This distinguishes the Court in several significant ways from other known institutions, including the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (the ICTY and the ICTR). The Statute recognizes that States have the first responsibility and right to prosecute international crimes. The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings. The principle of complementarity is based both on respect for the primary jurisdiction of States and on considerations of efficiency and effectiveness, since States will generally have the best access to evidence and witnesses and the resources to carry out proceedings. Moreover, there are limits on the number of prosecutions the ICC, a single institution, can feasibly conduct.[1] namely, > The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings. The US argues that the ICC has not adequately allowed this process to play out through the courts in Israel. --- The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs states: > The criteria of unwillingness or inability to carry out proceedings would involve some indication of purposely shielding the accused from criminal responsibility or a lack of intent to bring the person to justice. This may be inferred from political interference or deliberate obstruction and delay, from institutional deficiencies due to political subordination of the legal system, or procedural irregularities indicating a lack of willingness and inability to investigate or prosecute genuinely.[2] --- Imo the hermeneutics are clear, though it will be up to the lawyers from either side to make arguments in favor of/against. [0]: https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-international-criminal-court/ https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-internatio... [1]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/20BB4494-70F9-4698-8E30-907F631453ED/281984/complementarity.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/20B... [2]: https://jcpa.org/article/would-judicial-reforms-in-israel-open-up-the-israeli-military-to-charges-of-war-crimes/ https://jcpa.org/article/would-judicial-reforms-in-israel-op....
harimau777 2y ago
If the Israeli Supreme court allows his actions, then that sounds like it would fall under the "unwilling" part of "unwilling or unable to do so".
bimguy 2y ago
If that was true then Putin would also be immune to ICC prosecution, so, it doesn't seem to work like that. > it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely. And if you read the last part of the sentence you quoted it should make it pretty clear that it doesn't work like you have interpreted it.

jiggawatts 2y ago

[flagged]

cromka 2y ago
A good example of a failed attempt at whataboutism.
dullcrisp 2y ago
There are also arrest warrants sought for Hamas leadership that were excluded from the headline. Edit: it does mention Sinwar.
ReflectedImage 2y ago
Presumably in the Israeli and US courts
amluto 2y ago
Being requested concurrently, by the same prosecutor. See, for example, the title and the first couple paragraphs of the article.
- unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
  It does seem strange that the ICC is charging both the chief of a terrorist outlaw pirate gang Hamas, and the figurative sheriff that's trying to round them up. It's not like the ICC is going to raise an army to arrest Sinwar, and that's the price of admission to becoming an arbiter of what is "just" in this scenario. It's similar to the ICC's impotent protest of Putin, when they only would pose a serious concern to those who would oppose Putin, and face investigation for their methods. The ICC is demonstrating the logical flaws at the very heart of its structure.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    There are two weak points I can see in this argument. Most importantly, if a sheriff was trying to catch a murderer by burning down the hotel where the murderer was known to sleep in, with all other guests still inside, I assure you any legal system would seek to arrest the sheriff just as much as the original murderer. Secondly, while Hamas is clearly a terrorist organization, it is also the de facto and de jure sovereign power in Gaza, it's not an outlaw gang. Just like Hitler was not an outlaw pirate, even though his actions were the highest crimes against humanity.

mrbonner 2y ago

The Israeli military often cites that it is impossible to make a difference between Hamas militants and civilians. It reminds me of the VN war in which the VC often dressed as civilians to kill US military personnel. The US was condemned leading attack against VN villages allegedly housing the VC. At some point, they used mercenary like the South Korea military to squash those VC by hitting the whole village with extreme prejudice. Who was at fault?

csb6 2y ago
> Who was at fault? Pretty clearly the U.S. and the South Vietnamese military. Just because you can't tell who is a combatant and who isn't doesn't give you permission to slaughter entire villages.
- Fatnino 2y ago
  The rules of war evolved specifically so armies would not feel the need to slaughter civilians. Uniforms, military facilities kept separate from civilian infrastructure, etc. are rules for a reason. If the group killing your soldiers isn't adhering to these rules of war then all the civilians in the area will find themselves at risk. There is no world where combatants can expect to be allowed to enjoy the protections civilians are afforded while still killing you.
  - tdeck 2y ago
    Bold of you to take the same stance Germany took about murdering civilians in the territory they were occupying. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francs-tireurs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francs-tireurs
    - nayaketo 2y ago
      He's taking the same stance allied forces took in Germany and Japan.
      - 2y ago

foreverobama 2y ago

[dead]

vkou 2y ago

Displacement of civilian populations in occupied areas, and mass settlement of occupier civilian populations into the West Bank also needs to be up there. It is also a war crime, and doesn't even have the fig leaf of an active war to justify it.

dotancohen 2y ago
[flagged]
- edanm 2y ago
  > Despite the international hatred of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, there is no international rule or law forbidding it. This flies in the face of most of what I've heard/read on the subject. Israel is considered an occupying power (in WB and Gaza), and occupying powers in general aren't allowed to build settlements in occupied territories, no? I'm not sure how the Ottoman law is connected to this at all? Why is that the reigning law of that land, the Ottomans haven't had ownership of it since 1918. Isn't it considered Jordanian land, since they annexed it after 1948?
  - dotancohen 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - edanm 2y ago
      Wait, you're saying that because Israel isn't moving citizens into the WB, and it's being done voluntarily, then that makes it legal? First I've heard of this interpretation of international law, interesting. How does incentivizing civilians financially to move there fit into this? How does protecting civilians via the military fit into this?
      - dotancohen 2y ago
        > Wait, you're saying that because Israel isn't moving citizens into the WB, and it's being done voluntarily, then that makes it legal? Yes. That is both the letter of the law and the intent of the law. That was the specific case with the Germans for whom this law was introduced, and that is how it has been applied in other areas as well. > How does incentivizing civilians financially to move there fit into this? How does protecting civilians via the military fit into this? There is no financial incentive, other than far more general financial considerations such as the expense of living in e.g. Tel Aviv. But one could move to Dimina, Eilat, or Kiryat Shmona for the same reasons - there is nothing special about the West Bank financially. As for the military protecting civilians, does not every military protecting it's civilians? When I was serving, we would protect Arab civilians just like we would protect Jewish civilians. The Arab clan wars are seldom discussed, but are a far greater cause of casualties than the Arab-Israeli conflict excluding wars.

mikrotikker 2y ago

Well Netanyahu should be OK given how careful, reserved and calculated the IDF has been, and this will be reflected in any court proceedings. If Netanyahu is punished for this, then GWB must face a more severe punishments for his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan which saw far more collateral damage.

dotancohen 2y ago

These reasons for the arrest warrant could apply to a dozen heads of state that I could mention offhand, and I'm just a layman in that field. Is there such a warrant issued already for Assad, president of Syria? Wasn't the recently deceased president of Iran called "The Butcher of Tehran" for a reason?

zarzavat 2y ago
It has to happen in a place where the ICC has jurisdiction. Palestine has ratified the Rome Statue, and the crimes are happening in Palestine. Syria and Iran have not.
- dotancohen 2y ago
  > It has to happen in a place where the ICC has jurisdiction. Oh, convenient. > Palestine has ratified the Rome Statue There has not been a political entity called Palestine since the Rome statue was enacted. I believe that you are referring to The Palestinian Authority, the distinction is in fact important here in a conflict where words are often deliberately misapplied and misused in order to direct a narrative. In any case, The Palestinian Authority does not rule the Gaza strip. Then were overthrown in a very bloody coup, 2005 or 2006, in which Hamas threw some 100 PA members off the top of the buildings.
  - joshuamorton 2y ago
    > I believe that you are referring to The Palestinian Authority You would be incorrect [0]. The UN recognizes a "State of Palestine" independent of the specific government, which includes both Gaza and the West Bank. This entity, the state of Palestine, not the PLA (that would be weird, like saying the Tory party is signatory to the Rome statute), is signatory to the Rome statute. The state of Palestine is a non-member observer state in the UN. You're correct that it's good to be precise here, so you should do so around the specific political entity of Palestine when that is what is being discussed. [0]: Depositary notification of Accession to the Rome Statute by the State of Palestine; https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2015/CN.13.2015-Eng.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2015/CN.13.2015-E...