4 ms·

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 f

by 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.
  - arlort 2y ago
    > ICC can issue secret warrants Do you have a source for that? This doesn't make sense to me since it relies on more than a hundred different countries to enforce them, it'd be impossible to keep anything they do a secret
    - yyyk 2y ago
      Search for the Thomas Lubanga and Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo cases. The ICC can issue 'sealed' (secret) warrants and tell the countries very late in the process. Yeah, in practice any such warrant will eventually leak, but it's still a risk for anyone who might be on the other end which de facto creates limits to anyone who might fall under suspicion.
      - arlort 2y ago
        Interesting, TIL, thanks
  - csomar 2y ago
    > ICC can issue secret warrants, and no denial would be credible due to its very nature If that's the case then they are defacto banned from travelling. Still these secret warrants will be shared with the respective countries, right? So they should know?
dragonwriter 2y ago
> I'm told warrant approval is almost always a rubberstamp. Its pretty similar to an indictment in the US (to judges rather than a grand jury); its an unopposed process where the prosecutor knows the standards and chooses when to bring a case to that step based on confidence in being ready to meet the standards. There's not a lot of probability of surprises if the basic work is done competently and in good faith and not with an intent to push the envelope. > 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. Trials won't take start until the individuals being tried are in custody for trial. (They don't have to be at the same time.)
- yyyk 2y ago
  >There's not a lot of probability of surprises if the basic work is done competently and in good faith and not with an intent to push the envelope. It's a tiny bit higher since IMHO he pushed the envelope on starvation (the reported malnutrition death count is 32 out of over two million people), and on not engaging with Israel (was due to a trip to the country before issuing indictments), but given unopposed nature, his advantage is so large I don't see odds of this being rejected. >Trials won't take start until the individuals being tried are in custody for trial. (They don't have to be at the same time.) Yeah, the other comment slagged me on this. The essential 'this isn't resolved for years, by which time they are out of office' is right.
marcosdumay 2y ago
> It makes attacking Israel a bit more 'legitimate', but in the ME legitimacy for that was already sky-high. On the other hand, it defuses the situation away from an world war wannabe into something Israel fights alone.
stevespang 2y ago
[dead]

by yyyk 2y ago

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.
- arlort 2y ago
  > ICC can issue secret warrants Do you have a source for that? This doesn't make sense to me since it relies on more than a hundred different countries to enforce them, it'd be impossible to keep anything they do a secret
  - yyyk 2y ago
    Search for the Thomas Lubanga and Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo cases. The ICC can issue 'sealed' (secret) warrants and tell the countries very late in the process. Yeah, in practice any such warrant will eventually leak, but it's still a risk for anyone who might be on the other end which de facto creates limits to anyone who might fall under suspicion.
    - arlort 2y ago
      Interesting, TIL, thanks
- csomar 2y ago
  > ICC can issue secret warrants, and no denial would be credible due to its very nature If that's the case then they are defacto banned from travelling. Still these secret warrants will be shared with the respective countries, right? So they should know?

dragonwriter 2y ago

> I'm told warrant approval is almost always a rubberstamp. Its pretty similar to an indictment in the US (to judges rather than a grand jury); its an unopposed process where the prosecutor knows the standards and chooses when to bring a case to that step based on confidence in being ready to meet the standards. There's not a lot of probability of surprises if the basic work is done competently and in good faith and not with an intent to push the envelope. > 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. Trials won't take start until the individuals being tried are in custody for trial. (They don't have to be at the same time.)

yyyk 2y ago
>There's not a lot of probability of surprises if the basic work is done competently and in good faith and not with an intent to push the envelope. It's a tiny bit higher since IMHO he pushed the envelope on starvation (the reported malnutrition death count is 32 out of over two million people), and on not engaging with Israel (was due to a trip to the country before issuing indictments), but given unopposed nature, his advantage is so large I don't see odds of this being rejected. >Trials won't take start until the individuals being tried are in custody for trial. (They don't have to be at the same time.) Yeah, the other comment slagged me on this. The essential 'this isn't resolved for years, by which time they are out of office' is right.

marcosdumay 2y ago

> It makes attacking Israel a bit more 'legitimate', but in the ME legitimacy for that was already sky-high. On the other hand, it defuses the situation away from an world war wannabe into something Israel fights alone.

stevespang 2y ago

[dead]