6 ms·

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 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.
- amluto 2y ago
  There’s also this: https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up... The situation and history is impressively messy.
- unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
  Its one thing for the ICC to seek accountability months or years in the future when the dust has settled, but that's not what is happening. Let's extend your hypothetical-- let's stipulate there is a bloodthirsty monster that holds an entire hotel hostage while actively bombing and attacking a nearby town. The monster is de facto hotel manager, because the the despairing people in the hotel at some point elected the the monster to rule the hotel. The sheriff of the town next door (which is being bombed) shows up and defends the town as best they can by attacking the hotel, and there ensues a pitched battle. What role at that point do bewigged stateless jurists play who have no force of arms at their disposal to defend or attack or secure the peace? As a matter of history Germany did suffer mightily in WWII for the crimes of the Nazis; if the ICC were in operation then would it have arrested (or investigated and hobbled) Churchill, Zukov, Patton and Eisenhower? And then impotently and cynically declared its dissatisfaction with Hitler and Goebbels after blunting the Allies' efforts solve the problem the only practical way available to anyone, by force of arms? I sympathize with the humanitarian concerns on both sides, but in this case the ICC is demonstrating its own flaws, which are legion. In your hypothetical, the only people threatened by the bewigged jurists are the sheriff and town precisely because they respect the international order and rule of law, and the ICC would, practically speaking, due to its inherent flaws, solely do the bidding of a monster.
  - tdeck 2y ago
    > the despairing people in the hotel at some point elected the the monster to rule the hotel. What were the people despairing of in this scenario? Did it have something to do with the actions of the nearby town?
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    The point of the ICC trial is to investigate, in the name of the signatory states, if the crime of genocide is being committed by another state, signatory or not. Then, it is up to those states that recognize the court to follow through with the impartial decision. Today, France or the UK or Germany or my own country, Romania, can claim that collaboration with the regime in Israel and/or the one in Gaza is not problematic, because no court of law has found that they engage in genocide. If the ICC finds that there is a credible enough case that they would issue arrest warrants for the highest ranking politicians of those two states, then this would be no longer acceptable. They would have no more fig leaf to hide behind: a court we recognize as legitimate has made it clear that there is a plausible case for genocide taking place, and so we must (if we abide by our own laws, treaties, and logic) end our collaboration with these regimes and seek to bring them to justice. And I find it very interesting that you're comparing the Palestinians with Nazi Germany, and Israel with the Allies. In fact it was Israel that invaded and is currently occupying the Palestinian territories, just like Nazi Germany did with so much of Europe, and it is Israel conducting a genocidal attack in Gaza, not the other way around. Palestine is much closer in this scenario to occupied France or Poland, striking back occasionally at their occupiers. Unfortunately, they are lacking powerful allies like those two countries had to help them free themselves, and they have also been radicalized and are choosing to murderously and condemnably attack the civilian population of Israel instead of focusing on military and state installations as those revolutionary forces mostly did.
    - unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
      The best summary I've heard for "right" and "wrong" here was an invitation to imagine a hypothetical where one set of combatants or the other laid down their arms, what would be the outcome? If Israel did so, Hamas would rampage and slaughter the people of Israel just as they did Oct. 7. If Hamas did so, on Oct. 6 they would have lived in peace. If they did so now, the civilians of Gaza would live in peace, and Israel probably would downgrade its activities even against the Hamas organization specifically. This indeed is the key issue in every war, which by its very nature is a failure of both politics and of "justice" of the bewigged variety. There is no "justice" in war, only the right to self defense which Israel alone reasonably claims here. I tend to be sympathetic to international institutions like the ICC, but this demonstrates it's either corrupt or impractical or both.

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.

amluto 2y ago
There’s also this: https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up... The situation and history is impressively messy.
unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
Its one thing for the ICC to seek accountability months or years in the future when the dust has settled, but that's not what is happening. Let's extend your hypothetical-- let's stipulate there is a bloodthirsty monster that holds an entire hotel hostage while actively bombing and attacking a nearby town. The monster is de facto hotel manager, because the the despairing people in the hotel at some point elected the the monster to rule the hotel. The sheriff of the town next door (which is being bombed) shows up and defends the town as best they can by attacking the hotel, and there ensues a pitched battle. What role at that point do bewigged stateless jurists play who have no force of arms at their disposal to defend or attack or secure the peace? As a matter of history Germany did suffer mightily in WWII for the crimes of the Nazis; if the ICC were in operation then would it have arrested (or investigated and hobbled) Churchill, Zukov, Patton and Eisenhower? And then impotently and cynically declared its dissatisfaction with Hitler and Goebbels after blunting the Allies' efforts solve the problem the only practical way available to anyone, by force of arms? I sympathize with the humanitarian concerns on both sides, but in this case the ICC is demonstrating its own flaws, which are legion. In your hypothetical, the only people threatened by the bewigged jurists are the sheriff and town precisely because they respect the international order and rule of law, and the ICC would, practically speaking, due to its inherent flaws, solely do the bidding of a monster.
- tdeck 2y ago
  > the despairing people in the hotel at some point elected the the monster to rule the hotel. What were the people despairing of in this scenario? Did it have something to do with the actions of the nearby town?
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  The point of the ICC trial is to investigate, in the name of the signatory states, if the crime of genocide is being committed by another state, signatory or not. Then, it is up to those states that recognize the court to follow through with the impartial decision. Today, France or the UK or Germany or my own country, Romania, can claim that collaboration with the regime in Israel and/or the one in Gaza is not problematic, because no court of law has found that they engage in genocide. If the ICC finds that there is a credible enough case that they would issue arrest warrants for the highest ranking politicians of those two states, then this would be no longer acceptable. They would have no more fig leaf to hide behind: a court we recognize as legitimate has made it clear that there is a plausible case for genocide taking place, and so we must (if we abide by our own laws, treaties, and logic) end our collaboration with these regimes and seek to bring them to justice. And I find it very interesting that you're comparing the Palestinians with Nazi Germany, and Israel with the Allies. In fact it was Israel that invaded and is currently occupying the Palestinian territories, just like Nazi Germany did with so much of Europe, and it is Israel conducting a genocidal attack in Gaza, not the other way around. Palestine is much closer in this scenario to occupied France or Poland, striking back occasionally at their occupiers. Unfortunately, they are lacking powerful allies like those two countries had to help them free themselves, and they have also been radicalized and are choosing to murderously and condemnably attack the civilian population of Israel instead of focusing on military and state installations as those revolutionary forces mostly did.
  - unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
    The best summary I've heard for "right" and "wrong" here was an invitation to imagine a hypothetical where one set of combatants or the other laid down their arms, what would be the outcome? If Israel did so, Hamas would rampage and slaughter the people of Israel just as they did Oct. 7. If Hamas did so, on Oct. 6 they would have lived in peace. If they did so now, the civilians of Gaza would live in peace, and Israel probably would downgrade its activities even against the Hamas organization specifically. This indeed is the key issue in every war, which by its very nature is a failure of both politics and of "justice" of the bewigged variety. There is no "justice" in war, only the right to self defense which Israel alone reasonably claims here. I tend to be sympathetic to international institutions like the ICC, but this demonstrates it's either corrupt or impractical or both.