10 ms·
>In his first response to the ICC issuing a warrant for his arrest on allegations of war crimes, Benjamin Netanyahu’s office has described the ruling as “absurd
by 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
>In his first response to the ICC issuing a warrant for his arrest on allegations of war crimes, Benjamin Netanyahu’s office has described the ruling as “absurd and false lies” and said the decision is “antisemitic.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/nov/21/international-criminal-court-icc-arrest-warrant-benjamin-netanyahu-yoav-gallant-mohamed-deif-israel-gaza-war-crimes https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/nov/21/internati...
If Netanyahu and Gallant really think they are innocent, and the allegations are absurd and false, they should cooperate with the ICC. Have your day in court and show how absurd the accusations are. If you're not willing to do that, it seems reasonable for the public to draw a proverbial negative inference.
- Alupis 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bluGill 2y agoYou are assuming the court isn't a political thing that is trying to get him regardless of evidence. The court is at least partially political, and Netanyahu will tell you this is entirely political and he wouldn't get a fair trail.
- bbqfog 2y ago[flagged]
- GordonS 2y ago[flagged]
- qntmfred 2y ago[flagged]
- GordonS 2y agoI honestly don't know what point you are trying to make here?
- qntmfred 2y ago[flagged]
- tsimionescu 2y agoWell, it seems that at least in the case of Palestine, antisemites haven't been able to stop the ICC from addressing the real apartheid, war crimes, and even genocide that Israel is currently conducting in Gaza.
- MrMcCall 2y agoWell, what a person calls a thing and what it is are often two different realities. That's why it is existentially important to understand when a person is a liar, and then never elect them to govt. Yeah, I know, that ship is sailed, but we could place a new framework on whom we choose to run our govts.
- inpdx 2y agoWhen everything Netanyahu doesn't like is antisemitism it begins to lose meaning/legitimacy. Which does great harm to addressing actual antisemitism.
- GordonS 2y agoExactly; it could even be argued that weaponising antisemitism is itself antisemitic behaviour.
- emadabdulrahim 2y agoAntisemitism is a form of bigotry, no more or less special than other forms of bigotry and racism. If you read any significant amount of history you'd know that already, and you wouldn't need to prove that Antisemitism is real. Of course it is. So is anti-[insert religious or ethnic group]
- GordonS 2y ago[flagged]
- limit499karma 2y ago[flagged]
- Hikikomori 2y agoThem turning any criticism of Israels actions into antisemitism is making the word worthless, it's almost a badge of honor at this point. And ironically their genocide is creating real antisemitism.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- defamation 2y ago[flagged]
- newspaper1 2y ago[flagged]
- throwaway_fjmr 2y ago[flagged]
- throwaway_fjmr 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- TrueDuality 2y agoCourts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept and recognize the authority of. It has a history of being very transparent in its decisions and is widely recognized as being neutral and fair in their decision making process. Of course the person charged and found guilty of a crime will argue against the court. Disagreement, even if valid, doesn't change the recognized authority of this court even if the "teeth" are extremely limited.
- seabass-labrax 2y agoIsrael don't recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court. Palestine, however, does, and therefore the ICC consider these allegations within their jurisdiction. A relevant point is that the UK (under the previous Conservative party government) requested the opportunity to dispute the allegations of war crimes based on this complication, but the new British government did not choose to continue with the objection. No other countries have made objections.
- immibis 2y ago[flagged]
- seabass-labrax 2y agoThe government of Germany clearly prefer to side with Israel on any matter related to Palestine (or Lebanon for that matter), but in fairness it has taken this long for the ICC's prosecutor to bring a case. The real tests will begin if, for instance, Netanyahu visits Germany, because that will trigger an obligation for Germany to arrest him. There may of course already be domestic German laws which arms sales to Israel may be breaking, but as far as I'm aware Germany has only had a duty to cooperate with the ICC since the warrant was issued earlier today.
- frm88 2y agoNicaragua had a go at the German government in March 2024 re. arms sales and could not prevail [0]. I just read an article that claims they have already made a new attempt, which could be more successful in the current situation [1 - in German, sorry] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._Germany [1] https://nachrichten.ag/europa/waffenexporte-an-israel-in-gefahr-icc-haftbefehle-sorgen-fuer-umdenken/ https://nachrichten.ag/europa/waffenexporte-an-israel-in-gef...
- vkou 2y ago[flagged]
- LightBug1 2y ago[flagged]
- ars 2y ago[flagged]
- hilbert42 2y agoPerhaps I'm cynical enough to suggest the Court had good reason to overlook the matter—fear of personal retribution.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago[flagged]
- stanfordkid 2y agoThere is indeed, as you state, political influence being exerted on courts. Most of that influence is in support of Israel and Netanyahu — do you really think there is significant political power and influence upon the ICC from Palestine or Hamas? Look at the amount AIPAC has contributed to pro-Israel politicians. It’s quite frankly absurd such a political organization exists under the guise of representing American Jews yet pretty much lobbies solely for Israeli geopolitical issues. Kennedy even tried to get it to register as a foreign agent. The fact that these warrants were issued despite the influence and leverage of Israel is a hint at how egregious the crimes are.
- nimbius 2y agopolitical is..sorta true. the point of these international legal bodies was to maintain and enforce a world order dominated by western powers. it was not about promoting justice (albeit sometimes that happened.) the selective application of enforcement and investigation have reduced the ICC to little more than a tool of neocolonial rule. the rome statute itself contains provisions that limit its reach. article 98 precludes extradition, which has been abused by the US to prevent US nationals from being tried. in short the ICC is allowed to go after western geopolitical rivals, however going after an ally whos committing genocide is a bridge too far; they will be shielded. for example: the US pressured its allies to refuse to refer any activities in Afghanistan to the ICC and largely succeeded as its allies form the dominant half of the UN Security council. whats interesting here is the US seems so isolated this time as to have lost the ability to block the referral. perhaps a first in history.
- jll29 2y agoI once had the honor to attend a lecture by a prosecutor of the ICC. Out of all lawyers/attorneys/prosecutors/judges that I met in my life, that one was the one that I would judge to bet he most idealistic and justice motivated (admittedly based on my gut instinct); a very rare breed. It's good that there are such institutions with a good purpose, staffed with good people. Bad faith actors - including war criminals - will of course claim agendas (other than bringing justice), deny jurisdiction etc. but it is a good starting point to have them. The next step is to strive to give these organizations enough "teeth" to execute. The "individual bully" problem needs some addressing, a solution to that remains outstanding.
- loceng 2y agoAnd the only counterweight for a person accused of genocide who is claiming they haven't committed war crimes or genocide, while they call this action "antisemetic" - the only way to determine if they are being genuine in claim it is antisemitism or political-manipulation (demonization) tool is to go to court and see all of the evidence presented. Either 40,000+ people dead or seemingly nearly all Palestinian's civilian infrastructure being destroyed, both warrant being witnessed and investigated by the international community with a fine tooth comb, no? The ICC isn't some amateur city court in some backwaters country, it is the current epitome and evolutionary state from effort and passion of humanity towards holding the line for justice.
- bawolff 2y ago> And the only counterweight for a person accused of genocide The ICC has not accused anyone of genocide. It does have juridsiction over personal criminal responsibility for gdnocide, but so far, nothing on that front has been mentioned. South africa is suing israel at the icj alleging state responsibility for genocide, however that is different from personal responsibility, and different standards of evidence and procedures apply. Its also a totally separate court system.
- loceng 2y agoStraw man argument. I didn't make the claim the ICC accused the ICC of genocide, however Netanyahu is now at minimum now officially wanted for war crimes. ICC and ICJ are different, yes.
- bawolff 2y agoWell when you say "person accused of genocide" in the context of a warrant from a court that has juridsiction over personal responsibility for genocide, its not a leap to assume that is what you meant. However if you didn't mean that, what did you mean by "person accused of genocide"? Who is accusing them? You personally?
- 2y ago
- loceng 2y agoCan't you place that exact same argument on the side of the Palestinians, and add more weight to their claim - where the international community so far has allowed this, due to reason (whether money involved in politicians toeing a line or not), and so the courts decisions and political bias are more likely to favour Netanyahu over the Palestinians? There never seems to be much critical thinking on the quick one-liners that on the surface appear to often be one-liner propaganda talking points used for deflection, to give an easy memorable line for an otherwise ideological mob to learn-train them with to then parrot. (edited tran->train)
- bawolff 2y agoYou can claim anything, but i don't think it means much if you don't back it up with some arguments. Like this is basically only the second time that a sitting head of state of a functioning country has had a warrant issued against them. Its fairly unprecedented. I don't agree with the claims the icc is biased against israel, but the fact they are acting at all certainly shows they aren't biased for them.
- loceng 2y agoThe proof you provide is very shallow, and with no real relevance or weight as an argument point - when it's known that the US and Israel have veto powers, as an example, that most international organizations currently are theatre without teeth - and so that's essentially why it's "fairly unprecedented." Now Netanyahu has done enough blatantly, what's argued by some to be the most video/photographed-recorded genocide in history, the hierarchy and people resource hierarchy of the ICC hasn't fallen to Israeli political pressure (or whatever other tactics Mossad is known to use to try to get their way). Once again, your final point is more neutral - where you could only really honestly say that if in a vacuum, if you're not looking behind the scenes with how much pressure Israel has put publicly and privately on members of the ICC to not file nor then issue charges, etc.
- bawolff 2y ago> when it's known that the US and Israel have veto powers, as an example, They don't have veto powers of the ICC. Neither are even members. However if your point is that both are powerful political actors, i think that speaks to a lack of pro-israel bias since they are going ahead with the charges despite the objections (and down right threats) from both countries which are super powerful actors. > Now Netanyahu has done enough blatantly, what's argued by some to be the most video/photographed-recorded genocide in history, It should be noted that genocide is not one of the charges. The ICC has juridsiction over genocide, but the ICC prosecuter has not accused israel of genocide thus far.
- generationP 2y ago[flagged]
- GordonS 2y ago[flagged]
- generationP 2y ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 2y ago> When did rockets become "small arms" by the way? Many rockets fall within the SALW category. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_arms_and_light_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_arms_and_light_weapons
- latentcall 2y agoIs this real equivalence? Over 40,000 people have been killed by Israel since October 7th 2023. Israel has one of the most advanced militaries in the world! They are Goliath.
- generationP 2y ago[flagged]
- GordonS 2y agoWe know that Israel was responsible for many of those deaths. I say that not to absolve Hamas of responsibility, but simply because it's a fact. And when compared to F35s, tanks, missiles and the iron dome... I think simple, often homemade, rockets are small arms.
- dlubarov 2y ago[flagged]
- 1024core 2y ago> they should cooperate with the ICC. Have your day in court and show how absurd the accusations are There's a reason why the US does not recognize the ICC.
- newspaper1 2y agoYes, because they want to operate outside the rule of international law.
- throwaway_fjmr 2y ago[flagged]
- Prbeek 2y agoIt looks like ICC is not part of the fantastic rules based order.
- ganeshkrishnan 2y ago[flagged]
- bpodgursky 2y agoFor international law to "rule" over anything, it should start by having an enforcement arm that isn't 98% the US military.
- busterarm 2y agoOr can't be overruled with the veto power of the 5 permanent member states. "International Law" is a joke if China, Russia, France, UK, and US can unilaterally decide not to enforce it.
- culi 2y agoImagine the US having to face consequences for Iraq. One of the most fucked up collection of war crimes and violations of laws of war in the 21st century. The average American now thinks "we shouldn't have gone into Iraq" but has no idea the reputation the US has in the rest of the world because of this act
- rdtsc 2y ago[flagged]
- ComputerGuru 2y ago[flagged]
- newspaper1 2y agoYep, it was House Resolution 1449 if anyone is curious. Really scary times to see our freedoms eroded like this: https://x.com/RepRashida/status/1859362185178439786 https://x.com/RepRashida/status/1859362185178439786
- lo_zamoyski 2y agoThe working definition of the IHRA[0] is truly awful. “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” A certain perception? The original meaning when the term was coined in the 19th century[1] was that of a racial or ethnic hatred of Jews, as "Semite" is a racial or ethnic category. This is more sensible. It can also be distinguished from anti-Jewishness as a rejection of or hostility toward Judaism as a matter of religious belief, culture, or ethos (which better characterizes historical negative attitudes; the test of this is the acceptance of authentic converts, something the Nazis would never recognize, as their hatred was racial in nature). [0] https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitio... [1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/anti-Semitism#etymonline_v_13546 https://www.etymonline.com/word/anti-Semitism#etymonline_v_1...
- throwaway_fjmr 2y ago[flagged]
- bmacho 2y ago[flagged]
- Filligree 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- crest 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- exe34 2y ago[flagged]
- hilbert42 2y ago[flagged]
- freejazz 2y agoIf you think it's a sham, why would you participate in the process? I don't agree that it is a sham, but it's an absurd principle to think that they'd have any interest in doing so.
- megous 2y agoIsrael already participates in the process. That's why they file documents with the court. Claims from two of those the pre-trial chamber rejected today, prior to issuing the warrants. Re response: your claim was participation not jurisdiction, shift goalposts however you like
- freejazz 2y agoSure, and in American courts you can appear just for the purposes of disputing jurisdiction without submitting oneself to it.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y agoDisputing jurisdiction is submitting oneself to the court, so that the court may decide the issue of jurisdiction. If you submit such a jurisdictional dispute to the court for judgement, you tacitly agree to abide by the court's judgement in the dispute. Here, the court made such a decision, Israel is just upset they didn't prevail. If Israel didn't think the court was allowed to rule on jurisdiction, Israel would not have submitted a petition for the court to do exactly that.
- pagade 2y agoAntisemitic. Every time I hear this word, I can’t help but think of its irony—a term used exclusively for describing discrimination against one community, as if prejudice against them carries more weight than against any other. Perhaps, though, it serves as the best reflection of our hypocrisy.
- dlubarov 2y ago[flagged]
- throw310822 2y ago[flagged]
- glassounds 2y ago[flagged]
- newspaper1 2y ago[flagged]
- glassounds 2y ago[flagged]
- newspaper1 2y agoHow could that possibly be true when the only people perpetuating this word are groups like the ADL, Israel... If what you said was true, all of these Zionist institutions wouldn't be promoting it.
- glassounds 2y agoI can promise you that "the ADL and Israel and the Zionist institutions" are not the only ones using the term "antisemitism". I'd personally prefer that it'd be called anti Jewish racism.
- loceng 2y agoI first thought you were going to point out how the misuse of the word "antisemitic" is especially problematic here: Do the vast majority of people not understand correlation vs. causation? Because Netanyahu is Jewish does not mean an action against him is because he's Jewish. That they are willing to use such "cry wolf" tactics, abusing it, dilutes their credibility at minimum - and then should bring their integrity into question, just for this misrepresentation of calling this action antisemitic.
- disgruntledphd2 2y agoI mean, this has been standard operating procedure for the State of Israel for a long time now. Any criticism is dismissed as antisemitic. Personally, I don't think that's fair, but it's understandable why they would use it as a defence.
- throw310822 2y agoBecause it works. Well, it used to work- today, I think it has lost all its value. Good riddance.
- glassounds 2y agoRegardless of whether a group of politicians use it maliciously or not - Antisemitism exists and happens all the time. It has not "lost its value", and if it has then so has western society.
- zeroonetwothree 2y agoI would say it’s clear that Israel draws a lot more criticism than other countries seem to for their bad actions. Whether this is antisemitism or not is up to interpretation but I can see why they might consider it so.
- gspencley 2y ago> If Netanyahu and Gallant really think they are innocent, and the allegations are absurd and false, they should cooperate with the ICC. Have your day in court and show how absurd the accusations are. I don't know if I agree with this. If the ICC is an honest organization that stands for individual rights, liberty and justice then sure. If, on the other hand, the ICC is a corrupt organization that invites the worst of the worst in terms of rights-violating countries and dictatorial regimes to the table, then no way. In any compromise between right and wrong, good and evil, the wrong has everything to gain and the good has everything to lose. In other words, I don't have all of the facts when it comes to the ICC and its history. I know that it is separate from the UN, but I don't know very much about it. Therefore I don't know which alternative I ultimately land on. But in general and in principle, when it comes to those that are objectively and morally wrong, there is every reason to not grant them legitimacy through recognition or participation.
- tguvot 2y ago[flagged]
- pazimzadeh 2y agowhat do you mean by 'invite to the table'? it's a criminal court, so it's going to deal with criminals you're also assuming that israel is a good faith actor in all of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#I...
- gspencley 2y ago> what do you mean by 'invite to the table'? it's a criminal court, so it's going to deal with criminals "Criminals" in this context is meaningless. Please hear me out. We're dealing with the concept of "International Law", which is largely understood as agreements / treaties amongst different countries. This means that those agreements are no more valid or better or righteous than the countries that enter into them. If the nations involved share certain basic principles and make an agreement that aligns with those principles, the enforcement of these "laws" would come from those nations that are party to the treaty. BUT - if one nation changes its mind, or changes its internal laws or decides "nah, no thanks" then how do you enforce these so-called "laws"? Do the other nations declare war on this nation? It gets even worse than that. Because the very concept of "International Law" contains a logical contradiction. The idea is that we are going make war (force, violence, death, destruction, conflict) subject to some kind of rules. The problem is, you can't. You can have two parties to a conflict agree to certain things: like not to murder civilians, or prisoners etc. if it can be helped. But at the end of the day it's an agreement that doesn't have any kind of binding power or significance because the idea of war means that two groups have decided that they can't reach any kind of rational agreement and so they have resorted to violent conflict. War, by definition, is the absence of law. The absence of reason. The breakdown of civilization. It comes about when two groups cannot reason with one another; cannot agree with one another on what the rules ought to be. Law is not a concept that comes out of nowhere. It is the idea that in order to protect individual rights and liberty, the element of force and violence is going to be taken out of civil existence and placed into the hands of a monopoly: the government, which sets the rules and enforcement mechanisms around when force is and is not justifiable within their respective operating jurisdictions. When you have multiple nations that operate independently, each with their own laws and rules, all you can do is get them to agree to certain things, as long as they have some basis upon which to enter into an agreement. My thesis is that a free, rights-protecting nation has no basis for an agreement with a dictatorship that routinely violates peoples' rights. That the dictatorship has everything to gain by getting the free nation to agree to what its evil desires want, while the free nation has only things to lose (through compromise, which is part and parcel of coming to terms). That's what I mean by "invite to the table."
- analognoise 2y ago[flagged]
- grecy 2y ago[flagged]
- jll29 2y agoYes, if there is any moral norm that anyone, especially any parent would accept - as closely to universal as possible, perhaps - it is that killing children is evil.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rmbyrro 2y agoThe Israeli will not recognize the authority of this ICC bench, because it's a politically motivated prosecution. They've lost before the trial even began.