5 ms·

I mean, nobody really knows until the trial (if one ever happens). Its easy to be convincing when you are just listening to the prosecution - it gets harder onc

I mean, nobody really knows until the trial (if one ever happens). Its easy to be convincing when you are just listening to the prosecution - it gets harder once the defense has the opportunity to poke holes. Keep in mind the conviction rate at ICC is pretty low. > The prosecutor asked opinions from a impartial panel of experts in international law. The court already disagreed with said panel on one of the charges (crime of extermination) and we aren't even at the stage yet where they need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Netanyahu and Gallant should certainly be quite worried (if they somehow find themselves in icc custody which seems unlikely) but we are still very far away from a conviction. Its not a foregone conclusion.

exe34 2y ago
[flagged]
nabla9 2y ago
The outcome of this case will be hard to predict, but Netanyahu and Gallant did their best to get convicted.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  Your dark humor made me chuckle. Thanks for that in this dire world. May the persecution of all innocent Jews, Palestinians, Ukrainians, and Africans (e.g. Ugandans) end and a world of peace and justice be established, for one and all.
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - buran77 2y ago
    The double edged sword is that proving an ongoing crime maybe stops it from unfolding but anything other than a conviction is presented as an endorsement and encouragement to continue. That could be fine if there's really no crime, not so fine if the crime just couldn't be proven. Considering here the old adage that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. They both lead to the same verdict from a court of public opinion point of view, and realistically the same consequences from a court of justice.
    - soulofmischief 2y ago
      This is why, if Israel and USA and other world powers' governments, and the UN, functioned correctly and for the good of the people, then... - Britain would never have ruled over Palestine - Israel would have never been established in the middle of Palestine - There would never have been a civil war in the area - We wouldn't be using it as a vehicle for continuing to undermine democratic movements and unification in the Middle East - We wouldn't be partnering with Mossad (and thus excusing their own activities) to entrap and spy on politicians and activists - Women and babies wouldn't be dying - Entire family trees wouldn't be wiped out Additionally, anti-peace sentiment from Netanyahu would have been rooted out early on, and he would have been replaced with more stable leadership via fair anarchistic or democratic means. Instead, our governments and their NGO partners tirelessly work to hoodwink and undereducate their populaces, precisely so that the upper class can continue unsustainably exploiting resources from artificially poor countries, while also benefiting from corpgov partnerships with artificially rich dictators to establish regulated access energy and natural resources. This is all an extension of neoliberal policy, controlling energy and growth of both foreign and domestic demographics in order to sustain an unsustainable lifestyle of a relatively small amount of people in the upper class, and to a lesser extent (in order to incentivize obedience) the middle class. Everyone else suffers. Either a slow death by a thousand cuts, or a swift death from above. We are witnessing increasingly horrific acts borne from poisoned authoritarian minds under the justification of juicing this shitshow for just a little bit longer, and typically, for millennia now, wrapped in religious justification, since religion has long been an effective medium of control for an undereducated populace. It didn't have to be this way, and if these systems were actually working for us, it would be a cinch to expel this sort of perverted leadership before it has the chance to carry out unspeakable horrors. Multiple active genocides aside, eventually these people die and we inherit a boiling planet with broken social systems, generational traumas preventing unification, fragile supply chains, depleted energy reserves, and severely impacted ecosystems and life-sustaining biogeochemical cycles. It's ultimately up to us to organize and demand better for ourselves and of ourselves.
      - oort-cloud9 2y ago
        [dead]
GordonS 2y ago
> Keep in mind the conviction rate at ICC is pretty low. My understanding is that's because it's usually difficult to show intent. However, in this case, not only do we have an incredible amount of video evidence of war crimes, but we also have a huge catalogue of Israeli politicians explicitly calling for the genocide of Gaza. My biggest concern over this is what the US and/or Mossad will do...
- edanm 2y ago
  > However, in this case, not only do we have an incredible amount of video evidence of war crimes, but we also have a huge catalogue of Israeli politicians explicitly calling for the genocide of Gaza. I disagree that there is an incredible amount of video evidence of war crimes that are relevant here. And I also disagree that there is a huge catalogue of Netanyahu and Gallant making statements that show intent. For the purposes of these warrants, it doesn't matter what other Israeli politicians have said as I understand it.
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > I disagree that there is an incredible amount of video evidence of war crimes that are relevant here. You can disagree with the facts all you like; it won't change them. Those videos and statements exist, whether you believe in them or not. You can see them on Twitter, on TikTok, on Instagram, or YouTube. And there's more every single day.
- bawolff 2y ago
  Usually when people say that they are talking about genocide. War crimes and crimes against humanity may have some intent requirements but they don't have the double intent that genocide has, which is the part that is super difficult to prove. To over simplify (also ianal) with genocide you basically have to prove that the only possible rationale for the action was to try and destroy the protected group and that there is no other plausible explanation. With normal war crimes its more just proving the act wasn't done accidentally. [This is a gross oversimplification] > but we also have a huge catalogue of Israeli politicians explicitly calling for the genocide of Gaza. I don't think that is relavent here, as genocide is not one of the charges. Additionally, that would probably be more relavent to state responsibility for genocide (what the icj decides) and not personal responsibility (what icc has juridsication over). Even for state responsibility, its a bit iffy how much those statements matter if they aren't said by people who have the power to issue orders to the military (they of course matter a lot if the charge is failing to suppress incitement of genocide). I'm not saying its totally irrelavent, it is probably a bit relavent to the prosecution charge, but largely it matters more what the individuals themselves have said as they are being charged in an individual capacity not as agents of the state. Basically the ICC and ICJ are different and what you are saying is more applicable to the ICJ case not the ICC case.
anon291 2y ago
[flagged]
- mongol 2y ago
  ICC have those guns, which Netanyahu will experience if he steps foot in a country that follows ICC decisions.
  - barney54 2y ago
    Even France admits it might not arrest Netanyahu. From an NPR article: “And in France, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry said the country would act "in line with the ICC's statutes," but as to whether it would arrest Netanyahu if he entered France, the question was "legally complex." https://www.npr.org/2024/11/21/g-s1-35169/icc-israel-hamas-arrest-warrants-gaza https://www.npr.org/2024/11/21/g-s1-35169/icc-israel-hamas-a...
    - anon291 2y ago
      France is a real country with real courts. It recognizes that it has interests in the region and arresting netanyahu would work against that.

exe34 2y ago

[flagged]

nabla9 2y ago

The outcome of this case will be hard to predict, but Netanyahu and Gallant did their best to get convicted.

MrMcCall 2y ago
Your dark humor made me chuckle. Thanks for that in this dire world. May the persecution of all innocent Jews, Palestinians, Ukrainians, and Africans (e.g. Ugandans) end and a world of peace and justice be established, for one and all.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  [flagged]
- buran77 2y ago
  The double edged sword is that proving an ongoing crime maybe stops it from unfolding but anything other than a conviction is presented as an endorsement and encouragement to continue. That could be fine if there's really no crime, not so fine if the crime just couldn't be proven. Considering here the old adage that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. They both lead to the same verdict from a court of public opinion point of view, and realistically the same consequences from a court of justice.
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    This is why, if Israel and USA and other world powers' governments, and the UN, functioned correctly and for the good of the people, then... - Britain would never have ruled over Palestine - Israel would have never been established in the middle of Palestine - There would never have been a civil war in the area - We wouldn't be using it as a vehicle for continuing to undermine democratic movements and unification in the Middle East - We wouldn't be partnering with Mossad (and thus excusing their own activities) to entrap and spy on politicians and activists - Women and babies wouldn't be dying - Entire family trees wouldn't be wiped out Additionally, anti-peace sentiment from Netanyahu would have been rooted out early on, and he would have been replaced with more stable leadership via fair anarchistic or democratic means. Instead, our governments and their NGO partners tirelessly work to hoodwink and undereducate their populaces, precisely so that the upper class can continue unsustainably exploiting resources from artificially poor countries, while also benefiting from corpgov partnerships with artificially rich dictators to establish regulated access energy and natural resources. This is all an extension of neoliberal policy, controlling energy and growth of both foreign and domestic demographics in order to sustain an unsustainable lifestyle of a relatively small amount of people in the upper class, and to a lesser extent (in order to incentivize obedience) the middle class. Everyone else suffers. Either a slow death by a thousand cuts, or a swift death from above. We are witnessing increasingly horrific acts borne from poisoned authoritarian minds under the justification of juicing this shitshow for just a little bit longer, and typically, for millennia now, wrapped in religious justification, since religion has long been an effective medium of control for an undereducated populace. It didn't have to be this way, and if these systems were actually working for us, it would be a cinch to expel this sort of perverted leadership before it has the chance to carry out unspeakable horrors. Multiple active genocides aside, eventually these people die and we inherit a boiling planet with broken social systems, generational traumas preventing unification, fragile supply chains, depleted energy reserves, and severely impacted ecosystems and life-sustaining biogeochemical cycles. It's ultimately up to us to organize and demand better for ourselves and of ourselves.
    - oort-cloud9 2y ago
      [dead]

GordonS 2y ago

> Keep in mind the conviction rate at ICC is pretty low. My understanding is that's because it's usually difficult to show intent. However, in this case, not only do we have an incredible amount of video evidence of war crimes, but we also have a huge catalogue of Israeli politicians explicitly calling for the genocide of Gaza. My biggest concern over this is what the US and/or Mossad will do...

edanm 2y ago
> However, in this case, not only do we have an incredible amount of video evidence of war crimes, but we also have a huge catalogue of Israeli politicians explicitly calling for the genocide of Gaza. I disagree that there is an incredible amount of video evidence of war crimes that are relevant here. And I also disagree that there is a huge catalogue of Netanyahu and Gallant making statements that show intent. For the purposes of these warrants, it doesn't matter what other Israeli politicians have said as I understand it.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  > I disagree that there is an incredible amount of video evidence of war crimes that are relevant here. You can disagree with the facts all you like; it won't change them. Those videos and statements exist, whether you believe in them or not. You can see them on Twitter, on TikTok, on Instagram, or YouTube. And there's more every single day.
bawolff 2y ago
Usually when people say that they are talking about genocide. War crimes and crimes against humanity may have some intent requirements but they don't have the double intent that genocide has, which is the part that is super difficult to prove. To over simplify (also ianal) with genocide you basically have to prove that the only possible rationale for the action was to try and destroy the protected group and that there is no other plausible explanation. With normal war crimes its more just proving the act wasn't done accidentally. [This is a gross oversimplification] > but we also have a huge catalogue of Israeli politicians explicitly calling for the genocide of Gaza. I don't think that is relavent here, as genocide is not one of the charges. Additionally, that would probably be more relavent to state responsibility for genocide (what the icj decides) and not personal responsibility (what icc has juridsication over). Even for state responsibility, its a bit iffy how much those statements matter if they aren't said by people who have the power to issue orders to the military (they of course matter a lot if the charge is failing to suppress incitement of genocide). I'm not saying its totally irrelavent, it is probably a bit relavent to the prosecution charge, but largely it matters more what the individuals themselves have said as they are being charged in an individual capacity not as agents of the state. Basically the ICC and ICJ are different and what you are saying is more applicable to the ICJ case not the ICC case.

anon291 2y ago

[flagged]

mongol 2y ago
ICC have those guns, which Netanyahu will experience if he steps foot in a country that follows ICC decisions.
- barney54 2y ago
  Even France admits it might not arrest Netanyahu. From an NPR article: “And in France, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry said the country would act "in line with the ICC's statutes," but as to whether it would arrest Netanyahu if he entered France, the question was "legally complex." https://www.npr.org/2024/11/21/g-s1-35169/icc-israel-hamas-arrest-warrants-gaza https://www.npr.org/2024/11/21/g-s1-35169/icc-israel-hamas-a...
  - anon291 2y ago
    France is a real country with real courts. It recognizes that it has interests in the region and arresting netanyahu would work against that.