8 ms·

> 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 o

> 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.
- tialaramex 2y ago
  That higher standard sounds similar to "Double reasonableness" from British tax law. "Double reasonableness" is used to delete tax advantages for certain things which you say were correctly exempt from taxation or attracted significant tax advantages but the government alleges you were in fact just generally avoiding paying tax and whatever you were doing doesn't count. It's not a crime to have mistakenly believed you didn't owe tax, but, if a court finds against you, you would now owe the back tax, plus potentially penalties. The "double" comes from a requirement that not only can the reasonable person (say, a juror) not think of any way that what you're doing isn't just avoiding tax, but they can't even imagine any other reasonable person who thinks what you were doing made sense for another reason beside avoiding taxes either. The idea is this only triggers for people who are very obviously dodging tax, so that their scheme sounds completely ludicrous unless it is explained that they hoped to avoid taxation, rather than just being a slightly eccentric thing to do which happened to have tax benefits when they did it. "I buy and sell used cars" makes you a used car dealer. No reason you shouldn't take advantage of used car tax treatments which are a significant benefit. "I let somebody else do all the buying and selling" OK, I guess you just own the business? Nothing wrong with that, small business, entrepreneurship, excellent. "I don't own the business or anything, I just get the advantageous tax treatment". Huh, well it's very good of the people actually doing the transactions to let you benefit while they go without, very generous indeed, but at least you're ensuring a healthy market in used cars. "Oh, there's just one car. That car is just bought and sold over and over again to make up the amount of money I requested". See, now that's ludicrous, why would anybody believe you had some reason to do this except to avoid paying taxes?
dotancohen 2y ago
[flagged]
- bbqfog 2y ago
  There's video that comes out every single day of dead children and civilians. Those buildings are civilian and not empty.
  - dotancohen 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - bbqfog 2y ago
      No in most wars children don't die. 70% of the people murdred in Gaza are women and children: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/09/middleeast/un-warnings-gaza-humanitarian-conditions-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/09/middleeast/un-warnings-gaza-h... More children have been killed in Gaza than all conflicts combined from the previous 4 years. That's not even touching all of the Palestinians that Israel has murdered prior to Oct 7th. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147512 https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147512
      - dotancohen 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - dotancohen 2y ago
        > No in most wars children don't die. I don't know why you think that. I have a feeling that you live far from war. For what it's worth, quite a few children that I know or whose parents I know were murdered on October 7. Two of them were babies, burned alive, one of those babies was an infant. And a child in my daughter's class was murdered, along with both his sisters (and both parents, too). Shall I go on?
        2y ago
runarberg 2y ago
I think they only need to show intent if they are being charged with genocide, however, I think in this case they are being charged with using starvation as a weapon, hindering aid, and targeting hospitals. I think the recommendation also included extermination, which is similar to genocide, but also does not require intent, but I think the voted against that. I think the evidence for the charges which were actually brought forward are pretty strong. I mean we have Gallant on video stating explicitly a policy of starvation, a policy which we have been seeing in action, also on video.
- bawolff 2y ago
  > I think the recommendation also included extermination, which is similar to genocide, but also does not require intent, but I think the voted against that. Persecution is the charge probably most similar to genocide minus a lot of the intent requirements (which was granted). The requirements for extermination (which was rejected) is basically they have to be resposible for > 50 illegal deaths (not sure on the exact number, but somewhere in the double digits). The icc granted the murder charge, which is the lesser version of exterminatin when it is only < 50 ish deaths.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    I wonder why they didn’t go forward with the extermination charges then. It shouldn’t be to hard to find evidence of hundreds of illegal deaths. I mean the flour massacre alone has 118+ confirmed deaths back in February. Did the prosecutor simply fail to put forward good enough evidence to convince the judges? Not that it matters the most, the charges they did bring are serious enough.
    - bawolff 2y ago
      I guess its impossible to know given the warrant proceedings are secret. However it seems like the prosecutor was solely presenting deaths related to siege tactics, so essentially deaths by starvation or malnutrition that can be attributed to israeli conduct. It could also simply be what evidence the prosecutor had available to them when they started this process which was a while ago. > I mean the flour massacre alone has 118+ confirmed deaths back in February. These probably wouldn't count as it would be hard to argue that these were directly ordered by the defendents (unless there is evidence of that). Additionally, they maybe also wanted to go with a clear cut case. Israel is claiming that there was a riot and their troops fired only to protect themselves. Even if you find that unconvincing, when this goes to trial the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that version of events is false. Maybe the prosecutor doesn't think there is enough evidence to get to "beyond a reasonable doubt". There is a requirement that "the perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population." So you do need to prove that there was intent to do the killings which might require having evidence it was premeditated (i'm not sure tbh). [Ianal, and im just speculating]
Qem 2y ago
> but we also have a huge catalogue of Israeli politicians explicitly calling for the genocide of Gaza. There was even a database set to track this large number of genocide calls. See https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-database-with-500-instances-of-israeli-incitement-to-genocide-continuously-updated/ https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-databas...

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.

tialaramex 2y ago
That higher standard sounds similar to "Double reasonableness" from British tax law. "Double reasonableness" is used to delete tax advantages for certain things which you say were correctly exempt from taxation or attracted significant tax advantages but the government alleges you were in fact just generally avoiding paying tax and whatever you were doing doesn't count. It's not a crime to have mistakenly believed you didn't owe tax, but, if a court finds against you, you would now owe the back tax, plus potentially penalties. The "double" comes from a requirement that not only can the reasonable person (say, a juror) not think of any way that what you're doing isn't just avoiding tax, but they can't even imagine any other reasonable person who thinks what you were doing made sense for another reason beside avoiding taxes either. The idea is this only triggers for people who are very obviously dodging tax, so that their scheme sounds completely ludicrous unless it is explained that they hoped to avoid taxation, rather than just being a slightly eccentric thing to do which happened to have tax benefits when they did it. "I buy and sell used cars" makes you a used car dealer. No reason you shouldn't take advantage of used car tax treatments which are a significant benefit. "I let somebody else do all the buying and selling" OK, I guess you just own the business? Nothing wrong with that, small business, entrepreneurship, excellent. "I don't own the business or anything, I just get the advantageous tax treatment". Huh, well it's very good of the people actually doing the transactions to let you benefit while they go without, very generous indeed, but at least you're ensuring a healthy market in used cars. "Oh, there's just one car. That car is just bought and sold over and over again to make up the amount of money I requested". See, now that's ludicrous, why would anybody believe you had some reason to do this except to avoid paying taxes?

dotancohen 2y ago

[flagged]

bbqfog 2y ago
There's video that comes out every single day of dead children and civilians. Those buildings are civilian and not empty.
- dotancohen 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - bbqfog 2y ago
    No in most wars children don't die. 70% of the people murdred in Gaza are women and children: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/09/middleeast/un-warnings-gaza-humanitarian-conditions-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/09/middleeast/un-warnings-gaza-h... More children have been killed in Gaza than all conflicts combined from the previous 4 years. That's not even touching all of the Palestinians that Israel has murdered prior to Oct 7th. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147512 https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147512
    - dotancohen 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - dotancohen 2y ago
      > No in most wars children don't die. I don't know why you think that. I have a feeling that you live far from war. For what it's worth, quite a few children that I know or whose parents I know were murdered on October 7. Two of them were babies, burned alive, one of those babies was an infant. And a child in my daughter's class was murdered, along with both his sisters (and both parents, too). Shall I go on?
      - 2y ago

runarberg 2y ago

I think they only need to show intent if they are being charged with genocide, however, I think in this case they are being charged with using starvation as a weapon, hindering aid, and targeting hospitals. I think the recommendation also included extermination, which is similar to genocide, but also does not require intent, but I think the voted against that. I think the evidence for the charges which were actually brought forward are pretty strong. I mean we have Gallant on video stating explicitly a policy of starvation, a policy which we have been seeing in action, also on video.

bawolff 2y ago
> I think the recommendation also included extermination, which is similar to genocide, but also does not require intent, but I think the voted against that. Persecution is the charge probably most similar to genocide minus a lot of the intent requirements (which was granted). The requirements for extermination (which was rejected) is basically they have to be resposible for > 50 illegal deaths (not sure on the exact number, but somewhere in the double digits). The icc granted the murder charge, which is the lesser version of exterminatin when it is only < 50 ish deaths.
- runarberg 2y ago
  I wonder why they didn’t go forward with the extermination charges then. It shouldn’t be to hard to find evidence of hundreds of illegal deaths. I mean the flour massacre alone has 118+ confirmed deaths back in February. Did the prosecutor simply fail to put forward good enough evidence to convince the judges? Not that it matters the most, the charges they did bring are serious enough.
  - bawolff 2y ago
    I guess its impossible to know given the warrant proceedings are secret. However it seems like the prosecutor was solely presenting deaths related to siege tactics, so essentially deaths by starvation or malnutrition that can be attributed to israeli conduct. It could also simply be what evidence the prosecutor had available to them when they started this process which was a while ago. > I mean the flour massacre alone has 118+ confirmed deaths back in February. These probably wouldn't count as it would be hard to argue that these were directly ordered by the defendents (unless there is evidence of that). Additionally, they maybe also wanted to go with a clear cut case. Israel is claiming that there was a riot and their troops fired only to protect themselves. Even if you find that unconvincing, when this goes to trial the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that version of events is false. Maybe the prosecutor doesn't think there is enough evidence to get to "beyond a reasonable doubt". There is a requirement that "the perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population." So you do need to prove that there was intent to do the killings which might require having evidence it was premeditated (i'm not sure tbh). [Ianal, and im just speculating]

Qem 2y ago

> but we also have a huge catalogue of Israeli politicians explicitly calling for the genocide of Gaza. There was even a database set to track this large number of genocide calls. See https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-database-with-500-instances-of-israeli-incitement-to-genocide-continuously-updated/ https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-databas...