2 ms·

I would agree generally that Hamas seems to want Palestinians to suffer for various political reasons. However i don't think that relieves or really affects Isr

I would agree generally that Hamas seems to want Palestinians to suffer for various political reasons. However i don't think that relieves or really affects Israel's obligations when it comes to allowing aid shipments into Gaza. > And if starvation ensues (which did not, by the way), then in reality it's the problem of the palestinian government which really worked hard in causing a food shortage I'd agree in so much that Israel is responsible for its own actions and not Hamas's. To that end i believe Israel has an obligation to not intentionally make the food situation worse and to not arbitrarily get in the way of people trying to improve the situation. This is true no matter what Hamas does. > Regarding hindering the transfer of aid, even barring Egypt, Israel does not need to allow the transfer of aid if it is diverted or that it is being used to give military advantage to the adversary. This is probably one of the stronger arguments. Tbh the extent and limits of this defence is beyond my knowledge so i'm not sure how far it considered valid for [ianal] > All of this without even raising the current issues around the prosecution in the ICC and behavior that might show a conflict of interest, as well as criminal behavior This is pretty unconvincing. The prosecutor is accused of sexually harrasing an underling. Despicable but has very little to do with the case. Even if the prosecutor was biased, ultimately its the judges who make the decision, not the prosecutor. I don't think it would make a material difference if the prosecutor was biased in some fashion. Either he proves his case to the judges or he doesn't. The judges are the party that needs to be neutral.

breppp 1y ago
Regarding the prosecutor, it did affect the case 1. The allegations were revealed just before the arrest warrants were released 2. The arrest warrants were rushed, brushing aside valid concerns (the court later decided it was unlawful) 3. The prosecutor himself and people he sent tried to pressure the victim to pull her complaint because it will hurt the palestinian case, which seems to indicate this might have had convinced her So this at least raises the question whether these warrants were rushed or were generally pressed in order to quiet the sexual harassment/rape case. The inability of the ICC to properly investigate its own people also greatly puts the own court ability to investigate foreign matters into question
- bawolff 1y ago
  > The arrest warrants were rushed, brushing aside valid concerns (the court later decided it was unlawful) Which valid concern specificly do you mean? Do you mean Israel's juridsictional challenge? The prosecutor wasn't the one who decided that. It really wasn't brushed aside, there was just an ambiguity in the court rules on at what stage is the appropriate time to raise such a challenge. Initially the court said it was too early and that Israel had to wait until after the suspects were aprehended and the trial starts. Israel appealed, won the appeal, and the appeal court just said no point in waiting, we should just hear the challenge now. Either way the prosecutor wasn't the one deciding this, and it was largely procedural; Israel would get to make their challenge either way, it was just a fight about when they were allowed to make it. I'd agree generally that the sexual harrasment case is pretty embarrasing for the ICC generally, and the office of the prosecutor especially. However, even if they were rushed or the prosecutor did a bad job, i don't see how that matters. Its the judges who decides if the prosecutor has provided enough evidence to show reasonable cause, not the prosecutor. If the warrants were rushed that would benefit the accused, as presumably that would mean the prosecutors presentation to the pre-trial chamber was rushed and not as good as it could have been (and indeed we did see the prosecutor push for a few charges that were rejected by the pre-trial chamber (extermination and the mode of liability for attacks directed at civilian objects). If the theory is that he rushed it, the most likely conclusion is the accused benefitted by not being charged with those things the pre trial chamber rejected)
  - breppp 1y ago
    I believe that if this would happen in a normal court case this would end in mistrial. It is not true that this must be in favor of Israel, a criminal that tries to prevent his trial by influencing witnesses, could also try to influence the judges, misrepresent evidence and such, if he thinks moving forward with the trial will save him. There is evidence he pressured the victim precisely on the reason of this trial success, without a trial he will go to jail. This also raises a question, if there are multiple persons in the supposedly neutral prosecution team including victim and head of prosecution, that believe that ignoring a rape is worth it in order to follow through with a trial against a specific country, so early in the trial, then how do we know that the rest of this organization including judges does not have major prejudices against Israel? I think that if you take the fact that they completely ignored the principle of complementarity, claiming essentially Israel does not have an independent judiciary system, when said judiciary system is prosecuting Nethanyahu currently for a different crime while upping the irony when half of the ICC judges come from countries with actually non-functioning judiciary systems Then add to it the fact that they passed through a highly creative way of interpreting their jurisdiction, while ignoring the chance for the accused to plea and ending that with highly unusual arrest warrants against a current head of state, whose process is criticized by the very same court a year later. Then you get something that looks bad, at least to me

breppp 1y ago

Regarding the prosecutor, it did affect the case 1. The allegations were revealed just before the arrest warrants were released 2. The arrest warrants were rushed, brushing aside valid concerns (the court later decided it was unlawful) 3. The prosecutor himself and people he sent tried to pressure the victim to pull her complaint because it will hurt the palestinian case, which seems to indicate this might have had convinced her So this at least raises the question whether these warrants were rushed or were generally pressed in order to quiet the sexual harassment/rape case. The inability of the ICC to properly investigate its own people also greatly puts the own court ability to investigate foreign matters into question

bawolff 1y ago
> The arrest warrants were rushed, brushing aside valid concerns (the court later decided it was unlawful) Which valid concern specificly do you mean? Do you mean Israel's juridsictional challenge? The prosecutor wasn't the one who decided that. It really wasn't brushed aside, there was just an ambiguity in the court rules on at what stage is the appropriate time to raise such a challenge. Initially the court said it was too early and that Israel had to wait until after the suspects were aprehended and the trial starts. Israel appealed, won the appeal, and the appeal court just said no point in waiting, we should just hear the challenge now. Either way the prosecutor wasn't the one deciding this, and it was largely procedural; Israel would get to make their challenge either way, it was just a fight about when they were allowed to make it. I'd agree generally that the sexual harrasment case is pretty embarrasing for the ICC generally, and the office of the prosecutor especially. However, even if they were rushed or the prosecutor did a bad job, i don't see how that matters. Its the judges who decides if the prosecutor has provided enough evidence to show reasonable cause, not the prosecutor. If the warrants were rushed that would benefit the accused, as presumably that would mean the prosecutors presentation to the pre-trial chamber was rushed and not as good as it could have been (and indeed we did see the prosecutor push for a few charges that were rejected by the pre-trial chamber (extermination and the mode of liability for attacks directed at civilian objects). If the theory is that he rushed it, the most likely conclusion is the accused benefitted by not being charged with those things the pre trial chamber rejected)
- breppp 1y ago
  I believe that if this would happen in a normal court case this would end in mistrial. It is not true that this must be in favor of Israel, a criminal that tries to prevent his trial by influencing witnesses, could also try to influence the judges, misrepresent evidence and such, if he thinks moving forward with the trial will save him. There is evidence he pressured the victim precisely on the reason of this trial success, without a trial he will go to jail. This also raises a question, if there are multiple persons in the supposedly neutral prosecution team including victim and head of prosecution, that believe that ignoring a rape is worth it in order to follow through with a trial against a specific country, so early in the trial, then how do we know that the rest of this organization including judges does not have major prejudices against Israel? I think that if you take the fact that they completely ignored the principle of complementarity, claiming essentially Israel does not have an independent judiciary system, when said judiciary system is prosecuting Nethanyahu currently for a different crime while upping the irony when half of the ICC judges come from countries with actually non-functioning judiciary systems Then add to it the fact that they passed through a highly creative way of interpreting their jurisdiction, while ignoring the chance for the accused to plea and ending that with highly unusual arrest warrants against a current head of state, whose process is criticized by the very same court a year later. Then you get something that looks bad, at least to me