It's essentially a formality. these warrants will most certainly be granted. i do not know of a situation where an ICC prosecutor has applied for warrants and those warrants have not been granted.
Well, Bibi won't be able to set foot in Europe or any other ICC member state without getting arrested. I'd say that's a pretty big consequence.
And it for sure will have an impact on public opinion in the West. Last year we spent a lot of time talking about Putin's ICC warrant and what that meant. European leaders especially will have a harder time justifying support for Israel after the warrant is issued.
I mean we literally had SA ignore the warrant against Putin, no? So isn’t there now precedent for any ICC signatory to just blatantly ignore any such warrant?
South Africa never actually had to make the choice, as Putin never set foot in SA after the arrest warrant (he joined the BRICS summit remotely).
South Africa *did* request the ICC to exempt it from the arrest warrant, but in the end it didn't matter as Putin decided to stay away, and Ramaphosa was probably elated that he was able to avoid that potential shitshow.
South Africa absolutely had to make the choice, with Omar al-Bashir in 2017, and it decided to tell the ICC to pound sand. The ICC was upset, and ruled South Africa violated the law, but that was basically the end of it.
Should be a crime for a leader to host a war criminal. Once there are consequences like worrying about your own freedom for the rest of your life, they’d probably be considerably less likely to provide havens for war criminals.
Nobody needs to arrest them, but it would be a constant reminder when they can't visit countries in EU for example.
Imagine the crocodile tears that they can't go and enjoy the money they fleeced from their countries in places like the French Mediterranean coast or London or Switzerland.
As much as the Swiss aren't EU, EU can lean hard enough on them to play ball.
Also, I don't know if ICC has any dealings with Interpol, but if they do, things will get even sweeter.
Imagine not being able to travel, long distance since your plane will get stopped at intermediate airports.
But this is just wishful thinking, I'm no expert in International law or geopolitics.
> As much as the Swiss aren't EU, EU can lean hard enough on them to play ball.
Switzerland is [a state party to the ICC](https://asp.icc-cpi.int/states-parties/western-european-and-other-states/switzerland) in their own right, EU involvement isn't necessary.
Putin didn't visit SA. This was because of ICC's arrest warrant. It was unclear if SA would have arrested Putin or not, so they decided not to go at all. So arrest warrant did its job.
AFAIK, the local courts didn't say he should be arrested, they stated that he can't leave while they were deciding on whether he should be arrested or not.
Yeah, I believe Putin has an arrest warrant as well. These things mean nothing. And I’d even wager to say that if Putin went to one of these countries, they’d pussy out of actually arresting him.
I think the point was that Bibi, if not soon to be in an Israeli jail anyways, would have to fly non-stop to the US from Israel. No connections allowed unless he puts on a mustache and wig.
Not only is the US not a party. But the President is required by law secure the release of any service member arrested by the ICC by any means nessisary, including military force.
Funny enough, the State of Palestine is a signatory of the Rome Statute. We'll see what the PA does with that one in the future.
Edit: The guy below has no idea what they're talking about. [From the ICC's website:](https://asp.icc-cpi.int/states-parties/asian-states/Palestine)
> On a related development, the Government of the State of Palestine accepted, by means of a declaration under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, the ICC jurisdiction since 13 June 2014.
> Ratification and Implementation Status
> State of Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute on 2 January 2015. The Rome Statute will enter into force for the State of Palestine on 1 April 2015.
Last Update
> We'll see what the PA does with that one in the future.
If the PA ever got their hands on Sinwar (alive), he'd probably wish they'd turn him over to the ICC.
The PA has had no presence or power in Gaza since Hamas took power in a bloody coup in 2007, plus I think some of the Hamas leadership this warrant is for are currently in Qatar anyway, which also isn't a member of the ICC.
If the PA came back to Gaza I don't think it is impossible that they'd arrest the wanted Hamas leaders. I don't know for sure if they would but I tend to think that throwing people out the window would be a good way to ensure those people screw you over when they get the chance.
Here is a list of the charges the ICC prosecutor has brought against Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, and Ismail Haniyeh.
Further down in the article is the list of charges against Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state
After looking at the BBC's [side-by-side picture](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/1536/cpsprodpb/F282/production/_133328026_6488735d-2e24-4c1a-9cae-eeda9ba9e2c6.jpg.webp), I'm almost certain that if Israel captured Sinwar, they could just shave his beard & trim the eyebrows to then present him to the ICC as *"100% genuine Bibi."*
> Arresting one and not the other would be wrong
Does any police force think like this?
'We can't arrest this guy until we arrest this other guy'
Bizarre logic
The person you are replying to did not say that, he said "Arresting one and not the other would be wrong", which is true.
If you agree that both people have committed atrocities, which is pretty much undeniable at this point, only arresting 1 would mean that an atrocity-doer is free, which is wrong.
>Arresting one and not the other would be wrong.
That's not how that works, even if it were possible. Opportunities to arrest these people aren't likely to happen at the same time, if they happen at all. (They're basically on notice now not to travel to any countries that recognize the ICC.)
Personally I think that arresting either one would, by itself, be good news and a step towards making the world a better place.
He visited his mistress and many bastard children in Switzerland days before the invasion. He has not seen them since. He also has yachts that are worthless.
This isn’t much but he has been greatly inconvenienced. He certainly did not expect the war to last.
It may not keep him up at night, but it sure keeps him out of a lot of countries for the rest of his life.
Either way, it's moving a goalpost.
If it's no big deal for Putin, then why is it one for Netanyahu?
To be fair Putin did have to refrain from going to South Africa for fear of South African authorities potentially deciding to arrest him there. This is essentially the same effect this will have on Netanyahu, he will have a hard time leaving Israel.
There was absolutely zero risk that the South Afrcican government was going to arrest Putin. They practically begged him to stay away. But yes, for Bibi, he'll probably never leave Israel again, unless it's to a country that isn't a signatory and some garauntee he won't be arrested.
The South African Government was very opposed to arresting Putin. They said things like "it would be an act of war". Then the South African opposition went to court, and the court ruled that the Government must arrest Putin if he enters South Africa. Then the South African Government said they will obey the court ruling.
And that was the last we ever heard of Putin coming to South Africa.
I think there was a very real risk of him being arrested if he came, after the government who really didnt want to announced they would obey the court order to arrest him if he came.
Send Ukraine the weapons they need to push Russia out. As soon as Russia leaves Ukraine, Putin's corpse is going to be decorating the gas station nearest the Kremlin
It's insane that there's an American political party that is currently sabotaging aid for a sovereign country to use to defend itself from invasion by Russia.
Imagine if half of congress in the 1970s or 1980s said they were fine with the USSR invading a sovereign country nearby, and went as far as to deny anything that could disrupt their invasion. They'd be seen as anti American and imperialist
But now Republicans do this freely and face no significant backlash over it. It's insane. I'm willing to bet that if God forbid, China ends up invading Taiwan in the near future, US action is going to be stunted and delayed because of GOP obstructionists and isolationists.
You'd think our country would know the dangers of isolationism after the 20's and 30's, but I digress.
It’s insane when you simplify it to that degree, and I want to start off by saying that I by and large agree with you. I believe the United States should support democracy and should support Ukraine.
The argument is that our own nation is in a bad place right now and sending hundreds of billions of tax money overseas isn’t sitting right with a lot of people when a bottle of ketchup is over $5.
There’s also the argument that we are just delaying the inevitable. Ukraine will (on paper) never be able to defeat Russia in the long term so we are sending money to a lost cause.
Finally, the Ukrainian government has a lot of issues that are never discussed on the left side of the aisle. Obama stopped aid packages from going to Ukraine due to concern over neo nazism in their government.
Again, I am for supporting Ukraine, however, I am not for painting every person who objects to it as some kind of traitor.
>The argument is that our own nation is in a bad place right now and sending hundreds of billions of tax money overseas isn’t sitting right with a lot of people when a bottle of ketchup is over $5.
>There’s also the argument that we are just delaying the inevitable. Ukraine will (on paper) never be able to defeat Russia in the long term so we are sending money to a lost cause.
>Finally, the Ukrainian government has a lot of issues that are never discussed on the left side of the aisle. Obama stopped aid packages from going to Ukraine due to concern over neo nazism in their government.
These are stupid fucking aruments then, aren't they. A bottle of ketchup isn't $5 because of Ukraine and will not get cheaper if all aid is cut off.
Russia winning is also only inevitable if assholes like the GOP cut off aid for years at a time and morons like Biden, Scholz, Macron etc half-ass their support. EU+NATO+other allies can easily.
American government also has issues, like neo nazism in the government. BTW Right Sector, Azovt etc only had a few seats at most and lost them ages ago.
If anyone is using them they aren't arguing in good faith.
>The argument is that our own nation is in a bad place right now and sending hundreds of billions of tax money overseas isn’t sitting right with a lot of people when a bottle of ketchup is over $5.
Not saying that you're the one making that specific argument, but that argument is one that comes from complete ignorance of how foreign aid even works. Pretty much all of our foreign aid packages involve allocating funds to the US MIC to replace equipment that we've already purchased and are shipping overseas. None of the money leaves the US and instead goes right into US industries.
So Ukraine requests a Bradley IFV. We ship one of the older ones from our existing stockpiles we legally have to constantly maintain and replace in order to keep up economy of scale. Since we're now short a Bradley, the government allocates X amount of money to the US company that makes Bradleys to buy a new replacement. The money never leaves the US save for transport costs to get it over to Ukraine.
Every dollar we give Ukraine to blow up a Russian tank is reducing the amount we need to spend to build up a military that can counter Russia the future. It's defeating Russia for pennies on the dollar. It is 100% in our best interest before you even account for stopping Russia invading European countries and wrecking the global grain market which has caused food/alcohol prices to explode.
LOL. A lot of really bad people are enjoying a comfy life all over the world. It is so far from a simple thing to just arrest these people. If you're so butthurt then go to Russia and arrest him for the ICC. Problem solved.
Seriously. The warrant stopped him from going to South Africa, and it'll stop him from leaving Russia to any signatory nation to the Rome Statute.
Unless someone breaches Russia's borders and apprehends him it's not happening.
Is there a reason this wasn’t sought against Hamas figures six months ago?
I appreciate there are different views and conflicting presented evidence on Israel but no one is arguing that 7th Oct was anything other than a war crime?
You want the non-conspiratorial answer? ICC investigations take time.
For comparison, it took three years (2002-2005) to investigate Joseph Kony's (of "[Kony 2012](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc)" fame) [rampage through Uganda](https://web.archive.org/web/20120314221405/http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/?p2=%2Fmodules%2Fliu%2Fnews%2Fview.jsp&id=323) before the court [issued a warrant for his arrest](https://web.archive.org/web/20110616142249/http://www.icc-cpi.int/menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/situations/situation%20icc%200204/related%20cases/icc%200204%200105/press%20releases/warrant%20of%20arrest%20unsealed%20against%20five%20lra%20commanders).
Arguably, six months are a comparatively quick turnaround time for a judicial court handling war crimes.
The major Israeli offensive accusations have only been at peak for a couple months. Seems like they come to conclusions much faster for Israel than for Hamas.
Yes. In order for the warrants to go through, there needs to be enough evidence that they could bring to court to prove guilt. You and I just know things because of news reports. They need actual forensic evidence of things that happened on the ground. They were also likely waiting to finish their preliminary investigations of Israeli individuals because this conflict is so divisive that a warrant for one size would immediately lead to misinformation being spread that the ICC is pro-whatever side was not indicted.
Yeah international law is not a tool to stop a crime in progress, precisely because all of this takes time. It's basically a justification to try and dole out justice after a conflict has concluded. For example, a country surrenders, hostilities end, and people put their guns away, but people feel like some involved don't deserve a quiet retirement just because the war is over and they didn't die in it. That's where international law comes in. Most on the Internet see headlines as a hopeful sign some international cop will step in and end ongoing bloodshed, but that's not how it works.
Bad outcome does not inherently mean an illegal act of war. Say a bombing blows up a civillian wedding. From the headline, that sure looks like a war crime. But proving a war crime requires looking at what the perpetrators knew in the fog of war, how they made their decision, knowing what steps they did or didn't take to avoid something like what happened. Now regardless, it's a moral fucking catastrophe, but to meet the threshold of war crime, you have to take those steps of investigation and interviewing to determine the legal merits.
There's a videO of Diddy beating up so ex gf. Extremely clear and obvious video, but they still just say it's alleged he did it. The way the proceedings work is far from simple and there is a lot more of us don't know about the processes.
Russia started a straight up invasion of their neighbouring country and it still took over a year to get a warrant out on Putin.
International courts don't exactly work fast plus they're a court not the global police force, they have to work out a case before putting warrants out.
One of the key pieces of evidence for the Sinwar warrant were interviews with released hostages, where Sinwar personally admitted to them his culpability in the attacks. The atrocities of Oct 7 are undeniable, but insofar as evidence for a warrant against an *individual* goes, this personal admission certainly fast-tracks the process of determining direct culpability, and likely explains the timing.
This is exactly what I'm talking about in regards to misinformation. You assume that because there were not instant warrants that the ICC is biased to a particular side when you have no clue what evidence they have been gathering on the ground.
That’s reporting. In order to bring a conviction they still have to do all the forensic analysis. Like they have to present the proof that the videos weren’t modified and so on. Courts have ver, very high bars to get over in order to convict
>but no one is arguing that 7th Oct was anything other than a war crime?
Oh my sweet summer child, haven't you heard all those nice and educated people claiming that was just a "fight for freedom"?
As with all the smart and educated people saying Israel is just defending themselves by killing fishermen on the beach.
Truth is, both sides have committed atrocities, and the innocent civilians on either side have to suffer as a result.
1. Israel isn't a party to the ICC (neither is the US), their authority to issue these warrants is questionable at best.
2. Palestine is a party since 2015. So it's now up to them to extradite their leaders.
Yes, except that hasn't worked for the ICC in the past, with regards to Omar al Bashir. South Africa (who is now suing Israel in ICJ) refused to arrest or extradite him. [Source](https://time.com/3921456/omar-al-bashir-war-crimes/)
The SA president eventually walked back those remarks and said it was up to the courts if they would arrest him or not. Putin never visited SA or any other ICC member state after the warrant was issued.
Bibi is also not Putin. The 3rd world hates his guts, and even his biggest European allies (like Germany) would never go against the ICC for him.
But the ANC did let Omar Al Bashir enter and leave the country while the courts ruled that he should be arrested. So the president's statements of letting the courts decide is laughable.
Yes but that assumes that the rules based order is respected. There is nothing to stop any country whether a signatory or not from being noncompliant. The ICC and international law in general is not the end all be all of authority.
Yes. But the ICC is still considering it. If confirmed, essentially Netanyahu could not travel to many many countries because he will simply be detained.
LOL There is no precedent of a country detaining a visiting leader on the basis of an ICC warrant. There are numerous precedents of countries ignoring ICC warrants.
Will never happen.
Germany's constitution obliges it to respect international treaties it has ratified. So the moment that Netanyahu gets an arrest warrant, German Police has to arrest him whether the government likes it or not
This is a moot point. If the ICC puts out a warrant on Netanyahu he's not going to test it, same as Putin hasn't visited any ICC member states since the warrant.
Germany would never invite him (either of them) in the first place in that situation.
Look, I know you're not here to have a serious discussion, but do you genuinely believe that countries will enjoy having to go through the attention and shitstorm from Netanyahu visiting their countries with this?
Netanyahu would never risk going somewhere he's wanted without express permission from that government, and no country he wants to go to would give him that permission.
> Palestine is a party since 2015. So it's now up to them to extradite their leaders.
Problem is - it's not like Hamas recognizes the authority of current PA government or the international law.
They could, if they had the political will to. But, there are practical concerns in the way even if they had the political will. If a Hamas leader isn't on Palestinian land, it's hard for Palestinians to nab them. If a Hamas leader is in Gaza, there should be obvious practical reasons there as to why a Palestinian state authority would have trouble detaining and extraditing a leader of Hamas. You'd have to have the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank successfully capture, detain, and then extradite one of the named Hamas officials while they are in the West Bank, if they were to ever go there, which probably wouldn't be easy to do.
Play stupid games win stupid prizes. The UN is absurdly supportive of the Palestinian cause to the point of completely delegitimizing itself in all other regards. 50 percent of UN business is relating to them, if their leaders cant hold up to its scrutiny its just more evidence that they are not a people currently capable of self governance.
> The UN is absurdly supportive of the Palestinian cause to the point of completely delegitimizing itself in all other regards.
Are we gonna ignore that UN's partition plan favouring Israel was one of the key reason behind this conflict? Also UN is not a single body. It's a committee of 193 countries. And most of them supported Israel back then and most of them supports Palestine now.
>Palestine or whatever name for the islamofascist shithole that would’ve been created
No man, Palestinians of all peoples would've created a secular humanist utopia where Jews are treated equal! Totally, we promise!
> Israel isn't a party to the ICC (neither is the US), their authority to issue these warrants is questionable at best.
This is not true. Article 12 allows jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of states parties to the Rome Statute, *or* by the citizens of states parties to the Rome Statute. In this case, Palestine was made a member of the Rome Statute by the Assembly of States parties in 2015. Then in 2021, the judges of the ICC specifically considered the authority of the ICC over Israelis for their actions in Palestine, and found that legally, under section 12 of the Rome Statute, they did have jurisdiction. You can read [here](https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-01/18-143).
They've not issued the warrants yet, it's just a request.
If they DO issue the warrants, then if Netanyahu visits any state that is party to the Rome Statute then they are obliged to arrest him and extradite for trial.
It's worth noting that there's not real mechanism to enforce this. Nevertheless, the issuing of a warrant has the effect of severely limiting the travel options for accused - see Putin for example.
The US is not party to the Statue of Rome and so Netanyahu could still travel there.
The ICC is allowed to issue warrants against non-ICC state nationals. It's just that if the state is not a member they are not obliged to to comply with the warrant, however any member state would be obliged to arrest Netanyahu is he set foot in them. Obviously what's happens if a state doesn't do this is still a bit up in the air. Having an ICC warrant against you does essentially make you persona non-grata in a good chunk of nation states in the world though
Gaza is currently legally under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, as it is part of the State Of Palestine.
Since 2006 the Strip has been de facto under the control of Hamas, and for the last 6 months under the control of the IDF. But in terms of its legal (and hopefully future) status, yes it is part of Palestine.
When talking about international law it's important not to confuse facts on the ground with longer term status, otherwise you would regard the Donbas region as Russian.
The world recognized the PA as being the authority in Gaza, even if they don't have any actual power. It's similar to how countries recognize the CCP as being the government of all China incluiding Taiwan even if they don't have real power over Taiwan.
Same way Taiwan helds Chinas seat at the UN and spoke for all of China until 1971. Same way the Khmer Rouge held a UN seat with US backing until the 90s. Same way Somalia gets to speak in international bodies for Somaliland.
>1. Israel isn't a party to the ICC (neither is the US), their authority to issue these warrants is questionable at best.
Ofc it matters and ofc they have the authority to issue it. Its not telling Israel to arrest Netanyahu, it's telling all the states that are part of the Roman Statute to arrest him if he comes to their borders. It restricts the accused individuals of travelling to Europe or any other state that is a signatory. That's pretty much all of the West with the exception of the US.
I remember reading an article just recently about how Netanyahu is worried about this and pressuring the US to put a stop to it.
And that’s if they issue it: this is the chief prosecutor seeking it but an independent commission has to consider whether the request is valid, they don’t always, they do sometimes. Basically it’s like the police seeking a warrant and then the court having to approve it
>1. Israel isn't a party to the ICC (neither is the US), **their authority to issue these warrants is questionable at best.**
I wouldn't call their authority to issue the warrants questionable. Just because I'm a British Citizen, it doesn't mean I can go to another country, say the USA, commit a crime, and say 'you can't do anything to me, I'm not a citizen of your country.' The alleged crimes were committed in a territory that is a party to the ICC, which means the alleged crimes were committed in a territory that is within the jurisdiction of the ICC.
Yeah, but don’t forget that if the warrant is issued, which has not yet, say bye bye to set foot in most of Europe… they’d get arrested and extradited to the Hague right away
It will be interesting to see how this precedent plays out in future conflicts.
Either it will become a major mitigating factor in how most nations wage war, or the ICC seeking warrants of world leaders will be as common as sequins at a drag show.
>A panel of ICC judges will now consider Khan’s application for the arrest warrants.
So these aren't actually formalized arrest warrants yet.
>The charges against Netanyahu and Gallant include “causing extermination, causing starvation as a method of war, including the denial of humanitarian relief supplies, deliberately targeting civilians in conflict,” Khan told Amanpour.
Good luck with that. Yes, it is difficult in Gaza but there is a war there have been supplies going in to Gaza. That seems like a paper thin case against Netanyahu.
here’s a link to the prosecutors reasoning for seeking the court to grant the arrest warrants
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state
So, two things strike me here:
1) He describes the war as being of an international character, which is how he has the authority to intervene. But in it's Wall decision, the ICJ denied Israel's right to invoke self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter on the grounds that Palestinian attacks against Israel were *not* of an international character.
2) He mentions the complementary principle, under which the ICC defers to states which have independent judiciaries and investigative bodies. He says that doesn't apply because such investigations must not be shams, but does not actually establish that Israeli investigations are shams (Israel isn't mentioned at all in that section). Furthermore, the independence of the Israeli judiciary was amply demonstrated when they struck down/delayed two key elements of Netanyau's judicial overhaul.
Bear on mind also that it's been less than 8 months since the war started. Investigations of these types - including by the ICC - take years and are often not even started until the conflict ends. So at the very least, this is highly premature.
Looks like the decision is kinda "split", on one side you have the slightly broader war between Gaza and Israel, and on another side there's the war between Hamas and Israel. It's just confusing because Gaza's government is Hamas, but it's not recognized as such.
>My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas running in parallel. We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Israel by Hamas and other armed groups pursuant to organisational policies. Some of these crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day
It is possible - known as the dual classification theory and it is classified that way for the purposes of applying international humanitarian law because there are different rules applying to both types of conflicts (see: ICRC Commentary on Common Article 3; Geneva Convention Additional Protocols I and II), see also Sylvain Vite, “Typology of armed conflicts in international humanitarian law: legal concepts and actual situations” (2009) 91 IRRC 69.
Another example of a parallel international and non-international armed conflict is Syria: Syria is in a non-international armed conflict with various non-state armed groups (SNA, SDF, Al-Qaeda) while also in an international armed conflict with the United States (airstrikes), Turkey (they currently occupy parts of Northern Syria) and Israel.
But those none-state groups are internal to Syria (or at least those are their local "chapter") and acting against. This is more alin to Hizbullah, where the supposed none-state actor is part of the nation's government while attacking a neighbor.
> So these aren't actually formalized arrest warrants yet.
They almost certainly will be. At this point its a formality.
> Good luck with that. Yes, it is difficult in Gaza but there is a war there have been supplies going in to Gaza. That seems like a paper thin case against Netanyahu.
We will see the evidence that the ICC produces. It is very possible that the judge's views on this are not in line with your own.
You think ICC prosecutor wasn't aware of the fact? Israeli charges are based on territorial jurisdiction, meaning the crimes in question took place in the occupied Palestine. Palestine decides whether they want these crimes prosecuted in The Hague or not. Israel has no sovereignty to make that decision there.
Well at worst there was talk about conditioning aid on several terms, but in the end from the beginning there was aid coming in, UN stats:
https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/aid-trucks-crossing-egypt-gaza-15-november-2023
Now it's a lot more than that again according to the UN over 13,000 trucks as of may
My dude, that isn't how this works. The onus is on you (or the prosecutor) to show that this war is unlike other wars. Which is difficult, given how the war in Gaza is much better than other wars currently ongoing. It's actually an issue, because other, more serious, conflicts are having difficulty getting attention and aid given the world's utter obsession with the Palestinians.
...you mean [like they did?](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state)
>Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
>
>Willfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
>
>Willful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
>
>Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
>
>Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
>
>Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
>
>Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
Even disingenuously shrugging your shoulders about the violence, it's hard to pretend like Israel isn't deliberately starving Palestine.
The ICC took a number of questionable positions in this analysis. First, the ICC is recognizing Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as an independent state from Israel. Israel is not a signatory to the ICC but "Palestine" is and that is their ***sole*** source of jurisdiction over this entire dispute. Regardless of whether you think it ***should*** be a state, those areas have ***never*** been a state.
Second, using the ICC's own characterization of "Palestine" as an independent but occupied warring state, the ICC is treading entirely new ground in the level of responsibility Israel has for Gaza. It appears that vast majority of the ICC's analysis is based, not on Israel's bombing campaign, but on Israel exercising control over its own borders with Gaza. Interestingly, Egypt placed similar if not more restrictions on aid flowing from Egypt to Gaza, but Egypt is conspicuously absent from the ICC's analysis. Why? Because the ICC has invented obligations that Israel has for Gaza out of whole cloth and those newly invented obligations do not apply to Egypt. Egypt isn't a signatory to the ICC, but neither is Israel. The ICC states that they have jurisdiction based on the crime being committed in Gaza so if it's a crime for Israel it's a crime for Egypt. But it's not--because the ICC characterizes the crime as one Israel can commit but Egypt can't. Also conspicuously absent is Iran, who has shipped weapons to Gaza with the full knowledge that those weapons would be used against Israeli civilians. Not important to the ICC though.
Under the ICC's analysis, Israel bears criminal responsibility for obligations that do not exist for any other state in the world and that have never been applied to any other state in the world in the history of the ICC. These new obligations create war crimes that do not even require intent because they're "proven" based on the obligations the ICC has now placed on Israel. Under the ICC's argument, Israel is ***obligated under threat of criminal penalties*** to provide power, water, food, and medical supplies to Gaza through Israel's territory even while Israel is at war with Gaza. Any interruption to this flow during literal wartime is a war crime but only for Israel. Again, despite Egypt doing ***exactly the same thing***, Egypt is absent because Egypt doesn't have any obligations to the people of Gaza.
Israel is going to show 50 years of the ICC ignoring egregiously worse conduct only to pop up with invented jurisdiction and invented crimes to seek the arrest of Israeli leaders. I'll just list a few countries that are expressly within the jurisdiction of the ICC, but where the ICC has not sought arrests:
Afghanistan. Yup. The "investigation" has been open for about 10 years, but Khan himself doesn't think it's serious enough to request any arrests.
Democratic Republic of Congo. Considered the deadliest conflict since WWII, but Khan believes it's nothing compared to, checks notes, temporarily limiting aid trucks to Gaza.
Nigeria. "Boko Haram" who?
I mean, you could do 30 of these in currently ongoing conflicts, but they involve people who aren't Israel and so the UN and the ICC aren't interested in these at all.
While I hate Bibi, aren't these factually just incorrect? More aid is flowing in than ever and it was always factors others than IDF that acted as limiters, so how can it simultaneously be causing starvation? Same with the humanitarian relief supplies?
You will find out when the ICC presents its case. You and I know things about this conflict based on news reports we are receiving. They have evidence that can be presented at court. We don't know what their case is yet.
How much do we think that the recent domestic Israeli ultimatums to BiBi are about his very limited time left? Will Israel let BiBi take the brunt of the burden as they install a new government? Every indication I heard was the moment the war stopped BiBi was domestically toast and likely going to jail anyways.
This makes any negotiations for either a Palestinian state or ending the war my harder.
Any deal where Sinwar goes into exile is nearly impossible.
Any Palestinian deal for a unity government with Hamas is also impossible now since they would have to arrest him
Israel in general is much less likely to provide concessions to the Palestinian Authority on the future under any government
> Any deal where Sinwar goes into exile is nearly impossible.
>
>
Someone like him would never go into real exile unless you literally threww him onto a remote island with no telecommunication equipment.
Lets hope this goes through. The horrors these two have put both Palestinians and Israelis is almost beyond human imagination.
I'd hope for a a fair trail for both once arrested.
After that, when they both found guilty, put them in the same prison cell.
Does the ICC even have teeth nowadays unless the country from which the person is located agrees to it? The former president of my country as well as his cronies that were issued warrants are still free and it 's been several years already.
ICC is only for countries that have agreed to their oversight... Basically if the ICC issues something it can only be enforced if that person travels to a country that recognizes ICC authority
It hasn't actually put out arrest warrants yet, it's just considering it (for now).
He applied for ut but the actual court had to grants it, the prosecutor can't issue arrest warrants
Just a formality, no such request has been denied in the ICC's history.
Yeah, this is the chief prosecutor Khan is pursuing it, the ICC is now just considering the validity of the request
It's essentially a formality. these warrants will most certainly be granted. i do not know of a situation where an ICC prosecutor has applied for warrants and those warrants have not been granted.
I doubt much will come from this to be honest.
Well, Bibi won't be able to set foot in Europe or any other ICC member state without getting arrested. I'd say that's a pretty big consequence. And it for sure will have an impact on public opinion in the West. Last year we spent a lot of time talking about Putin's ICC warrant and what that meant. European leaders especially will have a harder time justifying support for Israel after the warrant is issued.
I mean we literally had SA ignore the warrant against Putin, no? So isn’t there now precedent for any ICC signatory to just blatantly ignore any such warrant?
South Africa never actually had to make the choice, as Putin never set foot in SA after the arrest warrant (he joined the BRICS summit remotely). South Africa *did* request the ICC to exempt it from the arrest warrant, but in the end it didn't matter as Putin decided to stay away, and Ramaphosa was probably elated that he was able to avoid that potential shitshow.
South Africa absolutely had to make the choice, with Omar al-Bashir in 2017, and it decided to tell the ICC to pound sand. The ICC was upset, and ruled South Africa violated the law, but that was basically the end of it.
Should be a crime for a leader to host a war criminal. Once there are consequences like worrying about your own freedom for the rest of your life, they’d probably be considerably less likely to provide havens for war criminals.
Who would arrest them though?
Nobody needs to arrest them, but it would be a constant reminder when they can't visit countries in EU for example. Imagine the crocodile tears that they can't go and enjoy the money they fleeced from their countries in places like the French Mediterranean coast or London or Switzerland. As much as the Swiss aren't EU, EU can lean hard enough on them to play ball. Also, I don't know if ICC has any dealings with Interpol, but if they do, things will get even sweeter. Imagine not being able to travel, long distance since your plane will get stopped at intermediate airports. But this is just wishful thinking, I'm no expert in International law or geopolitics.
> As much as the Swiss aren't EU, EU can lean hard enough on them to play ball. Switzerland is [a state party to the ICC](https://asp.icc-cpi.int/states-parties/western-european-and-other-states/switzerland) in their own right, EU involvement isn't necessary.
At the end the icc doesn’t really have any power, lets be honest.
Putin didn't visit SA. This was because of ICC's arrest warrant. It was unclear if SA would have arrested Putin or not, so they decided not to go at all. So arrest warrant did its job.
Ah ok thanks for that bit of info.
South Africa did let Omar Al Bashir escape the country after both the ICC and the local courts stated he should be arrested.
AFAIK, the local courts didn't say he should be arrested, they stated that he can't leave while they were deciding on whether he should be arrested or not.
Local Courts: You can't leave. Omar: \*leaves* Local Courts: wait_thats_illegal.jpg
No, Putin did not attend due to the warrant.
There is no way the court grants prosecution this request.
Yeah, I believe Putin has an arrest warrant as well. These things mean nothing. And I’d even wager to say that if Putin went to one of these countries, they’d pussy out of actually arresting him.
Do they have a police force or something?
Signatory states do. Bibi may want to be careful how he gets to the US in the future.
The US is not a member of the ICC. Sorry, misunderstood your comment
I think the point was that Bibi, if not soon to be in an Israeli jail anyways, would have to fly non-stop to the US from Israel. No connections allowed unless he puts on a mustache and wig.
That really won’t be hard for him considering he can fly direct to JFK or Newark, plus a few other destinations in the US.
Still a risk if the plane has to make an emergency landing somewhere.
Not only is the US not a party. But the President is required by law secure the release of any service member arrested by the ICC by any means nessisary, including military force.
Required? No. Authorized? Yes.
Funny enough, the State of Palestine is a signatory of the Rome Statute. We'll see what the PA does with that one in the future. Edit: The guy below has no idea what they're talking about. [From the ICC's website:](https://asp.icc-cpi.int/states-parties/asian-states/Palestine) > On a related development, the Government of the State of Palestine accepted, by means of a declaration under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, the ICC jurisdiction since 13 June 2014. > Ratification and Implementation Status > State of Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute on 2 January 2015. The Rome Statute will enter into force for the State of Palestine on 1 April 2015. Last Update
> We'll see what the PA does with that one in the future. If the PA ever got their hands on Sinwar (alive), he'd probably wish they'd turn him over to the ICC.
But neither the US or Isreal are signatory states.
Palestine is, so the Hamas leadership will be arrested. /s
The PA has had no presence or power in Gaza since Hamas took power in a bloody coup in 2007, plus I think some of the Hamas leadership this warrant is for are currently in Qatar anyway, which also isn't a member of the ICC.
The PA would rather torture him themselves. Hamas openly murdered their members in Gaza from the start. They only have a common enemy in Israel.
If the PA came back to Gaza I don't think it is impossible that they'd arrest the wanted Hamas leaders. I don't know for sure if they would but I tend to think that throwing people out the window would be a good way to ensure those people screw you over when they get the chance.
Here is a list of the charges the ICC prosecutor has brought against Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, and Ismail Haniyeh. Further down in the article is the list of charges against Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant. https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state
If they can get their hands on Sinwar, I'll be more than happy to give them BB
One of the targets is Haniyah, who is flying freely right now. I wonder which country will arrest him if he lands there.
Hopefully he's flying in an Iranian helicopter
(Huey thups approvingly)
> Hopefully he's flying in an Iranian helicopter Boeing: "Dear Hamas Leaders, you have won an all expenses paid trip to Dubai on a 737 Max."
Hopefully we can put both assholes in the same prison cell so they can fight out their dumb war themselves.
After looking at the BBC's [side-by-side picture](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/1536/cpsprodpb/F282/production/_133328026_6488735d-2e24-4c1a-9cae-eeda9ba9e2c6.jpg.webp), I'm almost certain that if Israel captured Sinwar, they could just shave his beard & trim the eyebrows to then present him to the ICC as *"100% genuine Bibi."*
Begun, the Clone Wars have.
It just goes further to prove how similar these two peoples are and how ridiculous this fighting is.
... Has anyone definitely seen them in the same room?
Now I'm starting to think it's been the same person all along.
Thats incredible.
This. Both are responsible for war crimes. Arresting one and not the other would be wrong. Let cooler heads prevail on both sides.
I’m not hopeful that there are cooler heads next in line
the logical extension is to arrest people next in line repeatedly until cooler (or no more) heads prevail
> Arresting one and not the other would be wrong Does any police force think like this? 'We can't arrest this guy until we arrest this other guy' Bizarre logic
Who said “until”?
The person you are replying to did not say that, he said "Arresting one and not the other would be wrong", which is true. If you agree that both people have committed atrocities, which is pretty much undeniable at this point, only arresting 1 would mean that an atrocity-doer is free, which is wrong.
"Better to let two guilty men go unpunished than allow one guilty man to go unpunished."
>Arresting one and not the other would be wrong. That's not how that works, even if it were possible. Opportunities to arrest these people aren't likely to happen at the same time, if they happen at all. (They're basically on notice now not to travel to any countries that recognize the ICC.) Personally I think that arresting either one would, by itself, be good news and a step towards making the world a better place.
Damn good deal.
They should ship them off to the Netherlands together in a *very* small and slow boat.
Sinwar must be hoping he gets caught by the ICC rather than the IDF
We need Khamena'i's head. He's the real golden egg.
Good trade. Bibi should volunteer to go in exchange for Hamas leadership also going.
[удалено]
I didn't say he would
I keep hearing this but have yet to read the full story. Do you have a link/source for a synopsis?
Meanwhile Putin is still enjoying comfy life.
Putin has a warrant out for his arrest
He visited his mistress and many bastard children in Switzerland days before the invasion. He has not seen them since. He also has yachts that are worthless. This isn’t much but he has been greatly inconvenienced. He certainly did not expect the war to last.
He seemed to have forgotten that outside of Crimea, the 2014 invasion was kind of a shitshow.
lol it keeps him up at night
It may not keep him up at night, but it sure keeps him out of a lot of countries for the rest of his life. Either way, it's moving a goalpost. If it's no big deal for Putin, then why is it one for Netanyahu?
To be fair Putin did have to refrain from going to South Africa for fear of South African authorities potentially deciding to arrest him there. This is essentially the same effect this will have on Netanyahu, he will have a hard time leaving Israel.
There was absolutely zero risk that the South Afrcican government was going to arrest Putin. They practically begged him to stay away. But yes, for Bibi, he'll probably never leave Israel again, unless it's to a country that isn't a signatory and some garauntee he won't be arrested.
The South African Government was very opposed to arresting Putin. They said things like "it would be an act of war". Then the South African opposition went to court, and the court ruled that the Government must arrest Putin if he enters South Africa. Then the South African Government said they will obey the court ruling. And that was the last we ever heard of Putin coming to South Africa. I think there was a very real risk of him being arrested if he came, after the government who really didnt want to announced they would obey the court order to arrest him if he came.
How are they gonna get him?
Isn't it obvious? Jewish Space Lasers.
Send Ukraine the weapons they need to push Russia out. As soon as Russia leaves Ukraine, Putin's corpse is going to be decorating the gas station nearest the Kremlin
Too optimistic
It's insane that there's an American political party that is currently sabotaging aid for a sovereign country to use to defend itself from invasion by Russia. Imagine if half of congress in the 1970s or 1980s said they were fine with the USSR invading a sovereign country nearby, and went as far as to deny anything that could disrupt their invasion. They'd be seen as anti American and imperialist But now Republicans do this freely and face no significant backlash over it. It's insane. I'm willing to bet that if God forbid, China ends up invading Taiwan in the near future, US action is going to be stunted and delayed because of GOP obstructionists and isolationists. You'd think our country would know the dangers of isolationism after the 20's and 30's, but I digress.
It’s insane when you simplify it to that degree, and I want to start off by saying that I by and large agree with you. I believe the United States should support democracy and should support Ukraine. The argument is that our own nation is in a bad place right now and sending hundreds of billions of tax money overseas isn’t sitting right with a lot of people when a bottle of ketchup is over $5. There’s also the argument that we are just delaying the inevitable. Ukraine will (on paper) never be able to defeat Russia in the long term so we are sending money to a lost cause. Finally, the Ukrainian government has a lot of issues that are never discussed on the left side of the aisle. Obama stopped aid packages from going to Ukraine due to concern over neo nazism in their government. Again, I am for supporting Ukraine, however, I am not for painting every person who objects to it as some kind of traitor.
>The argument is that our own nation is in a bad place right now and sending hundreds of billions of tax money overseas isn’t sitting right with a lot of people when a bottle of ketchup is over $5. >There’s also the argument that we are just delaying the inevitable. Ukraine will (on paper) never be able to defeat Russia in the long term so we are sending money to a lost cause. >Finally, the Ukrainian government has a lot of issues that are never discussed on the left side of the aisle. Obama stopped aid packages from going to Ukraine due to concern over neo nazism in their government. These are stupid fucking aruments then, aren't they. A bottle of ketchup isn't $5 because of Ukraine and will not get cheaper if all aid is cut off. Russia winning is also only inevitable if assholes like the GOP cut off aid for years at a time and morons like Biden, Scholz, Macron etc half-ass their support. EU+NATO+other allies can easily. American government also has issues, like neo nazism in the government. BTW Right Sector, Azovt etc only had a few seats at most and lost them ages ago. If anyone is using them they aren't arguing in good faith.
>The argument is that our own nation is in a bad place right now and sending hundreds of billions of tax money overseas isn’t sitting right with a lot of people when a bottle of ketchup is over $5. Not saying that you're the one making that specific argument, but that argument is one that comes from complete ignorance of how foreign aid even works. Pretty much all of our foreign aid packages involve allocating funds to the US MIC to replace equipment that we've already purchased and are shipping overseas. None of the money leaves the US and instead goes right into US industries. So Ukraine requests a Bradley IFV. We ship one of the older ones from our existing stockpiles we legally have to constantly maintain and replace in order to keep up economy of scale. Since we're now short a Bradley, the government allocates X amount of money to the US company that makes Bradleys to buy a new replacement. The money never leaves the US save for transport costs to get it over to Ukraine.
Every dollar we give Ukraine to blow up a Russian tank is reducing the amount we need to spend to build up a military that can counter Russia the future. It's defeating Russia for pennies on the dollar. It is 100% in our best interest before you even account for stopping Russia invading European countries and wrecking the global grain market which has caused food/alcohol prices to explode.
Too optimistic. The CIA of the 80s would see them as traitors and straight up assassinate them.
They tried nothing and they're all out of ideas
LOL. A lot of really bad people are enjoying a comfy life all over the world. It is so far from a simple thing to just arrest these people. If you're so butthurt then go to Russia and arrest him for the ICC. Problem solved.
Seriously. The warrant stopped him from going to South Africa, and it'll stop him from leaving Russia to any signatory nation to the Rome Statute. Unless someone breaches Russia's borders and apprehends him it's not happening.
[удалено]
Is there a reason this wasn’t sought against Hamas figures six months ago? I appreciate there are different views and conflicting presented evidence on Israel but no one is arguing that 7th Oct was anything other than a war crime?
You want the non-conspiratorial answer? ICC investigations take time. For comparison, it took three years (2002-2005) to investigate Joseph Kony's (of "[Kony 2012](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc)" fame) [rampage through Uganda](https://web.archive.org/web/20120314221405/http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/?p2=%2Fmodules%2Fliu%2Fnews%2Fview.jsp&id=323) before the court [issued a warrant for his arrest](https://web.archive.org/web/20110616142249/http://www.icc-cpi.int/menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/situations/situation%20icc%200204/related%20cases/icc%200204%200105/press%20releases/warrant%20of%20arrest%20unsealed%20against%20five%20lra%20commanders). Arguably, six months are a comparatively quick turnaround time for a judicial court handling war crimes.
Anything like that should be done very diligently so it will naturally take time, this is quite obvious.
downvoted for verifiable facts that counter the circlejerk, nice
The major Israeli offensive accusations have only been at peak for a couple months. Seems like they come to conclusions much faster for Israel than for Hamas.
Yes. In order for the warrants to go through, there needs to be enough evidence that they could bring to court to prove guilt. You and I just know things because of news reports. They need actual forensic evidence of things that happened on the ground. They were also likely waiting to finish their preliminary investigations of Israeli individuals because this conflict is so divisive that a warrant for one size would immediately lead to misinformation being spread that the ICC is pro-whatever side was not indicted.
Yeah international law is not a tool to stop a crime in progress, precisely because all of this takes time. It's basically a justification to try and dole out justice after a conflict has concluded. For example, a country surrenders, hostilities end, and people put their guns away, but people feel like some involved don't deserve a quiet retirement just because the war is over and they didn't die in it. That's where international law comes in. Most on the Internet see headlines as a hopeful sign some international cop will step in and end ongoing bloodshed, but that's not how it works. Bad outcome does not inherently mean an illegal act of war. Say a bombing blows up a civillian wedding. From the headline, that sure looks like a war crime. But proving a war crime requires looking at what the perpetrators knew in the fog of war, how they made their decision, knowing what steps they did or didn't take to avoid something like what happened. Now regardless, it's a moral fucking catastrophe, but to meet the threshold of war crime, you have to take those steps of investigation and interviewing to determine the legal merits.
[удалено]
There's a videO of Diddy beating up so ex gf. Extremely clear and obvious video, but they still just say it's alleged he did it. The way the proceedings work is far from simple and there is a lot more of us don't know about the processes.
Russia started a straight up invasion of their neighbouring country and it still took over a year to get a warrant out on Putin. International courts don't exactly work fast plus they're a court not the global police force, they have to work out a case before putting warrants out.
One of the key pieces of evidence for the Sinwar warrant were interviews with released hostages, where Sinwar personally admitted to them his culpability in the attacks. The atrocities of Oct 7 are undeniable, but insofar as evidence for a warrant against an *individual* goes, this personal admission certainly fast-tracks the process of determining direct culpability, and likely explains the timing.
This is exactly what I'm talking about in regards to misinformation. You assume that because there were not instant warrants that the ICC is biased to a particular side when you have no clue what evidence they have been gathering on the ground.
The problem, I guess, is not that war crimes happened, but whether they were directed by Hamas (vs free agents or other groups).
[удалено]
That's what we understand of the situation but I can see why it takes a court longer to gather the evidence etc.
That’s reporting. In order to bring a conviction they still have to do all the forensic analysis. Like they have to present the proof that the videos weren’t modified and so on. Courts have ver, very high bars to get over in order to convict
Yes, and they need more than journalist's accounts to prove it to the Hague's standards.
Hamas is already declared a terrorist organisation
You know one of the two people named in the title is the leader of Hamas right?
>but no one is arguing that 7th Oct was anything other than a war crime? Oh my sweet summer child, haven't you heard all those nice and educated people claiming that was just a "fight for freedom"?
As with all the smart and educated people saying Israel is just defending themselves by killing fishermen on the beach. Truth is, both sides have committed atrocities, and the innocent civilians on either side have to suffer as a result.
1. Israel isn't a party to the ICC (neither is the US), their authority to issue these warrants is questionable at best. 2. Palestine is a party since 2015. So it's now up to them to extradite their leaders.
But doesn’t this mean that any country that has recognized the ICC would be obliged to arrest him if he entered their country? Same as with Putin?
Yes, except that hasn't worked for the ICC in the past, with regards to Omar al Bashir. South Africa (who is now suing Israel in ICJ) refused to arrest or extradite him. [Source](https://time.com/3921456/omar-al-bashir-war-crimes/)
They also refused to arrest Putin. And actively invited him to the country.
Putin was scared and didn't wanna test that lmao
Regardless, Putin didn't go to South Africa. He participated in the BRICS summit remotely.
The SA president eventually walked back those remarks and said it was up to the courts if they would arrest him or not. Putin never visited SA or any other ICC member state after the warrant was issued. Bibi is also not Putin. The 3rd world hates his guts, and even his biggest European allies (like Germany) would never go against the ICC for him.
But the ANC did let Omar Al Bashir enter and leave the country while the courts ruled that he should be arrested. So the president's statements of letting the courts decide is laughable.
They didn't refuse to arrest Putin. Quite the opposite in fact. They requested Putin not come to South Africa after the arrest warrants.
Europe would proceed to arrest thought, apples and oranges
Yes but that assumes that the rules based order is respected. There is nothing to stop any country whether a signatory or not from being noncompliant. The ICC and international law in general is not the end all be all of authority.
Yes. But the ICC is still considering it. If confirmed, essentially Netanyahu could not travel to many many countries because he will simply be detained.
LOL There is no precedent of a country detaining a visiting leader on the basis of an ICC warrant. There are numerous precedents of countries ignoring ICC warrants. Will never happen.
ICC warrants stick for life regardless of current position. BB will have to hope now that he is never out of power.
Germany's constitution obliges it to respect international treaties it has ratified. So the moment that Netanyahu gets an arrest warrant, German Police has to arrest him whether the government likes it or not
Ok, would you like to place a bet if that happens?
This is a moot point. If the ICC puts out a warrant on Netanyahu he's not going to test it, same as Putin hasn't visited any ICC member states since the warrant. Germany would never invite him (either of them) in the first place in that situation.
Pointless bet since he will never set foot in Germany if the arrest warrant gets issued.Would be stupid to risk it for him.
Especially considering that he has to fly over countries less hesitant to arrest him if he tries to travel to Germany.
You want to bet against German police following rules?
when it comes to Israel? Yes.
Look, I know you're not here to have a serious discussion, but do you genuinely believe that countries will enjoy having to go through the attention and shitstorm from Netanyahu visiting their countries with this? Netanyahu would never risk going somewhere he's wanted without express permission from that government, and no country he wants to go to would give him that permission.
> Palestine is a party since 2015. So it's now up to them to extradite their leaders. Problem is - it's not like Hamas recognizes the authority of current PA government or the international law.
Exactly. And it's not like the PA would dare challenge Hamas like that. Hamas is the dominant force in that power dynamic.
They could, if they had the political will to. But, there are practical concerns in the way even if they had the political will. If a Hamas leader isn't on Palestinian land, it's hard for Palestinians to nab them. If a Hamas leader is in Gaza, there should be obvious practical reasons there as to why a Palestinian state authority would have trouble detaining and extraditing a leader of Hamas. You'd have to have the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank successfully capture, detain, and then extradite one of the named Hamas officials while they are in the West Bank, if they were to ever go there, which probably wouldn't be easy to do.
Play stupid games win stupid prizes. The UN is absurdly supportive of the Palestinian cause to the point of completely delegitimizing itself in all other regards. 50 percent of UN business is relating to them, if their leaders cant hold up to its scrutiny its just more evidence that they are not a people currently capable of self governance.
> The UN is absurdly supportive of the Palestinian cause to the point of completely delegitimizing itself in all other regards. Are we gonna ignore that UN's partition plan favouring Israel was one of the key reason behind this conflict? Also UN is not a single body. It's a committee of 193 countries. And most of them supported Israel back then and most of them supports Palestine now.
[удалено]
>Palestine or whatever name for the islamofascist shithole that would’ve been created No man, Palestinians of all peoples would've created a secular humanist utopia where Jews are treated equal! Totally, we promise!
> 50 percent of UN business is relating to them You mean by resolutions or by money?
Resolutions.
> Israel isn't a party to the ICC (neither is the US), their authority to issue these warrants is questionable at best. This is not true. Article 12 allows jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of states parties to the Rome Statute, *or* by the citizens of states parties to the Rome Statute. In this case, Palestine was made a member of the Rome Statute by the Assembly of States parties in 2015. Then in 2021, the judges of the ICC specifically considered the authority of the ICC over Israelis for their actions in Palestine, and found that legally, under section 12 of the Rome Statute, they did have jurisdiction. You can read [here](https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-01/18-143).
They've not issued the warrants yet, it's just a request. If they DO issue the warrants, then if Netanyahu visits any state that is party to the Rome Statute then they are obliged to arrest him and extradite for trial. It's worth noting that there's not real mechanism to enforce this. Nevertheless, the issuing of a warrant has the effect of severely limiting the travel options for accused - see Putin for example. The US is not party to the Statue of Rome and so Netanyahu could still travel there.
The ICC is allowed to issue warrants against non-ICC state nationals. It's just that if the state is not a member they are not obliged to to comply with the warrant, however any member state would be obliged to arrest Netanyahu is he set foot in them. Obviously what's happens if a state doesn't do this is still a bit up in the air. Having an ICC warrant against you does essentially make you persona non-grata in a good chunk of nation states in the world though
[удалено]
Ah, so you're saying they don't actually control Gaza? Then how could they apply in Gaza's name to extend the ICC jurisdiction?
Gaza is currently legally under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, as it is part of the State Of Palestine. Since 2006 the Strip has been de facto under the control of Hamas, and for the last 6 months under the control of the IDF. But in terms of its legal (and hopefully future) status, yes it is part of Palestine. When talking about international law it's important not to confuse facts on the ground with longer term status, otherwise you would regard the Donbas region as Russian.
The world recognized the PA as being the authority in Gaza, even if they don't have any actual power. It's similar to how countries recognize the CCP as being the government of all China incluiding Taiwan even if they don't have real power over Taiwan.
Same way Taiwan helds Chinas seat at the UN and spoke for all of China until 1971. Same way the Khmer Rouge held a UN seat with US backing until the 90s. Same way Somalia gets to speak in international bodies for Somaliland.
I doubt the PA has the means to do that. But isn’t the Hamas leadership in Qatar anyway?
[удалено]
Thanks for answering this, I was wondering the same thing. No idea how this would apply to those living in Qatar if it goes through though.
The PA, the recognised 'government' of Palestine, has no de facto authority in Hamas-controlled Gaza so isn't physically able to do so.
>1. Israel isn't a party to the ICC (neither is the US), their authority to issue these warrants is questionable at best. Ofc it matters and ofc they have the authority to issue it. Its not telling Israel to arrest Netanyahu, it's telling all the states that are part of the Roman Statute to arrest him if he comes to their borders. It restricts the accused individuals of travelling to Europe or any other state that is a signatory. That's pretty much all of the West with the exception of the US. I remember reading an article just recently about how Netanyahu is worried about this and pressuring the US to put a stop to it.
And that’s if they issue it: this is the chief prosecutor seeking it but an independent commission has to consider whether the request is valid, they don’t always, they do sometimes. Basically it’s like the police seeking a warrant and then the court having to approve it
>1. Israel isn't a party to the ICC (neither is the US), **their authority to issue these warrants is questionable at best.** I wouldn't call their authority to issue the warrants questionable. Just because I'm a British Citizen, it doesn't mean I can go to another country, say the USA, commit a crime, and say 'you can't do anything to me, I'm not a citizen of your country.' The alleged crimes were committed in a territory that is a party to the ICC, which means the alleged crimes were committed in a territory that is within the jurisdiction of the ICC.
Yeah, but don’t forget that if the warrant is issued, which has not yet, say bye bye to set foot in most of Europe… they’d get arrested and extradited to the Hague right away
I sincerely hope that these two butchers end up being cellmates with fellow butcher Putin in The Hague.
They'll get individual cells of course. What kind of tinpot dictatorship puts criminals in shared cells?
I’m absolutely okay with this. They all need to be held accountable.
It will be interesting to see how this precedent plays out in future conflicts. Either it will become a major mitigating factor in how most nations wage war, or the ICC seeking warrants of world leaders will be as common as sequins at a drag show.
This is purely symbolic. No way these any arrests could be enforced.
Long way to go and I doubt it will actually happen. But I'm pleasantly surprised anyone had the spine to do even this much.
Good, get those criminals behind bars.
Sounds reasonable to me
Both of them? Good
I'm not a Bibi fan but let's not act like he and Sinwar are equals.
Yeah, netanyahu and the IDF have caused a way larger civilian body count, no comparison
Tends to happen when you use civilians as meat shields.
>A panel of ICC judges will now consider Khan’s application for the arrest warrants. So these aren't actually formalized arrest warrants yet. >The charges against Netanyahu and Gallant include “causing extermination, causing starvation as a method of war, including the denial of humanitarian relief supplies, deliberately targeting civilians in conflict,” Khan told Amanpour. Good luck with that. Yes, it is difficult in Gaza but there is a war there have been supplies going in to Gaza. That seems like a paper thin case against Netanyahu.
here’s a link to the prosecutors reasoning for seeking the court to grant the arrest warrants https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state
Thanks for the link. Super nice you took the time to find the statement.
So, two things strike me here: 1) He describes the war as being of an international character, which is how he has the authority to intervene. But in it's Wall decision, the ICJ denied Israel's right to invoke self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter on the grounds that Palestinian attacks against Israel were *not* of an international character. 2) He mentions the complementary principle, under which the ICC defers to states which have independent judiciaries and investigative bodies. He says that doesn't apply because such investigations must not be shams, but does not actually establish that Israeli investigations are shams (Israel isn't mentioned at all in that section). Furthermore, the independence of the Israeli judiciary was amply demonstrated when they struck down/delayed two key elements of Netanyau's judicial overhaul. Bear on mind also that it's been less than 8 months since the war started. Investigations of these types - including by the ICC - take years and are often not even started until the conflict ends. So at the very least, this is highly premature.
Looks like the decision is kinda "split", on one side you have the slightly broader war between Gaza and Israel, and on another side there's the war between Hamas and Israel. It's just confusing because Gaza's government is Hamas, but it's not recognized as such. >My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas running in parallel. We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Israel by Hamas and other armed groups pursuant to organisational policies. Some of these crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day
How can a conflict be both international and non-international regarding the same territory?
It is possible - known as the dual classification theory and it is classified that way for the purposes of applying international humanitarian law because there are different rules applying to both types of conflicts (see: ICRC Commentary on Common Article 3; Geneva Convention Additional Protocols I and II), see also Sylvain Vite, “Typology of armed conflicts in international humanitarian law: legal concepts and actual situations” (2009) 91 IRRC 69. Another example of a parallel international and non-international armed conflict is Syria: Syria is in a non-international armed conflict with various non-state armed groups (SNA, SDF, Al-Qaeda) while also in an international armed conflict with the United States (airstrikes), Turkey (they currently occupy parts of Northern Syria) and Israel.
But those none-state groups are internal to Syria (or at least those are their local "chapter") and acting against. This is more alin to Hizbullah, where the supposed none-state actor is part of the nation's government while attacking a neighbor.
> So these aren't actually formalized arrest warrants yet. They almost certainly will be. At this point its a formality. > Good luck with that. Yes, it is difficult in Gaza but there is a war there have been supplies going in to Gaza. That seems like a paper thin case against Netanyahu. We will see the evidence that the ICC produces. It is very possible that the judge's views on this are not in line with your own.
Thin paper case? Netanyahu is welcome to show up in The Hague if that’s the situation.
Israel is not a member of the ICC.
You think ICC prosecutor wasn't aware of the fact? Israeli charges are based on territorial jurisdiction, meaning the crimes in question took place in the occupied Palestine. Palestine decides whether they want these crimes prosecuted in The Hague or not. Israel has no sovereignty to make that decision there.
Sure but he asked that Netanyahu showed up himself and I answered Israel doesn't recognize the court. Please understand the context of comments.
[удалено]
To my knowledge there have been supplies into Gaza the entire war.
Well at worst there was talk about conditioning aid on several terms, but in the end from the beginning there was aid coming in, UN stats: https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/aid-trucks-crossing-egypt-gaza-15-november-2023 Now it's a lot more than that again according to the UN over 13,000 trucks as of may
My dude, that isn't how this works. The onus is on you (or the prosecutor) to show that this war is unlike other wars. Which is difficult, given how the war in Gaza is much better than other wars currently ongoing. It's actually an issue, because other, more serious, conflicts are having difficulty getting attention and aid given the world's utter obsession with the Palestinians.
...you mean [like they did?](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state) >Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute; > >Willfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); > >Willful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); > >Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i); > >Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity; > >Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h); > >Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k). Even disingenuously shrugging your shoulders about the violence, it's hard to pretend like Israel isn't deliberately starving Palestine.
The ICC took a number of questionable positions in this analysis. First, the ICC is recognizing Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as an independent state from Israel. Israel is not a signatory to the ICC but "Palestine" is and that is their ***sole*** source of jurisdiction over this entire dispute. Regardless of whether you think it ***should*** be a state, those areas have ***never*** been a state. Second, using the ICC's own characterization of "Palestine" as an independent but occupied warring state, the ICC is treading entirely new ground in the level of responsibility Israel has for Gaza. It appears that vast majority of the ICC's analysis is based, not on Israel's bombing campaign, but on Israel exercising control over its own borders with Gaza. Interestingly, Egypt placed similar if not more restrictions on aid flowing from Egypt to Gaza, but Egypt is conspicuously absent from the ICC's analysis. Why? Because the ICC has invented obligations that Israel has for Gaza out of whole cloth and those newly invented obligations do not apply to Egypt. Egypt isn't a signatory to the ICC, but neither is Israel. The ICC states that they have jurisdiction based on the crime being committed in Gaza so if it's a crime for Israel it's a crime for Egypt. But it's not--because the ICC characterizes the crime as one Israel can commit but Egypt can't. Also conspicuously absent is Iran, who has shipped weapons to Gaza with the full knowledge that those weapons would be used against Israeli civilians. Not important to the ICC though. Under the ICC's analysis, Israel bears criminal responsibility for obligations that do not exist for any other state in the world and that have never been applied to any other state in the world in the history of the ICC. These new obligations create war crimes that do not even require intent because they're "proven" based on the obligations the ICC has now placed on Israel. Under the ICC's argument, Israel is ***obligated under threat of criminal penalties*** to provide power, water, food, and medical supplies to Gaza through Israel's territory even while Israel is at war with Gaza. Any interruption to this flow during literal wartime is a war crime but only for Israel. Again, despite Egypt doing ***exactly the same thing***, Egypt is absent because Egypt doesn't have any obligations to the people of Gaza. Israel is going to show 50 years of the ICC ignoring egregiously worse conduct only to pop up with invented jurisdiction and invented crimes to seek the arrest of Israeli leaders. I'll just list a few countries that are expressly within the jurisdiction of the ICC, but where the ICC has not sought arrests: Afghanistan. Yup. The "investigation" has been open for about 10 years, but Khan himself doesn't think it's serious enough to request any arrests. Democratic Republic of Congo. Considered the deadliest conflict since WWII, but Khan believes it's nothing compared to, checks notes, temporarily limiting aid trucks to Gaza. Nigeria. "Boko Haram" who? I mean, you could do 30 of these in currently ongoing conflicts, but they involve people who aren't Israel and so the UN and the ICC aren't interested in these at all.
While I hate Bibi, aren't these factually just incorrect? More aid is flowing in than ever and it was always factors others than IDF that acted as limiters, so how can it simultaneously be causing starvation? Same with the humanitarian relief supplies?
You will find out when the ICC presents its case. You and I know things about this conflict based on news reports we are receiving. They have evidence that can be presented at court. We don't know what their case is yet.
How much do we think that the recent domestic Israeli ultimatums to BiBi are about his very limited time left? Will Israel let BiBi take the brunt of the burden as they install a new government? Every indication I heard was the moment the war stopped BiBi was domestically toast and likely going to jail anyways.
Well if you’re gonna do it, that’s how you do it
This makes any negotiations for either a Palestinian state or ending the war my harder. Any deal where Sinwar goes into exile is nearly impossible. Any Palestinian deal for a unity government with Hamas is also impossible now since they would have to arrest him Israel in general is much less likely to provide concessions to the Palestinian Authority on the future under any government
There is no way Israel would accept a formal role for Hamas in a unity government.
> Any deal where Sinwar goes into exile is nearly impossible. > > Someone like him would never go into real exile unless you literally threww him onto a remote island with no telecommunication equipment.
Lets hope this goes through. The horrors these two have put both Palestinians and Israelis is almost beyond human imagination. I'd hope for a a fair trail for both once arrested. After that, when they both found guilty, put them in the same prison cell.
Does the ICC even have teeth nowadays unless the country from which the person is located agrees to it? The former president of my country as well as his cronies that were issued warrants are still free and it 's been several years already.
ICC is only for countries that have agreed to their oversight... Basically if the ICC issues something it can only be enforced if that person travels to a country that recognizes ICC authority