ICC issues warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas officials

https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges

by runarberg • 2 years ago

890 562 2 years ago

Qem4• 2 years ago

The Chamber issued warrants of arrest for two individuals, Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant, for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least 8 October 2023 until at least 20 May 2024

And things got much worse in the latter part of 2024. Even if the court didn't take into account facts after 20 May 2024, ample evidence already existing by then was already enough to issue the warrants. When it takes more evidence into account I bet more warrants will be issued.

bhouston3• 2 years ago

It is incredibly likely another series of warrants will be issued for the next level down of both Israeli and Hamas leadership.

It is too bad Lebanon didn't ratify the ICC treaty. They really should have.

ComputerGuru7• 2 years ago

It is indeed ridiculous that Lebanon didn’t join the ICC, one has to imagine that Hezbollah played a role in that decision. Which is funny because all the Palestinian resistance factions actually pushed for ICC jurisdiction to the extent that they called for it to apply to them and Israel equally! The hoops the Palestinians had to jump through to join the ICC were crazy, including (reified) threats of heavy punishments from the US if they did.

Here’s the full story if anyone is interested: https://palepedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court%27s_...

n4r92• 2 years ago

According to the BBC:

A warrant was also issued for [Hamas military commander] Mohammed Deif, although the Israeli military has said he was killed in an air strike in Gaza in July.

[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2exvx944o

dang5• 2 years ago

This is the link: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p...

Most news reports are treating this as a single story, but posting the original source seems a good idea in this case; it just happens to be split across two URLs.

ktallett2• 2 years ago

Rightfully so, their intentions and actions which have matched, have been clear for the last year. Hopefully the rest of the international community including governments will finally stand together and call them out for the crimes they have been committing. This is hopefully a step to removing arms sales to Israel as well from many countries.

nabla95• 2 years ago

(before you jump into discussion, remember that this only about these two individuals)

ICC and the prosecutor are on very solid ground here.

The prosecutor asked opinions from a impartial panel of experts in international law. The panel included people like Theodor Meron (former Legal adviser for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Helene Kennedy, Adrian Fulford.

Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant provided plenty of evidence of the intent. Did they really think that when they talk Hebrew to their audience, rest of the world does not hear them. Case like this would be harder to prosecute without evidence of intent.

justin66• 2 years ago

Did they really think that when they talk Hebrew to their audience, rest of the world does not hear them.

When it comes to US public opinion, that's normally the way it works.

PaulHoule5• 2 years ago

Thanks to our media and politicians.

bawolff28• 2 years ago

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

Keep in mind the conviction rate at ICC is pretty low.

The prosecutor asked opinions from a impartial panel of experts in international law.

The court already disagreed with said panel on one of the charges (crime of extermination) and we aren't even at the stage yet where they need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Netanyahu and Gallant should certainly be quite worried (if they somehow find themselves in icc custody which seems unlikely) but we are still very far away from a conviction. Its not a foregone conclusion.

nabla95• 2 years ago

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

GordonS3• 2 years ago

Keep in mind the conviction rate at ICC is pretty low.

My understanding is that's because it's usually difficult to show intent. However, in this case, not only do we have an incredible amount of video evidence of war crimes, but we also have a huge catalogue of Israeli politicians explicitly calling for the genocide of Gaza.

My biggest concern over this is what the US and/or Mossad will do...

nielsbot• 2 years ago

Also important to note that Khan, who filed the warrant requests, was one of Israel’s preferred appointees to the ICC as chief prosecutor.

starik36• 2 years ago

Why would it be preferred or not? Israel is not an ICC member.

yieldcrv• 2 years ago

Also note that the US imposed heavy sanctions on Ethopia and Eritrea’s entire government party, head of state, spouses and businesses under the exact same observations of provoking famine and starvation

EO 14046

hn_throwaway_992• 2 years ago

My question, though, is does pushing these kinds of toothless resolutions make any difference beyond showing that the ICC essentially has no power to enforce its warrants?

It's clear that the most powerful militaries in the world (US, Russia, essentially China too) have declared the "rules-based world order" dead. Does it do anyone any good to pretend this hasn't happened? It reminded me of the post Elizabeth Warren put out complaining that Trump was breaking the law because he didn't sign some ethics pledge: https://x.com/SenWarren/status/1856046118322188573. I couldn't help but roll my eyes. All Warren was doing was showing how pointless these laws are when there are no consequences for breaking them.

The rules-based world order was always a bit of convenient fiction, but I'm afraid it's a fiction that a large part of the world no longer believes in anymore.

hilbert424• 2 years ago

"It's clear that the most powerful militaries in the world (US, Russia, essentially China too) have declared the "rules-based world order" dead."

Correct, and that's what happened only about a decade after WWI—the War to End All Wars and look what happened.

I'm fearful history might repeat itself. It has a bad habit of doing so and often with unexpected twists.

ClumsyPilot3• 2 years ago

have declared the "rules-based world order" dead

I have hunker are confusing two things here - there is international law, which the US and other delinquents break regularly.

And there is Rules based world order, which is what US talks about and attempts to impose.

For example imposing sanctions on Russia does not have basis in international law, but is part of ‘rules based order’

fmajid3• 2 years ago

Netanyahu and Gallant will no longer be able to travel to Europe, and likely will not want to fly over Europe either (thus not to the US either).

edanm9• 2 years ago

My question, though, is does pushing these kinds of toothless resolutions make any difference beyond showing that the ICC essentially has no power to enforce its warrants?

Absolutely this matters.

This effectively limits where Netanyahu and Gallant can travel to. That's a big deal for a head of state. It sends a signal to all of Europe to be wary of doing business with Israel, which is a big deal.

We also don't know if there are any hidden warrants for other Israelis, and more importantly, if this is a precedent for future warrants. If the court starts issuing warrants for other IDF military personnel, that becomes a huge negative for Israelis.

anon2914• 2 years ago

There was never a 'rules-based world order'. We live purely in Pax Americana and every government exists at the pleasure of the United States. If the US wanted to, and if it did it correctly, it could easily conquer most countries. Afghanistan happened because America lost the will, not the ability. Had America gone the normal colonial route, Afghanistan would look a lot different today.

joejohnson3• 2 years ago

The rules-based order was always a fiction; international law is a tool used solely against America’s enemies.

This arrest warrant could be executed in a day if the US would stop supporting this genocide, but that won’t happen. They will sooner invite Netanyahu back to the UN to order more air strikes on refugees.

elcritch• 2 years ago

Should Russia’s military really be included among the most powerful in the world? They haven’t been able to defeat Ukraine which is much smaller and weaker. On paper Russia is a dominant military power but in reality their equipment is poorly maintained, their training seems limited, and the leadership full of nepotism or incompetence.

China likely has a much better army, but it’s hard to say without a large scale conflict. Hopefully we won’t find out.

phs318u2• 2 years ago

Lots of things that have a real effect in the world are a convenient fiction. The fact that most people on the planet believe that the small paper rectangles printed by the US government have some value, is a consensual belief simultaneously held but no less a fiction.

The rules based order of the world was once something people believed in, and therefore expected others to conform to. Until they didn’t (for lots of reasons all of which cumulatively perturbed the system such that it’s flipped from a stable state and into a meta-stable state).

owenversteeg2• 2 years ago

I'd argue that the "rules-based world order" as most people perceive it never really existed. Some will say that it existed for a brief moment in the 90s-2000s. Back then, most countries played nice with the international treaties even if there were no penalties for noncompliance, right? No - it just appeared that way. The 90s and 2000s were a unipolar world, the peak of the American Empire, and America made it eminently clear what would happen if you didn't get in line. If you're a small irrelevant country you would comply with the Treaty on Migratory Slugs or the Convention on Widgets not because of any written penalties, but because to not comply would be to reject the single world power and bear its wrath.

Now we're back to the state of the world as it has always been - multipolar - and it has once more become obvious that things only matter when backed up by force, leverage, and incentives. Look at things with teeth behind them - NATO borders, export controls and ASML, artificial islands in the South China Sea, control of Hong Kong, Russia in Syria or any of the other treaties with military bases. There are papers and laws and declarations on both sides of all of those things, but real-world control always follows force, leverage and incentives.

ClumsyPilot3• 2 years ago

Gallant provided plenty of evidence of the intent. Did they really think that when they talk Hebrew to their audience, rest of the world does not hear them.

Absolutely, I can not find the BBC or most other major news networks broadcasting and translating any of that.

I only see that on social media

mikae1• 2 years ago

Did they really think that when they talk Hebrew to their audience, rest of the world does not hear them. Case like this would be harder to prosecute without evidence of intent.

What are you talking about here? Link?

helge92102• 2 years ago

He referred to Palestinians as Amalek.

Since there are not many Hebrew books written over the centuries (for obvious reasons), modern literature is heavily relying on religious texts for metaphors and analogues.

Calling someone Amalek is a call for genocide.

three14• 2 years ago

If you do speak Hebrew, you would know that Netanyahu and Gallant have been heavily attacked by the extreme right specifically because they have been refusing to cut off food.

xenospn4• 2 years ago

When was the last time a head of state was arrested by the ICC?

nabla95• 2 years ago

Omar al-Bashir is currently jailed in Sudan, but has not been transferred to ICC custody yet.

Gaddafi was killed before he could be arrested.

bhouston3• 2 years ago

When was the last time a head of state was arrested by the ICC?

It also acts as a deterrent as much of the world will now likely be out of bounds for travel for either the Israelis or Hamas leadership who were issued warrants.

jacob019• 2 years ago

Dead men don't travel.

ssijak2• 2 years ago

Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic was arrested and deported by the government of Yugoslavia after him. Of course, under immense pressure from the west. My preference would be that we tried him under our courts and sent him to jail in Yugoslavia/Serbia.

Now, imposing "justice" obviously only works when you do it to small nations like Yugoslavia or Rwanda. Of course it will not apply to the Israel leader, let alone to somebody from even more powerful nation.

nabla95• 2 years ago

That was ICTY, not ICC as OP asked.

KSteffensen• 2 years ago

I don't understand how a tiny country like Israel has become so important in global politics. By population Rwanda is ~30% larger than Israel.

selimthegrim• 2 years ago

He was a former head of state by then.

28304283409234• 2 years ago

How is this 'flagged'?

docdeek• 2 years ago

Hacker News Guidelines: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

Qem4• 2 years ago

This is a significant update on an event of historical impact.

dang5• 2 years ago

Users flagged it, as is common for the most divisive topics.

I've turned the flags off now, in keeping with HN's standard practices: some (but only some) stories with political overlap are allowed, and in the case of a Major Ongoing Topic (MOT) we prefer the stories that contain Significant New Information (SNI).

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

[3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

Here are a bunch of past explanations I've posted about how we approach this topic:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41744331 (Oct 2024)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40586961 (June 2024)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40418881 (May 2024)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39920732 (April 2024)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39618973 (March 2024)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39435024 (Feb 2024)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39237176 (Feb 2024)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38947003 (Jan 2024)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38749162 (Dec 2023)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27252765 (May 2021)

2OEH8eoCRo0• 2 years ago

Stories with flags turned off should display a banner. These moderation decisions deserve transparency.

cwkoss8• 2 years ago

There are a significant number of zionist users on this site that immediately flag any comment or article they percieve as anti-israel.

bhouston3• 2 years ago

This shouldn't be flagged.

1over1372• 2 years ago

Why not? How is it “hacker news” at all? It’s just news news.

dang5• 2 years ago

On HN, having some stories with political overlap is both inevitable and ok—the question is which particular stories those should be. We try to go for the ones that contain significant new information. See more at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42204689.

This approach has been stable for many years and there's no intention to allow HN to become a primarily-political site (quite the contrary) but it also doesn't work to try to exclude these things altogether.

kombine• 2 years ago

Because Israel is an integral part of our industry. Most major corporations have their presence in Israel. Moreover, Israel is using AI extensively in their war on Palestinian people, which they develop in partnership with the US.

ComputerGuru7• 2 years ago

Wow, this took a long time to come after the application for the warrants. 185 days compared to 23 days for Putin's arrest warrant — but then again, one was against the wishes of the USA and the west while the other was at their behest.

cies3• 2 years ago

And the US has threatened to invade NL if ICC warrants one of them.

So much for the ICC: a banana court.

It felt so real when Milosovic was trialed: now we all know the true nature of these show trials.

ceejayoz8• 2 years ago

Milošević was not tried by the ICC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribuna...

lostlogin• 2 years ago

It’s a banana court because the US doesn’t recognise it?

h8dh8es8edh8• 2 years ago

I wouldn't say "and the west" without more qualifications. The USA and Germany are solidly behind whatever the Israeli government does. England a bit less so and the rest of "the west" (however you want to define it) is more ambivalent. My point is that if only two countries (the USA and Germany) would make their support more conditional (conditional on the israeli government not commiting war crimes for example), then things could change a lot

umanwizard2• 2 years ago

There is no sovereign state called "England"; you mean the UK.

ComputerGuru7• 2 years ago

You’re right, there are notable exceptions in the form of western nations that have backed the enforcement of international law to put an end to the mass killings and starvation taking place in Gaza. Ireland, Spain, Norway, France, Switzerland, Slovenia, Denmark, and Belgium come to mind, ranging from “supporting the independence of the ICC and not commenting on proceedings” to “welcoming the investigation and the end of the killings.”

But while the US (not an ICC member) simply insulted the court and the notion of holding an Israeli leader accountable, it was the UK that demanded hearings on the legality of pursuing arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant. Aside from Germany’s staunch and unconditional support for Israel, other Western countries that heavily criticized the decision included Hungary, Austria, Czechia, Canada, Australia, and Italy - important to note that some of which also mentioned that despite their long list of misgivings and outrages they nevertheless respected the independence of the court.

jowea3• 2 years ago

My guess is that it's simply a matter of how difficult it is to prove the issue. The Putin case was very simply because there is an official state program to do things that are considered genocide. Israel is at least pretending they are letting aid in.

ComputerGuru7• 2 years ago

But that's what the court itself is for! You get plausibly charged with a crime, you go to court, and the case is determined one way or the other.

What happened in this case is that Israel beseeched its allies to lobby the court not to look into what was happening [0]. And the UK demanded hearings to impede the ICC warrants from being issued (purely politically, as this was done under Sunak and then Starmer/Lammy dropped the objection, but the delays were already underway).

[0] https://www.axios.com/2021/02/07/israel-icc-political-pressu...

JamesAdir• 2 years ago

Israel is not pretending. They've let in tons of aid, that is stolen by Hamans constantly. I want to remind you that an American soldier has died during the built of a humanitarian port by the US navy.

nickff3• 2 years ago

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 (and was responsible for many civilian deaths, including shooting down an airliner), if we count from then, it has taken the ICC a very long time indeed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court...

seydor• 2 years ago

I m afraid this fruitless pursuit will distract from the effort to stop the cleansing, which has to be diplomatic and international

user982• 2 years ago

What effort?

lordofgibbons• 2 years ago

I think gp, by "cleansing", means ethnic cleansing.

Mystery-Machine2• 2 years ago

So you want to say that the reason for _not_ doing this is: it will distract from the effort to stop the cleansing.

Would that be the same as saying that we shouldn't issue a warrant against a school shooter because it wouldn't stop the shooting? Would it distract from gun laws?

Maybe not the best analogy, but I know that I cannot say for certain whether it will negatively or positively affect the effort. It might positively affect if this makes (especially EU) countries put more pressure on Israel.

NickC25• 2 years ago

It might positively affect if this makes (especially EU) countries put more pressure on Israel.

That would never happen. Israel is above any and all criticism, how do people not realize that by now?

Pressure, sanctions, whatever - nothing will actually happen. Likud can trot out the tired trope of antisemitism and any and all criticism, legitimate or not, is automatically waved away. Like it or not, that's objective reality.

Before the shills come in and accuse me of this or that, let me be clear: NO, I don't support Hamas, Likud, or any organization that supports the killing of innocent people. Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, Palestine has a right to exist and defend itself.

TiredOfLife• 2 years ago

What cleansing?

dankai• 2 years ago

"The Chamber therefore found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare."

Whats perhaps interesting to note is that this charge was made for "just" 41 [1] confirmed starvation deaths among a population of 2,141,643 people [2].

Of course every death caused by intentional starvation is a severe crime and must be punished, but in the context of the victim numbers that most past crimes against humanity have had, it sets a relatively low new bar.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip_famine

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip

guipsp• 2 years ago

Researchers at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University estimated deaths from starvation to be 62,413 between October 2023 and September 2024.

zarzavat• 2 years ago

Given that the accused is currently in control of the crime scene, it's not surprising that the prosecution chose to prioritise the crimes that are easiest to prove.

jowea3• 2 years ago

Same reason an warrant on Putin was issued over the official children "adoption" program.

culi7• 2 years ago

The ICC does not state only 41 deaths ocurred. GP is pulling that number from an unrelated Wikipedia article that is undergoing an edit war. It went from "63k" to "41+". None of the commentors here justifying the low number realize its completely made up and unrelated to the ICC

peppers-ghost• 2 years ago

"confirmed" data from Gaza at the moment is unreliable. The people who were doing the counting have either been killed or cleansed from the area. The official death toll is still around 40k despite the reality being closer to 100-200k.

bawolff28• 2 years ago

Regardless, total deaths don't matter, only deaths that were the result of crimes matter, in this context.

Some of those deaths are going to be legal targets killed during combat, which is not evidence of a war crime. You have to split things out for the numbers to mean anything.

culi7• 2 years ago

GP is not citing the ICC. The ICC never claims 41 deaths are confirmed. GP is citing a Wikipedia article which is undergoing an edit war. The Wikipedia page had cited 62,413 deaths and then was switched to a pro-Israel source that instead says "41+"

ICC never claimed only 41 deaths were confirmed

edanm9• 2 years ago

If you think the "confirmed" data is unreliable, what makes you think you know the "real" number? How is your number any more reliable?

bawolff28• 2 years ago

Whats perhaps interesting to note is that this charge was made for "just" 41 [1] confirmed starvation deaths among a population of 2,141,643 people [2].

IANAL but this is probably incorrect i think - the starvation charge is related to allegations of intentionally restricting neccesities of life. Whether anyone dies as a result is irrelavent to that charge. The murder charge is for the people who actually allegedly died as a result (of the starvation that is. To be clear, the death has to illegal for it to be the war crime of murder. Normal combat death is not murder).

shihab4• 2 years ago

This is common and expected. Even when a serial killer suspected of 20 murder is apprehended, arrest is often made based on one or two confirmed cases, more charges are later added as investigation deepens.

Also, keep in mind foreign journalists are completely banned by Israel from entering Gaza- complicating evidence gathering.

immibis3• 2 years ago

The Gaza ministry that would have counted the deaths was also destroyed several months ago, which is why news media have been reporting the same death total of 40,000 for several months.

legulere• 2 years ago

Israel does take selected journalists into Gaza on trips organised by the military. The issue is that journalists cannot make themselves an independent picture of the situation in Gaza.

culi7• 2 years ago

This is not how the ICC conducts its investigations. The "41+" figure is from a Wikipedia article that is undergoing an edit war. The very source it is citing actually says 63k

shkkmo• 2 years ago

but in the context of the victim numbers that most past crimes against humanity have had, it sets a relatively low new bar.

Which context is this? If you mean the context of past ICC indictments that isn't true. There are multiple other examples of people indicted for specific acts that resulted in the deaths of a 2 digit numbers of people.

The bar for "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" isn't the number of people you kill. Though in this case, plenty have been killed, this case is about what can be proved conclusively ebough given who it is against.

croes• 2 years ago

What’s the threshold for war crimes?

bawolff28• 2 years ago

The crimes have a definition with requisite elements in the rome statue.

While many of them do require a certain gravity, viewing international crimes like a more serious version of a normal crime is probably the wrong way of doing it. Some war crimes do not require anyone to die. In other cases thousands could die and it wouldn't be a war crime or crime against humanity because the elements aren't met.

In particular, starvation doesn't require anyone to have died, and it covers more things than just food. Keep in mind its a relatively new crime in international law, it was only made illegal in 1977 (for example during ww2, the nuremburg trials explicitly ruled that sieges were legal). As far as i know nobody has ever been persecuted for it, so the case law doesn't exist, so its a bit unknown.

yyyk2• 2 years ago

We can compare the rate to countries in more.. stable situations[0]. They'll have a very difficult time getting anywhere with that rate. But we'll see. The world would be better off with all these individuals having no power at all.

[0] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/starvatio...

megous3• 2 years ago

Starvation vs starvation to death are different things.

War crime of starvation was directed against 2.3 million people without distinction, incl. ~1 million children. I'd say that's bad enough.

culi7• 2 years ago

This comment is just pure misinformation. Nobody is claiming only 41 deaths.

You're citing an irrelevant Wikipedia page as a source that has a crazy edit history going back and forth between "41+" and "62,413 conservative estimated" deaths

threemux2• 2 years ago

Not super meaningful in reality - any country looking to arrest either man should tread carefully.

The American Service-Members' Protection Act authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court".

Israel is listed in the act as covered. Any means explicitly includes lethal force, which is why the act is nicknamed the "Invade the Hague" act.

ssijak2• 2 years ago

The Netherlands said that they would arrest anybody accused. That would be peculiar to see, what would actually happen if anybody of the accused were to travel there.

com6• 2 years ago

The Dutch have a very lackadaisical attitude to law, and at the very same time a very principled cut-off-my-nose-to-spite-my-face rule of law mentality.

If I were a senior Israeli or Hamas leader I’d avoid the place for a couple of decades in case of sealed charges.

alexisread3• 2 years ago

The question here is why is only Israel covered in this act?

Also anti-BDS legislation in finance, regardless of ethical etc. concerns?

The US gives $4bn/year to Israel gratis, and so far $20bn in weapons over the course of this conflict, including advanced weapons like the F35 WITH source code access (which no other F35 partner has) - why?

There have been no investigations of US deaths WRT settler violence, aid workers killed etc. Normally with any US death it's a huge issue.

What does Israel do in return to make it such a favoured country? eg. 20bn in disaster relief aid to Florida would be probably more welcome by US citizens.

threemux2• 2 years ago

It's not only Israel. It's all of NATO plus "major non-NATO allies" specifically Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand

IncreasePosts• 2 years ago

We give Jordan $1.6B/year, what does it give in return? What about Ethiopia at $2B/yr?

kklisura• 2 years ago

Honestly, I would so like someone to test that!

gist• 2 years ago

any country looking to arrest either man should tread carefully.

I'd imagine that if they were detained the IDF would put out quite a bit of effort to get them sprung from prison ... at any cost.

(Imagine if a former US leader was put in prison anywhere but the US).

newspaper16• 2 years ago

So you think Israel will start attacking European countries? I don't think that would work out well for them.

cwkoss8• 2 years ago

It would be a chance to become a hero of humanity that 99% of the world would cheer on...

r00fus2• 2 years ago

I'm sure if they try it will go down perfectly well with the rest of the world. It's not like the US has a monopoly on finances or force globally. China and BRICS are waiting in the wings.

throwaway984393• 2 years ago

This will not amount to anything, but it's nice to know we aren't all crazy or anti-semitic for thinking the Israeli state has been acting very poorly in regards to the State of Palestine. Feels a little bit like trying to get organized crime on tax evasion.

0xDEAFBEAD8• 2 years ago

In his first response to the ICC issuing a warrant for his arrest on allegations of war crimes, Benjamin Netanyahu’s office has described the ruling as “absurd and false lies” and said the decision is “antisemitic.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/nov/21/internati...

If Netanyahu and Gallant really think they are innocent, and the allegations are absurd and false, they should cooperate with the ICC. Have your day in court and show how absurd the accusations are. If you're not willing to do that, it seems reasonable for the public to draw a proverbial negative inference.

bluGill2• 2 years ago

You are assuming the court isn't a political thing that is trying to get him regardless of evidence. The court is at least partially political, and Netanyahu will tell you this is entirely political and he wouldn't get a fair trail.

TrueDuality• 2 years ago

Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept and recognize the authority of. It has a history of being very transparent in its decisions and is widely recognized as being neutral and fair in their decision making process.

Of course the person charged and found guilty of a crime will argue against the court. Disagreement, even if valid, doesn't change the recognized authority of this court even if the "teeth" are extremely limited.

stanfordkid• 2 years ago

There is indeed, as you state, political influence being exerted on courts. Most of that influence is in support of Israel and Netanyahu — do you really think there is significant political power and influence upon the ICC from Palestine or Hamas? Look at the amount AIPAC has contributed to pro-Israel politicians. It’s quite frankly absurd such a political organization exists under the guise of representing American Jews yet pretty much lobbies solely for Israeli geopolitical issues. Kennedy even tried to get it to register as a foreign agent. The fact that these warrants were issued despite the influence and leverage of Israel is a hint at how egregious the crimes are.

nimbius• 2 years ago

political is..sorta true. the point of these international legal bodies was to maintain and enforce a world order dominated by western powers. it was not about promoting justice (albeit sometimes that happened.) the selective application of enforcement and investigation have reduced the ICC to little more than a tool of neocolonial rule.

the rome statute itself contains provisions that limit its reach. article 98 precludes extradition, which has been abused by the US to prevent US nationals from being tried.

in short the ICC is allowed to go after western geopolitical rivals, however going after an ally whos committing genocide is a bridge too far; they will be shielded. for example: the US pressured its allies to refuse to refer any activities in Afghanistan to the ICC and largely succeeded as its allies form the dominant half of the UN Security council. whats interesting here is the US seems so isolated this time as to have lost the ability to block the referral. perhaps a first in history.

loceng9• 2 years ago

And the only counterweight for a person accused of genocide who is claiming they haven't committed war crimes or genocide, while they call this action "antisemetic" - the only way to determine if they are being genuine in claim it is antisemitism or political-manipulation (demonization) tool is to go to court and see all of the evidence presented.

Either 40,000+ people dead or seemingly nearly all Palestinian's civilian infrastructure being destroyed, both warrant being witnessed and investigated by the international community with a fine tooth comb, no?

The ICC isn't some amateur city court in some backwaters country, it is the current epitome and evolutionary state from effort and passion of humanity towards holding the line for justice.

loceng9• 2 years ago

Can't you place that exact same argument on the side of the Palestinians, and add more weight to their claim - where the international community so far has allowed this, due to reason (whether money involved in politicians toeing a line or not), and so the courts decisions and political bias are more likely to favour Netanyahu over the Palestinians?

There never seems to be much critical thinking on the quick one-liners that on the surface appear to often be one-liner propaganda talking points used for deflection, to give an easy memorable line for an otherwise ideological mob to learn-train them with to then parrot.

(edited tran->train)

1024core• 2 years ago

they should cooperate with the ICC. Have your day in court and show how absurd the accusations are

There's a reason why the US does not recognize the ICC.

newspaper16• 2 years ago

Yes, because they want to operate outside the rule of international law.

rangestransform2• 2 years ago

yeah, the accused has no right to a jury trial with the ICC

with the 6th amendment, signing the rome statute into law would be both unconstitutional and effectively subjecting US soldiers to a kangaroo court (in the eyes of the US)

freejazz2• 2 years ago

If you think it's a sham, why would you participate in the process? I don't agree that it is a sham, but it's an absurd principle to think that they'd have any interest in doing so.

megous3• 2 years ago

Israel already participates in the process. That's why they file documents with the court. Claims from two of those the pre-trial chamber rejected today, prior to issuing the warrants.

Re response: your claim was participation not jurisdiction, shift goalposts however you like

pagade• 2 years ago

Antisemitic. Every time I hear this word, I can’t help but think of its irony—a term used exclusively for describing discrimination against one community, as if prejudice against them carries more weight than against any other. Perhaps, though, it serves as the best reflection of our hypocrisy.

dlubarov6• 2 years ago

[flagged]

yread• 2 years ago

Not to mention there are more semitic people than Jews. And Holocaust targeted more people, too. And there were pogroms against other poeple, too.

ada1981• 2 years ago

Especially when you consider "semites" are a member of an ancient or modern people from southwestern Asia, such as the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, or Arabs. It can also refer to a descendant of these peoples.

So, many Palestinians are Semites as well. And one may conclude when Ovadia Yosef, a former Chief Rabbi of Israel, says:

“It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable. The Lord shall return the Arab’s deeds on their own heads, waste their seed and exterminate them, devastate them and vanish them from this world.”*

That this is "Anti-Semitic" speech as well.

It's amazing how buying off 98% of US Representatives can change a cultural and media narrative.

*https://adc.org/racist-incitement-by-israeli-leaders-must-en...

havelhovel• 2 years ago

It's incredible that a term was coined in the 19th Century to describe demonstrable hatred toward Jews, that the term was happily adopted and popularized by people who hated Jews, and now over 150 years later the term itself is pointed to as "proof" of Jewish privilege or conspiracy, perpetuating the cycle of ignorance and hatred under a new guise.

loceng9• 2 years ago

I first thought you were going to point out how the misuse of the word "antisemitic" is especially problematic here:

Do the vast majority of people not understand correlation vs. causation? Because Netanyahu is Jewish does not mean an action against him is because he's Jewish.

That they are willing to use such "cry wolf" tactics, abusing it, dilutes their credibility at minimum - and then should bring their integrity into question, just for this misrepresentation of calling this action antisemitic.

disgruntledphd2• 2 years ago

I mean, this has been standard operating procedure for the State of Israel for a long time now. Any criticism is dismissed as antisemitic.

Personally, I don't think that's fair, but it's understandable why they would use it as a defence.

zeroonetwothree3• 2 years ago

I would say it’s clear that Israel draws a lot more criticism than other countries seem to for their bad actions. Whether this is antisemitism or not is up to interpretation but I can see why they might consider it so.

gspencley3• 2 years ago

If Netanyahu and Gallant really think they are innocent, and the allegations are absurd and false, they should cooperate with the ICC. Have your day in court and show how absurd the accusations are.

I don't know if I agree with this.

If the ICC is an honest organization that stands for individual rights, liberty and justice then sure.

If, on the other hand, the ICC is a corrupt organization that invites the worst of the worst in terms of rights-violating countries and dictatorial regimes to the table, then no way. In any compromise between right and wrong, good and evil, the wrong has everything to gain and the good has everything to lose.

In other words, I don't have all of the facts when it comes to the ICC and its history. I know that it is separate from the UN, but I don't know very much about it. Therefore I don't know which alternative I ultimately land on.

But in general and in principle, when it comes to those that are objectively and morally wrong, there is every reason to not grant them legitimacy through recognition or participation.

pazimzadeh2• 2 years ago

what do you mean by 'invite to the table'? it's a criminal court, so it's going to deal with criminals

you're also assuming that israel is a good faith actor in all of this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#I...

ignoramous6• 2 years ago

I don't have all of the facts when it comes to the ICC and its history. I know that it is separate from the UN, but I don't know very much about it. Therefore I don't know which alternative I ultimately land on.

If you can put in the time & effort required to make an empirical assessment of the ICC, go ahead and do so; then come back here and enlighten us all. Otherwise, this is just more of the same kind of denialism & deflection we're all too familiar with post WW2 from the many (and vocal) mass crime apologists.

beepbooptheory3• 2 years ago

Is it any data point at all to you that ICC exists and functions in many ways because of the literal Holocaust that happened during WWII? Like the same genocide that also catalyzed Israel's existence? Or is it still important, in your mind, to do our own work investigating the ICC before we think anything?

Im just saying, its important to be skeptical I guess, but all these comments being like "well who are these ICC people anyway?" can't help but be a little (darkly) funny to me. Like is this really the point where everyone just stops pretending to be good guys about this? Its like being a teenager and being angry at your mother for birthing you because she caught you doing something bad.

rmbyrro• 2 years ago

The Israeli will not recognize the authority of this ICC bench, because it's a politically motivated prosecution. They've lost before the trial even began.

StefanBatory4• 2 years ago

Netanyahu I'm not surprised, but Gallant?

EDIT: Asking genuinely on Gallant all I know is he was minister of defence and had a felling out with Netanyahu.

bawolff28• 2 years ago

He's the minister of defense (not anymore but was at the time). If the allegations are true, then as minister of defense he probably ordered the things in question (or failed to stop them)

StefanBatory4• 2 years ago

Okay, failing to stop them is a fair point I haven't considered - thanks.

jrochkind14• 2 years ago

Being the minister of defense gives you culpability for the military actions the ICC has decided are war crimes, I'd think? But I am not an expert in international law, just don't find it surprising.

sofixa8• 2 years ago

Yep, commanders are responsible for the actions undertaken by their troops.

It's called Command responsibility or sometimes the Yamashita principle/doctrine, after a Japanese general who was executed for horrific crimes committed by troops not even under his command, but in his area of responsibility (they were naval troops in the Philippines, he was commander of the Philippines, the navy and the army hated each other; he pulled out of Manilla in order to wage war in favourable terrain, the naval infantry commander refused to follow him and fought a brutal urban battle that destroyed the city, and on purpose killed more than a hundred thousand civilians).

adhamsalama• 2 years ago

You're not surprised that the prime minister is accused of war crimes, but surprised the minister of defense is?

shihab4• 2 years ago

"Defense minister [Gallant] announces ‘complete siege’ of Gaza: No power, food or fuel". [1]

[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-ministe...

StefanBatory4• 2 years ago

Thanks for the link, I didn't know that it was he who announced that. Thank you!

newspaper16• 2 years ago

Gallant's position is that there are no innocent people in Gaza and that they should be starved to death. He's said this many times:

https://x.com/KhalilJeries/status/1853905224320372923

StefanBatory4• 2 years ago

I didn't know about this before, thanks :|

I thought he was much more of a moderate in Netanyahu cabinet.

edanm9• 2 years ago

He's said this "many" times? Can you show some other times he's said this?

This clip is IIRC from about 3 days after Hamas invaded Israel and massacred civilians. He announced an utterly immoral siege policy, but abandoned it almost immediately.

And while you can certainly cherry-pick some awful statements from Gallant, he's also made many statements that make it clear that Israel is not targeting civilians.

dekelpilli• 2 years ago

Just a note that the translation in that video is slightly incorrect - he mentions Gaza City, not the Gaza strip.

roody15• 2 years ago

What is the point of the ICC? Russia doesn't recognize it, Israel doesn't recognize it and even the United States doesn't recognize it. I am confused at what these warrants even mean.

tuvocoical2• 2 years ago

In this case, to make a political statement against Israel and their leadership.

Note that the only member of Hamas indicted, Mohammed Deif, will never see a day in court. As the ICC already knows, he was killed in an airstrike earlier this year.

ktallett2• 2 years ago

Since there has been no proof of his death bar the announcements from Israel, it is sensible to consider him as a wanted man until there is concrete evidence he is dead.

DasIch• 2 years ago

In practice these warrants mean that they cannot travel to any country that does recognize the ICC without being arrested, which means they almost certainly won't.

jcranmer• 2 years ago

Just like how Putin couldn't travel to, say, South Africa, after a warrant was issued for his arrest. Oh wait, South Africa declined to enforce the ICC arrest warrant in that case.

I don't see this meaningfully constraining Netanyahu's foreign travel options.

nickff3• 2 years ago

ICC member Mongolia didn't arrest Putin when he visited. https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/ukraine-situation-icc-pre-trial...

runarberg5• 2 years ago

There have been several pundits with opinion on the matter, you’ll find quite a few in any news source (personally I recommend al-Jazeera). The gist of it is that this will have implication mostly around travels of Israeli officials to Europe. We might also see a slow and gradual policy shift in Europe as a result of this.

latentcall3• 2 years ago

Ah yes three countries accused of doing really heinous shit do not recognize the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court. How convenient.

bawolff28• 2 years ago

The Chamber also noted that decisions allowing or increasing humanitarian assistance into Gaza were often conditional. They were not made to fulfil Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law or to ensure that the civilian population in Gaza would be adequately supplied with goods in need. In fact, they were a response to the pressure of the international community or requests by the United States of America. In any event, the increases in humanitarian assistance were not sufficient to improve the population’s access to essential goods.

I don't understand why this would matter. Does it matter the rationale for increasing aid? I would think the only thing that should matter would be weather the aid was sufficient or not. (I appreciate in the end icc pretrial felt it wasn't enough , but i think that is the only thing that should matter)

Like if someone is accused of murder, but doesn't because a friend told them not to, we don't throw them in jail because they decided not to murder for the wrong reasons.

toast0• 2 years ago

The rationale for supplying aid might not matter when the aid is sufficient. Although, coercive aid might still be a problem; I'm unfamiliar with international law on this.

But when aid is not sufficient, I think rationale/intent makes more of a difference. If you're doing it for the right reasons and putting in a good effort, sufficiency may not be acheivable and it may not be right to charge you with not acheiving it. If you're only doing it to keep your friends happy, and it's insufficient, maybe there was more you could have done.

ncr100• 2 years ago

The word intent is oftentimes used in The judicial system to measure culpability and punishment:

whether somebody accidentally stabbed a person 90 times or intentionally stabbed the person 90 times, for instance, is captured via the concept of intent.

vharuck2• 2 years ago

Israel was expected, under international law, to unconditionally allow aid for the civilians. Israel used it as a bargaining chip, effectively holding civilians hostage.

bawolff28• 2 years ago

This doesn't seem to match what the ICC is saying. I don't see anywhere that the icc accused Israel of using aid as a bargaining chip.

xg154• 2 years ago

I think it does matter, because it's another indicator for intent.

If the starvation is a "simple" side-effect of the combat situation, but you're working actively to alleviate it on your own volition (by doing your best to let in aid organizations, etc) then it's obvious to see there is no intent to it.

If, on the other hand, you have to be pressured by the international community, including your closest allies for every tiny step in the direction of letting in aid, and you will immediately jump two steps back as soon as the pressure eases slightly, then it can be inferred that you really really want the starvation to happen and your only problem with the situation is getting away with it.

(Not even starting with all the government officials who spelled out the whole intent explicitly in public, documented quotes)

Like if someone is accused of murder, but doesn't because a friend told them not to, we don't throw them in jail because they decided not to murder for the wrong reasons.

The problem is that the murder is happening here and the friend is trying - badly - to convince the person to pull out the knife.

MisterTea• 2 years ago

Like if someone is accused of murder, but doesn't because a friend told them not to, we don't throw them in jail because they decided not to murder for the wrong reasons.

If they did not carry out any action then this holds true. But there were actions carried out that amounts to assault and attempted murder.

bawolff28• 2 years ago

Even still,in this analogy, the rationale for why they chose not to murder wouldn't really speak to their intent in relation to other crimes.

Like if someone assualted someone but did not murder them because a friend asked them not to, we treat that exactly the same as if they assualted them but stopped before murdering because they thought murder was wrong.

stoperaticless• 2 years ago

Like if someone is accused of murder,

This analogy has issues.

Topic is war. As far as international law is concerned, it’s “ok” to shoot people, blow them up and maim them.

I would propose analogy from a contact sport like mma (or the movie “purge”).

Bad things, that usually are forbidden, are allowed and even expected to be done in the event. Rules just add some restriction on how and why.

tuyguntn• 2 years ago

If Netanyahu and Gallant declared as war criminals, does it also mean whoever helped them during the 2024 is complicit?

Wondering what happens to so many Western leaders who supported Netanyahu unconditionally.

GordonS3• 2 years ago

Biden/Harris, Starmer, Scholz and Macron have all been supplying Israel with arms, all whole knowing they are carrying out a genocide. The US has also had boots on the ground, and the UK has flown hundreds of spy and missions over Gaza. Meanwhile, they all give near carbon-copy press statements that read like they came straight from Israeli Hasbara.

They have knowingly supported and aided Israel, and I hope more warrants are forthcoming.

Come to think of it, plenty of journalists and media orgs are complicit too, such as the BBC.

alexisread3• 2 years ago

Technically yes, and a number of UK politicians are being mooted for investigation

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/23/criminal-complaint-...

Notably this admission by David Cameron, to knowledge of starvation is rather damning

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-67926799

elAhmo• 2 years ago

Like the US congress giving an applause and a standing ovation.

spacemadness• 2 years ago

I wish. The US government has been an absolute disgrace in how we've handled support of Israel unflinchingly. I guess we didn't write enough sternly written letters while people were being forcibly starved to death.

M3L0NM4N• 2 years ago

Unflinchingly? Biden did a lot to restrict military aid/sales if weapons that would likely have lots of collateral damage.

DoodahMan• 2 years ago

that is a good question. we've seen folks from the Biden/Harris admin resign over military aid to Israel, and it appears the admin indeed was in violation of US law when said aid was given. could they face criminal charges for complicity? i find it hard to believe they had no idea what was going on.

another question i have regards the future: it appears the US is working on even more aid for Israel, see Bernie's latest attempt to prevent that. now that leadership in Israel has warrants out for them, will the US aid continue? certainly would be a bad look to continue aiding Israel at this point i reckon.

what an absolute tragic mess all around. i'm ashamed of our complicity, and sadly will not be surprised one bit if we continue giving them aid despite it all.

nashashmi• 2 years ago

Title doesn’t mention any hamas official

dang5• 2 years ago

I adopted the title of one of the news articles that were also submitted about this. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42204632 for why.

locallost2• 2 years ago

I doubt there will be actual arrests, but there will be and there are already consequences. I just saw France and Netherlands announced they will obey the warrants, thus Netanyahu can no longer travel there. Presumably the whole of EU is off limits (I am unaware which countries recognize the court).

immibis3• 2 years ago

I expect Germany to declare the opposite. There is a small chance this incident fractures the European Union.

locallost2• 2 years ago

I think Germany has already said it will respect the court's decision but disagrees with it.

csomar3• 2 years ago

If Europe (ie Germany) as a whole fails to enforce the warrant, the court is pretty much dissolved.

spongebobism• 2 years ago

Current opposition leader Friedrich Merz, who will probably win the snap elections in February, has even before the court ordered the warrant called for Germany not to obey it. But of course, it's easier to take strong stances when you're not part of that government that has to act on them yet. We'll see.

shihab4• 2 years ago

EU foreign policy chief said the court's decision should be implemented. Ireland also indicated they would comply with the warrant.

pygar• 2 years ago

He will never leave Israel again. He is 75 and doesn't have many years ahead of him anyway. At some point soon he will either be voted out or kicked out through regular knessent machinations and spend his remaining years writing his memoris in hebrew only.

h_tbob• 2 years ago

I don’t get why Israel waged war on Gaza instead of just going for the guy who ordered the attack. Any thoughts?

latentcall3• 2 years ago

Oct. 7 was incredibly useful for Israel give it the casus belli to destroy resistance and settle Gaza. Lebanon will be the cherry on top.

Why kill one guy when you can kill all resistance and (future possible) resistance and tada you have a bunch of land and can expand your borders.

underdeserver4• 2 years ago

1200 dead including children and elderly. Useful. Are you serious?

A4ET8a8uTh04• 2 years ago

Hmm. It is a weird conversation for me. Since I am not part of the conflict, as the outsider I believe I see some of the game played. Still, I do not want to spend too much energy on this since I am not sure I understand how you perceive things.

I think you are wrong, but you are wrong by equating Netanyahu and Israel. It is useful for the former. It would be hard to convince me it is useful for the latter. And then, even assuming tada part is uncontested ( not impossible in current configuration ), how exactly do you see this play out?

jowea3• 2 years ago

The guy is the Hamas leader who was killed recently? How would Israel get him? Special forces raid? He could hide anywhere in Gaza. And why would Israel want to do a decapitation instead of destroying the hostile organization? Even assuming Israel doesn't want to annex territory that seems like expecting the US to react to 9/11 by sending the Navy Seals after Bin Laden and stop it at that.

cwkoss8• 2 years ago

The Gaza invasion was never about the hostages. If Israel cared about the hostages they wouldn't have indiscriminately bombed the entire territory. The hostages are dead, and demanding the impossible return of people they killed is simply a pretext:

They want land expansion and the total ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Look up 'Greater Israel'. Tim Walz accidentally let it slip during a debate that this is the goal of the US empires support.

ComputerGuru7• 2 years ago

For context, this is only possible because the state of Palestine pushed hard and persisted for years to become an ICC member and thus give the ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed on Palestinian territory, whether by Israel or by Palestinian factions. The USA is still mad at them for doing it.

The full account is worth reading, it includes considerations by the various resistance factions that they’d also be subject to ICC jurisdiction and realized threats of punitive measures by the USA and Israel if they continued to push for ICC membership: https://palepedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court%27s_...

FireBeyond2• 2 years ago

For context, this is only possible because the state of Palestine pushed hard and persisted for years to become an ICC member and thus give the ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed on Palestinian territory, whether by Israel or by Palestinian factions. The USA is still mad at them for doing it.

That sounds biased.

Why -shouldn't- Palestine be able to be a member of the ICC? Your verbiage makes it sounds like they basically bullied the ICC into membership.

And frankly, so what if the US is still mad at them for it? The US won't join organizations like this because it'd rather protect people like Kissinger who openly committed war crimes (and wants the freedom to be able to do whatever it wants, wherever, without consequence).

tsimionescu2• 2 years ago

I think the GP intended to congratulate the Palestinians for their digged resilience in pursuing this, despite the extraordinary opposition they faced. I think they were using this language specifically to suggest how hard the fight was, not to imply that it was a bad thing.

insane_dreamer2• 2 years ago

state of Palestine pushed hard and persisted for years to become an ICC member

good for them; is there some reason they shouldn't have?

ComputerGuru7• 2 years ago

Absolutely not; in fact, I was commending them for it.

ljsprague• 2 years ago

Now do Tibet.

joejohnson3• 2 years ago

And in that time, Israel spied, hacked and intimidated ICC officials. They knew recognition of Palestinian rights would open the door to criminal cases like this, so they’ve been working for almost a decade to discredit the International Criminal Court.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/28/spying...

idunnoman1222• 2 years ago

Article is pretty light on the details of the Hamas officials. I wonder if they’ll show up to their day in court.

tsimionescu2• 2 years ago

According to Israel at least, all the ones that the warrants were requested for are now dead. Perhaps new warrants will be issued, but simply taking on the mantle of Hamas leadership will not make someone retroactively culpable for the crimes of October 7th. Culpability at this level is personal, not collective. So even though anyone who becomes the next leader of Hamas will be, by this act itself, a terrible human seeking to advance some horrible ideals, that will not make them culpable for everything Hamas has already done.

recroad• 2 years ago

No because dead

giardini• 2 years ago

Have they issued any warrants for Hamas leaders for the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel?

isoprophlex• 2 years ago

Yes, for those that are still alive, that is indeed the case.

warrenmiller• 2 years ago

Yes. Read the posts

ArnoVW2• 2 years ago

they have, at the same time, issued a warrant for Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, who is (or was) the commander of the armed part of Hamas.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p...

dotancohen3• 2 years ago

He's been declared dead by both Israel and Hamas.

How about the Hamas leaders living in Turkey? They were just kicked out of Qatar, and being in (semi-)European Turkey should be easier to arrest, no? Remember, these Hamas leaders in Turkey actually, really, call for explicit genocide - and carry out their actions.

ThinkBeat• 2 years ago

I really don't think this belongs on the front page. It is a highly divisive political issue with strong radicalisation at the edges of any discourse on it.

I have my own strong opinions on it, but arguing it does not in my opinon belong on the front page here.

There are plenty of places you can go and have this discussion in as heated of a version as you prefer.

11101010001100• 2 years ago

Legal issues seem to attract plenty of attention on HN. We could see what sort of precedent has been set.

carb2• 2 years ago

I disagree. #1 this topic is not as divisive as it may seem. There is consensus as to what is happening and only a minority of the world thinks otherwise.

#2 Israel is a major tech partner and most large tech companies have offices in Tel Aviv. Many startups that we discuss here are headquartered in Tel Aviv. The head of state of the country having an ICC arrest warrant and the situation at large have major consequences to the tech world and thus HackerNews users have a unique lens through which to have discourse. Discourse with an angle that you won't find elsewhere this is discussed.

loeg3• 2 years ago

There is consensus as to what is happening and only a minority of the world thinks otherwise.

Well, that's obviously false. GP is right; this topic produces more heat than light.

underdeserver4• 2 years ago

What is it that you believe there is consensus about?

zeroonetwothree3• 2 years ago

Agree completely. Let’s keep HN focused on the H please.

loeg3• 2 years ago

The HN title says "and Hamas officials," but this appears nowhere in the article.

guerrilla• 2 years ago

https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p...

loeg3• 2 years ago

That isn't the linked article.

Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

loceng9• 2 years ago

dang,

Any strange upvote/downvote activity going on in this thread?

Watching my own replies votes going up and down, makes me think of the "THERE WAS A FIREFIGHT!" GIF: https://tenor.com/search/there-was-a-fire-fight-gifs

E.g. Going to 2 then down to 0, back up, back down and stabilizing again at 0; of course sophisticated coordinated activity will pace itself, even if across real users, as to not "waste their ammo" or be blatantly obvious; makes me wonder if there have been any studies analyzing this.. anywho. Back to life.

50208• 2 years ago

I support these warrants.

StriverGuy• 2 years ago

This does not belong on hacker news

ProllyInfamous• 2 years ago

Thank you for speaking truth, unlike these alleged world "leaders."

dang5• 2 years ago

Some stories with political overlap have always been allowed here, just not too many of them. I posted elsewhere in this thread on this point:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42204739

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42204689

rixed2• 2 years ago

As a European, I find the reactions from the US politicians as related in this Al-Jazeera article quite choking : https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/21/how-us-politicians...

But maybe biased though. Anyone would have a link to some more nuanced statements with officials who do not sounds just like thugs?

csomar3• 2 years ago

The ICC is not under the US control and thus the US sees it as a potentially dangerous organization and the fact that it is in Europe (an influential entity) doesn't make things any better. The US turned a blind eye on the ICC because it used to prosecute its enemies. Now that it's touching its agenda, it makes sense that they do not like it.

majikaja2• 2 years ago

If America doesn't do as Israel wants then Israel might side with another country.

And they know they'll be facing allegations themselves for helping to enable the situation.

rixed2• 2 years ago

Replying to the "dead" comment below (I wish HN killed only spam comments):

Mainly because i feel the rest of the world lives in a Disneyland like state of fake security that is guaranteed by the United States and never has to contend with the actual reality of the world.
The actual realities of statehood say the ICC is a joke.
As for your contention of thuggery.. again, referencing my Disneyland allegation... Thuggery is the basis of statehood and if that makes you uncomfortable, it's because you've been raised in Pax Americana.
It's really time most countries started paying tribute to the United States, but I do understand the strategic benefit of magnanimity.

I get this viewpoint. Basically, the idea is that humans can only exist as a society of thugs, and everything else is just fairy tales. In that theory, the best possible outcome is achieved when one of the thugs is much more powerfull than all others, thus enforcing "some" order. Therefore, we should all pay tribute to it. I have issues with that theory though. Firstly, I do not believe it. Secondly, even if I did I would consider it a moral duty to still fight it for the small chance it's false. A finally, it does not say what to do in a situation like today when the former bigger thug is becoming weaker and is challenged by the competition. Are we supposed to wait patiently underground the next 20 years until the next contender takes the throne?

There is another theory, according to which human societies _evolve_ as any organism do. It can actually be shown that humans did tame themselves, and became less aggressive/more cooperative after tens of thousands of years of living cooperatively, first in small scale then in larger and larger scale. I take everyone's repulsion against the current state of affairs, or against any sociopathic bahavior for that matter, as another hint of this.

We _did_ evolve out of a primitive condition where there was no conceivable human made law or justice into a society where the rule of law was just a trick, into a condition where the rule of law was desirable, and possibly one day into a condition where the rule of law appears natural.

I believe the cynical viewpoint that you expressed, and that I share sometimes when my mood is low, is actually the fantasy.

bluSCALE4• 2 years ago

This is exciting. Is there precedence for this? What should we expect?

jmward012• 2 years ago

Reading the comments in this thread and reflecting on history a bit, the thought that comes to mind is that this is less a trial for the defendants and more a trial of the ICC and more broadly international institutions and their true independence, effectiveness and ultimately, relevance.

megous3• 2 years ago

Reflecting on the history a bit...

If you think that trying some head of a small thuggish state, founded by its unilateral declaration of sovereignty over someone else's land, while already cleansing it of unruly natives, and terrorizing British officials for years both in Palestine and internationally (like with assassination campaigns and embassy bombings), that dug its own hole over decades into ethno-supremacy based and messianically driven conflict with Palestinians, will in any way degrade legitimacy of a court and treaty joined by 125 sovereign states (with almost all "western" ones included), then you're deluding yourself.

Especially when he's being explicitly tried for his role in ensuring that children have to suffer amputations and women get c-sections without anesthesia (among other things), which has nothing to do with defense of Israel.

If anything ICC standing rose a bit in many people's eyes today, slightly above the "court for african warmongers only", where it was previously.

jmward012• 2 years ago

There is definitely an argument that the ICC's actions showed independence. I was trying to imply that in what I wrote. Maybe I need to be a little more clear. If nothing happens, these warrants go away, no sort of trial happens, etc etc, then it is likely that the ICC will be seen as increasingly irrelevant and ineffective. It is still likely to be viewed that way even if a trial does actually go forward but definitely if this just dies away quietly I suspect many will see the organization as nothing but a tool that some governments get to use when they want, and not an impartial check on international actions. I tried not to imply anything about the warrants, the people they are for or the events they are in response to because my discussion point was about the ICC and not the defendants.

3vidence3• 2 years ago

Am I the only one who thinks it's completely justified for leaders of both sides to be wanted for war crimes??

If someone assaults me and I retaliate by injuring their family members then both the assilant and me are both guilty for criminal assault.

Maybe not a perfect analogy but that's what it seems has happened here...

tacheiordache• 2 years ago

No but this opinion is unjustifiably considered antisemitic and you couuld potentially have unwanted repercussions e.g. lose your job if you make it public. Such are the times we live in.

3vidence3• 2 years ago

For context, I'm not American and I would have trouble understanding how this could be conceived as antisemitic??

Also mentioned in another comment I do believe Isreal has a right to defend itself but not to commit war crimes against civilians... that seems to be the issue here.

rasz• 2 years ago

Sure, like bullied kid getting suspended because all this trouble is because of him.

3vidence3• 2 years ago

Well again in the analogy the issue seems not to be Isreal defending itself (i do believe they have the right to do so as should any country).

The issues seems to be retaliation against a civilian population.

Really attacking civilians seems to be the major war crimes on both sides of this conflict

tetromino_• 2 years ago

It's morally justified for a bullied kid to punch back (and punch hard). It's not morally justified for a bullied kid to chain the doors closed and set fire to the bully's apartment building.

klipt• 2 years ago

Doesn't seem to accomplish much in the age of remote work.

Putin has had an arrest warrant for years and he just attended the BRICS summit remotely instead of in person.

Since in theory they would be obligated to arrest him in person. But seemed they had no problem letting him attend by video call.

ipaddr• 2 years ago

How does that lineup with Ukraine. Would Zelensky and Putin and everyone who played a role including Biden get an arrest warrant?

cwkoss8• 2 years ago

The idea of moral wars is a myth manufactured by the war propaganda machine.

I wouldn't object to all three of them being tried. I think Zelensky probably has the strongest defense, but I'm not fully informed on the conflict.

grvbck• 2 years ago

Yup, there is a legal concept called excessive self-defense.

sureIy• 2 years ago

It's completely reasonable to exterminate an entire ants colony if 5 ants bite you, or at least that's their logic here, including the "ants" part. But of course we know the "self-defense" part is just a cover for the underlying desire to destroy the colony to build a nice villa.

thrance• 2 years ago

Also it goes much deeper than that. They were many masscres in Palestine before october 7th, and in Israel as well... A solution would necessarily involves less violence, not more, and at this very instant Israel is the one doing most of it.

babkayaga2• 2 years ago

not because hezbolla and hamas are not trying.

JumpCrisscross• 2 years ago

then both the assilant and me are both guilty for criminal assault

War is hell. But this war could have been conducted better. Yes, aid was being diverted by Hamas. But that doesn't mean you stop providing it, it means you do what you must to take control on the ground. The deaths from bombings, et cetera have not been found to be war crimes. The starvation, which was and continues to be avoidable, is.

adultSwim• 2 years ago

Warrants were issued for leaders on both sides. Also, the situation has structural asymmetries that are important to navigate.

maskil• 2 years ago

Isolating Netanyahu like this will only lead to a hardening of the Israeli position because he now truly has nothing to lose

Yeul• 2 years ago

This leads to a bit of a conundrum for the Netherlands. It is the home of the ICC and officially a big sponsor of international justice. But also the right wing government has a hard on for Israel. I don't think that our esteemed ancestors ever envisioned white people to end up in court...

The leader of the PVV (biggest political party) is going to visit colonial settlers in Israël.

Many immigrants hate Israel.

Official state policy is a two state solution.

The relocation of the Dutch embassy to Jerusalem.

You could make a Netflix TV show about this. May we all live interesting times!

ashoeafoot2• 2 years ago

A whole cladde of people here who collectively decided that the politics of the outside and the ugly that came from it does not matter anymore, specialising in the interior design of society with the most horrid weapon being a social ostracizing. The idea that building could pancake under artillery fire from the vacuum just is not part of reality and now papertiger hissy fits from the windows .

sharpshadow• 2 years ago

Hopefully he gets arrested that would fulfill me with joy and laughter. But realistically nobody was and probably will be able to humble Netanyahu, he is a above the ladder psychopath.

ICC issues warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas officials

Related Stories