International Breaking: Mossad chief threatened family of ICC prosecutor; ICJ orders Israel to stop Rafah offensive; ICC seeks arrest of Netanyahu for war crimes

[kflo]

No, the dispute over borders wasn't the talking point, it is just a lazy excuse for why nothing can possibly ever move forward.

It's not 1967. Get over it.

This guy is so lost. He believes Hamas just wants autonomy……

 

[evergreenrider]

I'll pay for the PPV if they put Net and Yahoos execution on

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

the ICC won't get anywhere without help from the UN, at which point, the west will just revoke their memberships. countries like the US and UK are not under direct jurisdiction of the Rome statute, because of course, they are the most decorated war criminals in world history. they put up wilt numbers when it comes to mass rape, genocide, ethnic cleansing, slavery, etc. therefore, the UN would have to step in, which just won't happen.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Good luck getting them to understand that distinction. I’ve already tried. They seem to think things would be rosy if the Palestinians weee in charge

Both sides can be guilty of war crimes. It's not a competition to see who's worse.

 

[PBAC]

I'm not sure what you're arguing. There isn't an international law or treaty that says one set of rules for war, one set for war when you are attacked.

There's also no legal cover for regime change if we're saying that's Israel's goal here.

eh ... the UN charter ... and well pretty much everything in international law.

A country can declare war in prevention of or response to a threat deemed catastrophic enough that negotiation or other means are not an option. The charter is de-escalatory in nature meaning it sets the rules to prevent warfare and gradually concerns the actual use of force and the rules of war if it happens. Meaning inevitably it is escalatory in nature because it begins at the point of prevention of use of force and ends on terms used when use of force is utilized.

 

[Andy Capp]

Both sides can be guilty of war crimes. It's not a competition to see who's worse.

It is to many, apparently.

 

[avenue94]

eh ... the UN charter ... and well pretty much everything in international law.

A country can declare war in prevention of or response to a threat deemed catastrophic enough that negotiation or other means are not an option. The charter is de-escalatory in nature meaning it sets the rules to prevent warfare and gradually concerns the actual use of force and the rules of war if it happens. Meaning inevitably it is escalatory in nature because it begins at the point of prevention of use of force and ends on terms used when use of force is utilized.

Point me to the specific clause in the Rome Statute that implies this. I have no idea why you're referring to the UN charter if we're discussing the ICC.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Guys, the ICC and the ICJ are two different things.

The International Court of Justice/ICJ functions as the court of last resort for disputes among nations. It's a United Nations institution and all the UN members are members. In this case, the ICJ came with a ruling that the Rafah offensive must stop. But since it does not have enforcing mechanisms, it depends on the voluntary actions of the members. The only effect is that if you do not comply with the ruling, it's a substantial PR issue.

The International Criminal Court/ICC is an institution with a more limited scope, whose mandate, under the Rome Statutes, deal with instances of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity. It's independent from the UN, even though it was created as a UN initiative. Not all states are members of the ICC. famously, countries like the US, Russia, China or Israel do not recognize jurisdiction. However, once an arrest warrant has been issued, the states party to the ICC commit to arresting the person if it crosses their border.

in this thread there's two things - the arrest warrant for Netanyahu and some hamas leaders, for war crimes (ICC), and the order to stop the Rafah offensive (ICJ).

 

[PBAC]

Point me to the specific clause in the Rome Statute that implies this. I have no idea why you're referring to the UN charter if we're discussing the ICC.

ICJ is the legal wing of the UN located in the Vredespaleis *Peace Palace* in the Hague. International Court of Justice.

Article 92​

“The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter.”

ICC is the international criminal court. The ICC put out a warrant for Netanyahu. The ICJ is asking Israel as a county to stop. The USA does not recognise the ICC

 

[avenue94]

ICJ is the legal wing of the UN located in the Vredespaleis *Peace Palace* in the Hague. International Court of Justice.

Article 92​

“The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter.”

ICC is the international criminal court. The ICC put out a warrant for Netanyahu. The ICJ is asking Israel as a county to stop.

Yes...this is a thread primarily about the ICC. I've said nothing about the ICJ. You seem to have me confused with someone else or confused on the ICC vs ICJ.

 

[kflo]

ICJ is the legal wing of the UN located in the Vredespaleis *Peace Palace* in the Hague. International Court of Justice.

Article 92​

“The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter.”

ICC is the international criminal court. The ICC put out a warrant for Netanyahu. The ICJ is asking Israel as a county to stop. The USA does not recognise the ICC

Israeli officials: ICJ ruling gives leeway to continue Rafah offensive | The Times of Israel

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[PBAC]

Yes...this is a thread primarily about the ICC. I've said nothing about the ICJ. You seem to have me confused with someone else or confused on the ICC vs ICJ

well I am confused because following the thread topic we were talking about the ICJ

I literally live beside the ICJ

 

[avenue94]

well I am confused because following the thread topic we were talking about the ICJ

I literally live beside the ICJ

I certainly wasn't. Cant' speak for other posters. My main points were that it's pretty hard to deny some of the ICC's claims and that that "but Hamas is worse" or "Hamas started this" are irrelevant and terrible legal defenses.

 

[PhitePhan]

I certainly wasn't. Cant' speak for other posters. My main points were that it's pretty hard to deny some of the ICC's claims and that that "but Hamas is worse" or "Hamas started this" are irrelevant and terrible legal defenses.

The “bbbut Hamas” crap is doubly terrible when you learn that Israel had an active role in supporting Hamas… literally aiding terrorism.

 

[Blayt7hh]

No, the dispute over borders wasn't the talking point, it is just a lazy excuse for why nothing can possibly ever move forward.

It's not 1967. Get over it.

Get over what? You’re the one who brought up borders to begin with then told me not to talk about borders. I’d respond but honestly don’t know how to at this point. Guess I’ll let you argue with yourself.

I mean 1967 border would be an improvement for Palestine so I don’t know what you’re talking me to get over. Your posting is kind of insane

 

[Siver!]

Get over what? You’re the one who brought up borders to begin with then told me not to talk about borders. I’d respond but honestly don’t know how to at this point. Guess I’ll let you argue with yourself.

I had to go back and re-read my post to see what it was you are talking about.

Apparently my comment that other countries border Israel, or that by extension I supposed that Palestine would have to border Israel also, perplexed you.

Those are categorical facts, my friend, and have nothing to do with exactly where the border is drawn.

Which was your contention.

Not mine.

 

[Blayt7hh]

I had to go back and re-read my post to see what it was you are talking about.

Apparently my comment that other countries border Israel, or that by extension I supposed that Palestine would have to border Israel also, perplexed you.

Those are categorical facts, my friend, and have nothing to do with exactly where the border is drawn.

Which was your contention.

Not mine.

Right and my point was that even if Israel was very generous and gave them the 1967 the Palestinians wouldn’t be satisfied and be peaceful. That was in response to you brining up borders which btw your point kind of worked against you. You’re right Israel does seem to get along with its OTHER neighbors. You are (accidentally I’m sure) implying that Palestine is the problem.

 

[Siver!]

Right and my point was that even if Israel was very generous and gave them the 1967 the Palestinians wouldn’t be satisfied and be peaceful. That was in response to you brining up borders which btw your point kind of worked against you. You’re right Israel does seem to get along with its OTHER neighbors. You are (accidentally I’m sure) implying that Palestine is the problem.

I didn't bring up 'the borders' issue, are you having a reading comprehension issue here?

My post had nothing to do with the design or placement of any borders.

My post referred to other countries that happen to border Israel. This is not nearly the same thing. If I describe Scotland as bordering England does that mean I'm talking about the border itself?

Obviously not.

Regardless, you have for some reason decided that this conversation should instead focus on how the borders are defined by deflecting all the way back to 1967 and creating a mythical stopper that cannot be overcome for some reason. 1967 and whatever someone did or did not decide, offer, or even abide by 57 years ago is hardly relevant to the situation today. You might as well talk about decisions made in the Biblical age for all the relevance it has to 2024 and the prospects for moving forwards right now.

 

[kflo]

The “bbbut Hamas” crap is doubly terrible when you learn that Israel had an active role in supporting Hamas… literally aiding terrorism.

God you’re insufferable. They supported Hamas in the early 80s. Before they were dedicated to Israel’s destruction. But you’re too shameless to acknowledge this.

 

[kflo]

Right and my point was that even if Israel was very generous and gave them the 1967 the Palestinians wouldn’t be satisfied and be peaceful. That was in response to you brining up borders which btw your point kind of worked against you. You’re right Israel does seem to get along with its OTHER neighbors. You are (accidentally I’m sure) implying that Palestine is the problem.

It is puzzling that Israel has normal relations with the neighbors that don’t want to eradicate them.