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

[Fox by the Sea]

Yea like they will ever try and enforce them.

Fuck the ICC.

How could they enforce it? they're a bunch of lawyers. They depend on the voluntary actions of the members to enforce the arrest mandate.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Yeah, like how long after October 7th? Nothing more than props to make this move seem unbiased.

How does that matter when speaking about the Netanyahu arrest warrant?
And they're a bunch of lawyers. They operate on cases brought before them.

 

[Belaya Smert]

He has to lose the war to be a war criminal.
That not happening.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

He has to lose the war to be a war criminal.
That not happening.

It's not happening even if he loses the war, which isn't happening.
only way it's happening is if his own people and the americans somehow feel it's in their interest to dump him in some european airport where he would be immediately arrested.

 

[Belaya Smert]

It's not happening even if he loses the war, which isn't happening.
only way it's happening is if his own people and the americans somehow feel it's in their interest to dump him in some european airport where he would be immediately arrested.

Regardless of current protest i believe the solidarity with Israel is as strong as the solidarity with the defense contractors here.
He would be protected. I wanted to see Hillary charged and I think that’s about as far fetched. Protected class staying protected.
Seems more postering and pandering to a base rather than a tangible reality.

 

[PBAC]

How could they enforce it? they're a bunch of lawyers. They depend on the voluntary actions of the members to enforce the arrest mandate.

look at all the countries that recognise Palestine and this is a short list of all the countries they will have to think twice about visiting.

 

[avenue94]

I don't agree with everything Netanyahu has done but fuck the ICC.

They don't give a shit about what hamas has done.

Hamas declared all out war and Israel responded. It has been controlled compared to what hamas did.

Saying Hamas did worse is the equivalent of arguing that someone should get off for attempted murder because there are actual murderers and worse criminals out there.

Yea like they will ever try and enforce them.

Fuck the ICC.

How do you think the ICC enforces warrants?

 

[kflo]

Saying Hamas did worse is the equivalent of arguing that someone should get off for attempted murder because there are actual murderers and worse criminals out there.

How do you think the ICC enforces warrants?

Hamas started a war this Israel is finishing. With regime change a necessary imperative. It gives them a lot of latitude in how they execute on that imperative.

 

[avenue94]

Hamas started a war this Israel is finishing. With regime change a necessary imperative. It gives them a lot of latitude in how they execute on that imperative.

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.

 

[kflo]

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.

10/7 gives them right to invade. And right to dismantle terror infrastructure. Hamas integrating in civilian spaces gives them the right to attack them in those civilian spaces. Again the rules of war are not all black and white. They are based on circumstances on the ground.

and yes, Israel has the right to eradicate a terror org that also happens to be the governing body of their neighbor. Hamas doesn’t get legal cover.

 

[Siver!]

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.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that after months and months and fucking months of dolts arguing that Hamas are a democratically elected governing body that represent the people (when it suits), they're now not a democratically elected governing body at all, just a terrorist organization, because that now suits?

Am I far off the mark?

 

[terrapin]

bibi is a war criminal and should be arrested. we should cut off all military funding for israel until they agree to stop this one sided slaughter and starvation of innocent children and women. we should also force a two state solution. bibi needs to go to prison and we should ensure that Israel does not elect any more religious extremists. Supporting this may be the worst thing our country has done in my lifetime.

 

[avenue94]

10/7 gives them right to invade. And right to dismantle terror infrastructure. Hamas integrating in civilian spaces gives them the right to attack them in those civilian spaces.

And? That's not what the ICC is investigating or arguing is a war crime.

Again the rules of war are not all black and white. They are based on circumstances on the ground.

Which treaty provides a "circumstances on the ground" defense for say, the war crime of intentional starvation?

and yes, Israel has the right to eradicate a terror org that also happens to be the governing body of their neighbor. Hamas doesn’t get legal cover.

The ICC isn't arguing that Israel cannot strike Hamas. I have no idea why you're trying to imply the ICC is going after Israel for that.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that after months and months and fucking months of dolts arguing that Hamas are a democratically elected governing body that represent the people (when it suits), they're now not a democratically elected governing body at all, just a terrorist organization, because that now suits?

Am I far off the mark?

Sounds like a relation of Schrödinger's cat

 

[Siver!]

Sounds like a relation of Schrödinger's cat

I'm just glad we're at 'box open' stage.

 

[kflo]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that after months and months and fucking months of dolts arguing that Hamas are a democratically elected governing body that represent the people (when it suits), they're now not a democratically elected governing body at all, just a terrorist organization, because that now suits?

Am I far off the mark?

Yes, of course you are.

 

[kflo]

And? That's not what the ICC is investigating or arguing is a war crime.

Which treaty provides a "circumstances on the ground" defense for say, the war crime of intentional starvation?

The ICC isn't arguing that Israel cannot strike Hamas. I have no idea why you're trying to imply the ICC is going after Israel for that.

Sounds like a relation of Schrödinger's cat

Circumstances on the ground can justify blockades and limits on what goes in and out. They also can effect how resources get distributed. Circumstances on the ground can impact who is actually responsible for resources not ending where intended. Circumstances on the ground can effect what the starting point was in terms of resources. Again, you’re pretending this is black and white.

 

[avenue94]

Circumstances on the ground can justify blockades and limits on what goes in and out. They also can effect how resources get distributed. Circumstances on the ground can impact who is actually responsible for resources not ending where intended. Circumstances on the ground can effect what the starting point was in terms of resources. Again, you’re pretending this is black and white.

Where am I pretending things are black and white? I haven't even said what I think about the proposed prosecution.

And again what treaty allows these exceptions? International law is fairly malleable, but if you're going go argue these exceptions exist, you have to at least be able to point to the pertinent case law or treaty clause.

Even setting that aside, what could possibly justify blocking food imports for prolonged periods of time? That this happened isn't even debatable.

 

[kflo]

Where am I pretending things are black and white? I haven't even said what I think about the proposed prosecution.

And again what treaty allows these exceptions? International law is fairly malleable, but if you're going go argue these exceptions exist, you have to at least be able to point to the pertinent case law or treaty clause.

Even setting that aside, what could possibly justify blocking food imports for prolonged periods of time? That this happened isn't even debatable.

It is debatable. And if no food was coming in there would be widespread death from famine.

 

[avenue94]

It is debatable. And if no food was coming in there would be widespread death from famine.

Starvation does not equal famine, nor does famine stem from lack of food. There has also been plenty of deathes from malnutrition, likely enough to qualify for a famine by most metrics.

At any rate, the Israeli Defense Minister's description of the blockade in October was, “We are putting a complete siege on Gaza … No electricity, no food, no water, no gas – it’s all closed.” So yes, Israel, without a shadow of a doubt, purposefully blocked food importation into the Strip. Whether it constitutes the actual crime of starvation is another matter, but pretending that Israel didn't block food imports is like denying the sky is blue.

 

[kflo]

Starvation does not equal famine, nor does famine stem from lack of food. There has also been plenty of deathes from malnutrition, likely enough to qualify for a famine by most metrics.

At any rate, the Israeli Defense Minister's description of the blockade in October was, “We are putting a complete siege on Gaza … No electricity, no food, no water, no gas – it’s all closed.” So yes, Israel, without a shadow of a doubt, purposefully blocked food importation into the Strip. Whether it constitutes the actual crime of starvation is another matter, but pretending that Israel didn't block food imports is like denying the sky is blue.

A single point in time quote in the immediate aftermath of 10/7 does not equal “blocking food imports for prolonged periods of time”.