221–230 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
1. Israel de facto controls the Rafah border. 2. Due to (1), and clear & consistent messaging by Israeli officials on Gaza resettlement as a goal, Egypt understands that “temporary” refugees will be unable to return - i.e., a repeat of 1948 and 1967.
(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 ev…
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 (c…
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Thanks to our media and politicians.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I didn't know about this before, thanks :| I thought he was much more of a moderate in Netanyahu cabinet.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
[flagged]
> 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…
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.
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.
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.