Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ICC issues warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas officials

icc-cpi.int

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: ICC issues warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas officials

#481

Post by [deleted] »

seabass-labrax wrote: post #231
TrueDuality wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Israel don't recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court. Palestine, however, does, and therefore the ICC consider these allegations within their jurisdiction. A relevant point is that the UK (under the previous Conservative party government) requested the opportunity to dispute the allegations of war crimes based on this complication, but the new British government did not choose to continue with the…

[deleted]

Re: ICC issues warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas officials

#482

Post by belter »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #236
TrueDuality wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Courts are political entities but this is one that Israel chose to accept For what it’s worth, Israel signed the Rome Statute establishing the court in 2000 but declared in 2002 it no longer intends to ratify it[1]. (Which, I guess, is marginally better than the US, which has threatened The Hague with military invasion in case any arrests are made[2]. But not by much.) TFA specifically points out that “States are n…

If we are going to discuss the diplomatic and international implications of the ICC, it is important to note that the security—and even the continued existence as independent, sovereign entities—of the countries supporting the court is overwhelmingly reliant on the U.S. military umbrella. Without this protection, their sovereignty would quickly be at risk.

Re: ICC issues warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas officials

#483

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

sofixa wrote: post #480
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear war with whom?

The EU has a mutual defence clause, and one of the EU's member states, France, has nuclear strike capabilities, including at least one submarine with nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles on constant patrol somewhere in the oceans. I doubt it would get to it, but if the US legitimately invades the Netherlands to rescue war criminals, France is more likely to side with the Netherlands than with the US.

You really think France would risk nuclear war with the US over Netherlands?

Re: ICC issues warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas officials

#484

Post by Alupis »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #82

>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…

[flagged]

Re: ICC issues warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas officials

#485

Post by loceng »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #82

>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…

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.

Re: ICC issues warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas officials

#487

Post by exe34 »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #346

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 subje…

[flagged]

Re: ICC issues warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas officials

#488

Post by nimbius »

bluGill wrote: post #112
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #82

>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…

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.

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.

Re: ICC issues warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas officials

#489

Post by aguaviva »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #469
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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’

For example imposing sanctions on Russia does not have basis in international law,

Of course it does.

Every country is free to choose which countries it does business with.

Post reply on HN