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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by YZF »

atoav wrote: post #911
YZF wrote: post #887

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not serious to suggest that Israel did not supply any food or water to the Palestinians when in fact it supplied plenty. Why didn't Egypt supply food and water to the Palestinians? (Before Israel took the border corridor). What other war can you provide me as an example where a the opposing side provided supplies to its enemy? Does Russia supply Ukraine with food and water? Does Ukraine supply Russia? Did the al…

You are aware that there are international laws regulating what an occupying force is and isn't required to do? Not letting civilians in occupied areas starve is one of the laws. And this is very basic occupational law, if you don't know that maybe consider lowering your voice on the issue in the future? https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/occupation

Part of the political circus here is around the definition of occupation. The ICC essentially claims that Gaza has always been and is currently occupied. The ground truth is that Gaza stopped being occupied when Israel withdrew in 2005 and that Israel at this time is not actually occupying most of Gaza. It is occupying portions of it and blockading other parts.

The argument is more or less around: "In international law, occupation is when a foreign power gains effective control over a territory during an armed conflict, even without armed resistance. The territory under control is called occupied territory, and the foreign power is called the occupant." and whether Israel is in effective control of all of Gaza or not. I think a reasonable person who sees the actual reality would conclude that Israel does not have effective control over the entirety of the Gaza strip. Therefore Israel does not bear the responsibility of the occupying power according to international law. The claims that Israel does occupy Gaza are political in nature, not factual.

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

#973

Post by rendall »

Yeul wrote: post #938

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. Offic…

[flagged]

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

#974

Post by sillyfluke »

jki275 wrote: post #940
edanm wrote: post #663

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? 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 kno…

What this really does is remove the ICC's authority. It's one of those things -- if you make up rules and then can't enforce them, pretty soon no one cares what you say about anything.

>What this really does is remove the ICC's authority.

Not yet. The UK and Italy both declared that they would be legally obligated to abide by the decision, which is unprecendented and historic in itself. Sure, Netanyahu could call their bluff and go to these places, and if they backpedal, then it would undermine the ICC's authority like you said. But Netanyahu would have to call their bluff for that to happen, or they would have to do an about-face before he arrives.

But until then, I would suggest that even the fact that just two well known western democracies quickly backed the ICC's authority (regardless of what they thought of the ruling) just gave the ICC more authority than it ever had before.

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

#975

Post by owenversteeg »

aguaviva wrote: post #899
owenversteeg wrote: post #893

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 emine…

Some will say that it existed for a brief moment in the 90s-2000s. So were the Nuremberg Trials not an instance of the RBWO? (And all the UN mediations in e.g. Palestine, Korea, etc. from its very founding)

The Nuremberg Trials were backed by the most force the world had ever known! And even then, the Allies wiped their ass with the rules (that they mostly made up ex post facto) and grabbed any Nazis that were useful and plenty that were not. Even putting aside all the Paperclip scientists, who absolutely knew what they were involved with, the US took plenty of SS officers - Otto von Bolschwing, Klaus Barbie, Alois Brunner, etc. Everyone violated their own “rules” left and right and occasionally, if they could be bothered, made up justifications later. This is not a controversial view: in fact the contemporary British opinion was that you can’t make up laws ex post facto and the Nazis should just be executed. The Soviets anticipated a show trial and their “judges” did nothing before phoning Moscow first. The Nuremberg trials were the 1940s legal equivalent of Calvinball.

To the mediators, I’m unsure why that would be an example. We’ve had mediators for a very long time and UN mediation is only the latest flavor of that.

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

#976

Post by dang »

anal_reactor wrote: post #847
magic_hamster wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Israel was massively radicalized by October 7th. Prior to October 7th, a lot of Israelis believed that if Palestinians had a better economy and could afford a comfortable life, peace would be possible. October 7th was not just a surprise to many Israelis, but also the atrocities were so horrible that it radically changed how Israelis view the situation. This is hard to grasp, but a lot of people don't really understa…

[flagged]

You can't post like this here, and you've been breaking the site guidelines in other places too. If this keeps up, we're going to have to ban your account. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

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

#977

Post by dang »

StriverGuy wrote: post #635

This does not belong on hacker news

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

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

#978

Post by wqaatwt »

aguaviva wrote: post #899
owenversteeg wrote: post #893

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 emine…

Some will say that it existed for a brief moment in the 90s-2000s. So were the Nuremberg Trials not an instance of the RBWO? (And all the UN mediations in e.g. Palestine, Korea, etc. from its very founding)

> Nuremberg Trials

They were effectively arbitrary show trials.

I mean a tiny proportion of nazi war criminals were ever prosecuted and the (covertly pro-nazi) West German government pardoned pretty much everyone who weren’t executed in a handful of years.

Also the Soviets (and even the Allies) continued doing whatever they wanted with no consequences.

Of course at least establishing a clear precedent was a huge achievement.

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

#979

Post by bawolff »

MisterTea wrote: post #594
bawolff wrote: post #154

> 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…

> 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.

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.

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

#980

Post by jki275 »

sillyfluke wrote: post #974
jki275 wrote: post #940

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What this really does is remove the ICC's authority. It's one of those things -- if you make up rules and then can't enforce them, pretty soon no one cares what you say about anything.

>What this really does is remove the ICC's authority. Not yet. The UK and Italy both declared that they would be legally obligated to abide by the decision, which is unprecendented and historic in itself. Sure, Netanyahu could call their bluff and go to these places, and if they backpedal, then it would undermine the ICC's authority like you said. But Netanyahu would have to call their bluff for that to happen, or th…

They're making noise, but they will absolutely not act on them. That would be a career ending event for many political figures in both countries.
Post reply on HN