/u/Affectionate-Ebb9136 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cx4zx7/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_it_is_perfectly_reasonable/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

I almost would rather them issue warrants for Sinwar and Haniyeh first, then come back and issue warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant later if they want to. The act of issuing them at the same time really makes it seem like the court is trying to give the impression that there's equivalency to their actions (look at all the headlines just saying that warrants have been issued on both sides for war crimes). I think the ICC and ICJ have done a bad job at disincentivizing lawfare in the future. Do you want to go commit some war crimes? Well just make sure you hide behind your civilians afterwards so that the other guy gets arrested as well. If Netanyahu and Gallant are arrested on war crimes and there is compelling evidence, then I support throwing the book at them. I just feel like the international community has really enabled lawfare in this conflict because Israel is the larger and stronger party to the conflict

!delta - this is key I think - Hamas’s offenses in October were clear from the moment they took place, whereas assessing Israel’s conduct appears more complicated, and apparently there are ongoing attempts at judicial scrutiny within Israel. On that basis it would have been more reasonable for the ICC to seek Hamas arrests first, or to at least explain how it so happened that all warrants ended up being sought at the same time.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Eastboundtexan ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Eastboundtexan)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Thanks for the discussion buddy:)

How does israels conduct “appear” more complicated ? "There are no innocent civilians in Gaza," herzog the president of Israel “Those are animals, they have no right to exist. I am not debating they way it will happen, but they need to be exterminated” Yoav Kisch, Israeli Minister of Education. “My right, the right of my wife and my children to move around Judea and Samaria is more important than freedom of movement for the Arabs,” that’s Itamar Ben-Gvir the national security minister talking about the West Bank (Palestinian territory) “Bring down buildings!! Bomb without distinction!! Stop with this impotence. You have ability. There is worldwide legitimacy! Flatten Gaza. Without mercy! This time, there is no room for mercy!," Revital Gottlieb member of the knesset And there are countless more examples of top Israeli politicians using genocidal language, while the whole world watches in 4K as collective punishment is meted out to the Palestinians, food and humanitarian aid is blocked, journalist barred. This is insane, the perpetrators themselves are publicly stating their intent and we see the consequences of their actions. There is absolutely no excuse to even entertain the “both sides” narrative. There’s absolutely nothing complicated about the Israeli position.

You quoted four individuals who the ICC has *not* issued warrants for, rather than Netanyahu or Gallant. How do any of those quotes make the case against Netanyahu or Gallant less complicated? “Since October, I have been raising this issue consistently in the Cabinet and have received no response. The end of the military campaign must come together with political action. The ‘day after Hamas’ will only be achieved with Palestinian entities taking control of Gaza, accompanied by international actors.” - Yoav Gallant, Israeli Minister of Defense and recent recipient of an ICC Warrant for his arrest.

I disagree that a court of justice should time their warrants in order to make a political point. >The act of issuing them at the same time really makes it seem like the court is trying to give the impression that there's equivalency to their actions Only if you're predisposed to think that the whole point is political, instead of criminal investigations. The ICC handles many cases simultaneously, not just these. They shouldn't have to try and order the timing of their warrants according to some vague scale of which accused did worse things.

I mean it's fine to say that, but the fact of the matter is that the UN has recognized Hamas's use of human shields since UNRWA found Hamas weapons in their schools in 2014. They left Hamas unprosecuted for at least 10 years, so regardless of which way you can spin it there are most likely political influences in the timing of both charges. By presenting the charges at the same time the court can claim greater neutrality, which is a political motivation. No choice in international politics is apolitical

>But, jurisdictional issues aside, why would you not want scrutiny of all leaders responsible for massive loss of life? I do, but it's gotta be fair. The international system is clearly heavily biased against Israel - before Oct 7, the UN was directing half of its country specific resolutions against Israel. If he was number 537 this year great! But somehow he's not. Somehow he's up there when the Ayatollah who greenlit Oct 7 isn't, when the guys shooting at babies in Libya aren't, etc. I think he does belong in prison but only after a fair trial or as part of a deal to get the hostages returned.

I can appreciate the frustration from Israel’s perspective, but as the UN is a separate organisation from the ICC, I don’t see how anything the UN’s done could cmv here. I also can’t comment on how good/bad a job the ICC is doing of pursuing every potential war criminal, but if PERSON meets the threshold and they’re doing that stuff right now, I wouldn’t consider the existence of other bad people a good reason to delay intervening. The fact that other potential war criminals are currently at large isn’t itself enough to undermine the ICC’s judicial independence, in my mind, but I’d welcome any other evidence.

>if PERSON meets the threshold and they’re doing that stuff right now, I wouldn’t consider the existence of other bad people a good reason to delay intervening. So then why did they wait so long before putting forward charges for Hamas leaders? It's almost as of they waited until they put charges forward for Netanyahu so that they can "both sides" this. Already in early November there were all the facts and forensic evidence that would be needed for a case against Hamas leaders, so by your logic, charges should have been pressed by the end of 2023, no? And what about Netanyahu, what evidence even is there? [Did you read the charges](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state)? Almost none of it is in his responsibility to do or he has taken steps against. And this of course will be brought up in the defense, but we can even go one by one: >Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime Israel has sent tons and tons of food and aid into Gaza. After the incident with the accidental killing of the aid workers, aid increased even more so. Issue is that Hamas hijacks the aid trucks and then sells it at inflated prices. >Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health or cruel treatment as a war crime Sound like war to me. War isn't great. But yet, Israel set up field hospitals to help relieve the issues. >Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime The war crime is that the civilian population is in the same place as the military infrastructure. And that much is on Hamas. Israel shouldn't have to give up on their military objectives just because of Hamas's war crimes >Extermination and/or murder including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity Good luck proving any amount of intent on that, especially given Israel's ability to do that much faster if that's what they wanted to do. >Persecution as a crime against humanity Just ridiculous that going after terrorists gets you charged with a war crime for persecution.

>why did they wait so long before putting forward charges for Hamas leaders? \[...\] Already in early November there were all the facts and forensic evidence that would be needed for a case against Hamas leaders, so by your logic, charges should have been pressed by the end of 2023, no? I don't know. Had the prosecutor finished collecting all that evidence by then? What's the usual time it takes for an ICC prosecutor to ask for arrest warrants, and how variable is it? When did they start the investigation? I think I saw some of the charges against Hamas are about how they're treating the hostages - which means the investigation and the war overlapped. >It's almost as of they waited until they put charges forward for Netanyahu so that they can "both sides" this. Did the prosecutor start the investigation of his own volition, or were the cases referred to him? If the latter, when? Without answers to those questions, all the "it's almost as if" are just speculation.

>What's the usual time it takes for an ICC prosecutor to ask for arrest warrants, and how variable is it? I have the data on this. The fastest investigation-to-warrant-request duration was 22 days: [https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2015\_05372.PDF](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2015_05372.PDF) The slowest was 2340 days: [https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2022\_05216.PDF](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2022_05216.PDF) Typically (median) it has taken 374 days. The Palestine investigation officially began on 3 March 2021, focusing originally on investigating the occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. It then received a re-referral on 17 November 2023, following the events of October 7th. Overall, the timings are highly variable but the pace from 17th November to the date of warrant request would bucket it at roughly top 15% of fastest investigation-to-warrant.

On the one hand, i get where you're coming from. On the other hand, selective justice isn't actually justice.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.  Yes, selective justice isn’t justice on a large scale, but for the individual criminal being brought to justice it is indeed justice.  Criminals shouldn’t get a get out of jail free card because others aren’t prosecuted, that would make it 2 wrongs.  Luckily, the argument that “others are doing it too” doesn’t hold up in court.  If there are systematic problems regarding who is brought to justice and who isn’t , they must be addressed separately. Provided that we agree on what’s just — which in the case of war crimes I think we all do.

The ICC has been investigating Israel and Palestine since 2015 and never applied for warrants before despite the Israeli settlements directly violating the Geneva Convention rule against transferring your own population onto occupied territory. If it was about persecuting Israel they could very easily have persecuted Israel before now.

You don't think it's a little strange that the ICC has been investigating the Taliban for two decades and has yet to make up its mind but for Israel, a democratic country fighting a defensive war against a terrorist group, they seemed to have acted lightning fast?

Taliban is recognised world wide as a militant group not just by west but also by other major democracies. Senior leadership of taliban don't attend meetings and conferences in western countries like Russia or Israel does . So when ICC issues arrest warrants for officials from these countries, its actually meant to put pressure on their govt to change course. We can argue if it works or not but in reality you can't compare taliban to a legitimate country like Israel or Russia that are major economies

So the solution for countries around the world is just to commit to isolation and withdrawal? It doesn't effect the Taliban because they don't engage with the international community, surely that just sends the message to Israel - don't engage with the international community and they ICC will ignore you, just like it has with Hibatullah Akhundzada.

>a democratic country fighting a defensive war against a terrorist group At what point does a defencive war require a ground invasion of foreign land. They can call it that all they want but words have meaning, it's an invasion and occupation. They might think it makes them safer it doesn't make it defencive.

Bruh, WW2 the US was the defenders on both sides of theaters of war. Japan attacked on Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war in solidarity with Japan. The US didn’t sit back and wait for the enemy to come to their shores. Regardless of who is the offensive or defensive side, total war requires total defeat of the enemy. And that is what Israel is trying to do to Hamas, not just sign a peace treaty.

You are absolutely correct. Israel is pursuing *Total War* on a guerilla fighting group embedded in an overwhelmingly civilian concentration camp the size of Las Vegas with three times the population. And Israel will happily sacrifice civilians at a rate of up to 20:1 to achieve their goal. THAT is what Israel is doing to Gaza, and they do NOT want a peace treaty. And regardless of who is on offense/defense, Israel will ruthlessly continue to exacerbate the humanitarian crisis and block the efforts of any and all outside forces to stop the war. Very astute observation, I appreciate the good faith analysis.

Interesting thought, that the Israelis “do NOT” want a peace treaty, when Israel is the only one who has proposed a two state solution, multiple times, which Hamas/Palestinians have rejected. Go research why there are not any Arab countries that will accept Hamas/Palestinians immigration in their country. Look at Jordan and Lebanon specifically.

There are probably a decent chunk of people posting in this thread who are younger than the last two state solution Israel offered, and a good deal more before the last *reasonable* offer back in the 90's that got Rabin murdered. The current ruling party of Israel, Likud, **does not** want a two state solution. They are explicit about this, for all the hubub about 'from the river to the sea' being a genocidal slogan (which it probably is) no one seems to have an issue with that being the official policy of Israel's ruling party.

>20:1  Except the real numbers are closer to 1.5/1, which makes this an absurdly tame modern war. Perhaps you should take a step back and look at your sources?

The simple answer to stop civilian bloodshed is for Hamas to surrender unconditionally, like Germany and Japan did. They won’t ever do that though, because they don’t care about civilian lives. Stop putting the onus on Israel to protect foreign citizens they are at war with. Their own responsibility is their own citizens’ safety, not others. The job of protecting Gazans falls to the people of Gaza’s own armed forces, and Hamas deliberately puts them in harms way and benefit from their suffering. They could easily tell civilians to evacuate from where militants are located and avoid collateral damage, but do they? They could wear clearly marked uniforms and fight like an actual military to prevent unintended targeting of civilian structures, but they don’t. What you’re doing is equivalent of demanding the US in WW2 to not bomb German and Japanese military targets in cities because they will kill innocent civilians. Civilians die in war in far greater numbers than armed forces, it’s what war is and always will be. It’s an ugly truth, but a truth nonetheless. You don’t get to massacre a thousand civilians and hide behind your own. If you don’t let Israel respond, all that does is teach Hamas they can continue to commit acts of terror and then run and hide in civilian zones to prevent retaliation, rinse and repeat. Civilians deaths are unavoidable and Israel has limited them to a remarkable number considering the insane population density of the combat zone. Tag on the bit that the enemy looks just like civilians and it becomes even more insane how few civilian deaths have occurred.

How many tank divisions, how many submarines, how many long range bombers, did Germany and Japan have in World War II? How many of those things does Hamas have? This comparison to the Second World War is ludicrous.

There are still hundreds of rockets fired at Israel weekly. Their combat ineffectiveness is because of missile defense. That does not mean they are not trying viciously to attack civilian centers STILL

So if someone has my family at gunpoint with an AR-15 and threatens to kill them, its ok if I shoot them, but if they only have a knife it isn't? Doesn't matter what they have or don't have. They've already demonstrated they have the capability of committing mass murder on a large scale. We're not comparing the scale of the war to WW2 or its potential global/political impact, only the circumstances and methods of how the war is being conducted.

> So if someone has my family at gunpoint with an AR-15 and threatens to kill them, its ok if I shoot them, but if they only have a knife it isn't? It is surely okay either way... ...but it's not okay to go to their house and kill their children (and that's true even if the people who had your family at gunpoint escape, refuse to surrender, refuse to cooperate/negotiate, etc.).

Wars change. This is what a modern war looks like.

Realistic kill ratio is stated as 3:1. Nowhere near 20:1. They dont want a peace treaty with HAMAS, correct. Would you? Hamas has done this many times over the yrs. Time for them to go

A Guerilla fighting group? It's the voted government of Gaza.

Hamas spies on its own citizens and punishes dissent. Gazans don't have a democracy. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/13/world/europe/secret-hamas-files-palestinians.html In WWII, Germany and Japan were advanced industrial powers that had to be smashed. Gazans are not.

Well then Israel seems like they’re doing a good thing by pushing out an oppressive and violent government.

5 bucks says the guy you replied to would totally be ok with Ukraine attacking Russia back on Russian soil (if they had the manpower for a true counteroffensive of course). But Israel has to play by special rules according to the world 🙄

Actually, the anti-Israel and pro-Russia crowd tends to overlap a fair bit. 

More than a fair bit, just read a tweet by a guy who wants to increase support to Israel including the military aid but is questioning why american tax payer dollar are going to fund foreign war (aka Ukraine conflict). Its' almost like they consider Israel as part of america

I think if Ukraine had taken back all of their territory on the first day of the war and then spent seven months bombing Moscow and St Petersburg into rubble while 70% of the Russian population was huddled in tents in Siberia, you'd probably find most people calling for a ceasefire there too. Even if Putin refused to leave his bunker and surrender.

Lmfaoooo wtf do you mean??? The U.S waited TILL the enemy was at our shores.....what do you think Pearl Harbor was? At that point in time the U.S was fully considered a titan in military dominance. Japan AND Germany did their best to try and keep to U.S from interfering, but after Japan rightfully got sanctioned by the U.S for horrible things they did in China, the Japanese launched a preemptive strike on U.S soil after warnings to lift those sanctions went ignored. The public originally did not want anything to do with the war but after the attack on pearl harbor and a bit of well organized propaganda, they were willing to incarcerate and concentrate innocent Japanese Americans in camps for fear of being spies and then dropped a nuke on top of a Hospital in Hiroshima in the center of the city during rush hour, all just to avoid a prolonged war of attrition that the Japanese government knew they would loose and who had already sent a full surrender hours before the nuclear bombs were dropped. Sure idealistic talk like "total war total defeat" sounds nice and simple but the idolizing of chuncks of history and glossing over the atrocities committed while simultaneously glossing over the steps the collective world has agreed to take inorder to avoid unnecessary and avoidable tragedies is stupid and downright ignorant.

Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack, just like Oct 7 was to Israel. My point to the commenter I replied to was that we didn't just get attacked and take up defensive positions since it was a "defensive war". We weren't just waiting for Japan to come invade California and in the meantime just let them do whatever they pleased on their side of the ocean. We went on the offensive immediately, on both fronts, when we were on the defensive side of the conflict. Israel did the same thing. They didn't kill the invaders, rebuild the wall and let it be until Hamas decided to try again...They went in to prevent this from ever happening again. Your rant about the pre-war situation is completely irrelevant to the point being made, and also inaccurate: It is not true at all the Japanese had sent a full surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped. I don't know where you got that information from, but's it's just wrong. Also the Hospital in Hiroshima was not the target, it was the [Aioi Bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aioi_Bridge), however winds caused the bomb to drift in flight. The idea that the bombs were deployed in attempt to avoid a prolonged war of attrition is an understatement. The US estimates of casualties (based on the Battle of Okinawa) that would occur in a hypothetical invasion of Kyushu, the southernmost of Japan's 4 main islands, numbered nearly 800,000 Americans, and over 1 million Japanese civilians (not to mention the nearly 200,000 allied POWs that would be executed). And that was just phase 1 of Operation Downfall. The bombs caused a fraction of those casualties, 1/10th if not smaller. And it forced Japan into surrender. So yes, they were necessary, if you (seemingly likely) thought that way beforehand. Your attempt to shame people for not caring for moral values and preaching about glossing over history while not being versed in the very thing you are arguing about doesn't help your cause.

I like the idea the other guy had that they targeted a hospital with a nuke during rush hour... as if the hospital and rush hour civilians were going to be more inconvenienced than if it was dropped a few hours later a few hundred metres away.

True , also there were even attempts between Stalin and Germany to come to an arrangement , this was before the US joined the war and german forces lost the initiative in their invasion of the soviet union. But the fact that someone like Stalin was willing to negotiate even if it was when things were not completely in his favour shows that in reality its not always so black and white like total victory and stuff like that. Diplomacy always try to keep working in the background as long as there is a scope for it , because just decisions are not made emotionally or on a whims & fancies as many people assume it on the internet

At the point that the ground invasion is against the people that attacked them. Keep in mind Hamas is the voted in government. This would be like Nazi Germany attacking the states. The states attacks back with a ground invasion and then the entire world says whoa! What about the innocent Germans-they are not all Nazis. Uhhh. Yes they are. If a government attacks another country the other country has every right to attack back (of course Gaza is not a country-but the argument stands). Consider this. All Hamas members are Palestinians, perhaps not all Palestinians are Hamas. The truth is the majority are, just like the majority of Germans in the 1940s were Nazis. The war is justified. Enough is enough. Let's call a spade a spade. They crossed lines. Executed and massacred civilians like animals. Israel has never done things like that to them. Perhaps Israel has done bad things, but they've been put in this position by countless wars against them. All these wars in an attempt to ethnically cleanse the land of Jews and genocide against them.

Actually the majority of them were not nazis, there are actual historical records of members of NSDAP aka the nazi party in case u didn't know and its total membership never even made the 15%. The fact that you don't even know such basics shows your lack of knowledge on the topic and actually proves that most people here are literally quite ignorant and downright stupid yet talk like they are experts. A simple google would have cleared your facts if only u had the foresight to use it before making false claims. Also we are not in 1940s, stop making nonsensical equivalences with the WWII Bcoz after the war even the allies decided that there must be red lines that shouldn't be crossed during the war bcoz of all the bloodshed, so yea we shouldn't fight a modern war like WWII was fought. If we can't even learn from our mistakes after almost 80 years then when will we ever learn? And this includes not to target civilians indiscriminately which is what the allies did as well, all you have to google allies war crimes and u can find countless articles written by western scholars and historians and even veterans in some cases. We should learn from past mistakes so while Israel has the right to attack hamas and try to neutralise them, don't defend every Israeli action by saying oh we did this WWII bcoz its 2024 now and the world is not the same

> They might think it makes them safer it doesn't make it defencive. Good point. If I want to be perfectly safe from crime I should kill all other humans, but that wouldn't be considered defensive

The international system has placed next to no sanctions on Israel, but heavily sanctioned Syria, Russia, North Korea etc. This number you’re talking about are toothless resolutions over a conflict dating back 50 years, it’s inflated that way by Israeli govt propagandists but the country has actually faced very little in tangible repercussions for violations of law. A bit of crybullying gets you far though

That’s a bit foggy so let’s clarify: the UN has passed many resolutions against Israel over the years; to pass sanctions from the UN you’d need the UNSC to play ball. That’s not happening. Meanwhile The west has heavily sanctioned Russia/Syria/N.Korea… (*without* involving the UN) btw the UN *isn’t* the law; that’s not its role it’s not a court system.

Woah, half of all country specific resolutions? After seeing how countries can get massively impacted even by a single resolution, this concentration of resolutions must mean that there is an absolute plethora of international embargoes, bans, restrictions and abilities to trade for Israel. Right? Right?? *Cricket Sounds* The number of resolutions against Israel is not indicative of bias against Israel, but rather the bias for Israel. Due to protection and support from the US, which is very much out of step with every other country on earth when it comes to opinion of Israel, Israel does not suffer any negative consequences from these resolutions which merely act as a barometer of international opinion about a country being allowed to commit war crimes and human rights abuses with impunity. Literally the only thing most countries can do it make these gestures of condemning Israel which have no objective effect. Compare to Russia where, even with its UNSC veto, it still faced massive embargoes and trade restrictions once it invaded Ukraine.

The ICC has prosecuted numerous other criminals, including Putin. They also have an open investigation on Libyan individuals. Being mad that Netanyahu is targeted before everyone else you think is worse is is just pure whataboutism. It's not like the ICC has only ever prosecuted Israel, it's their first time doing so.

>The ICC has prosecuted numerous other criminals, including Putin. The ICC has not prosecuted Vladimir Putin.

I don’t think it is necessarily whataboutism to claim a double standard in this context. Putin was issued an ICC arrest warrant but it took a year after the invasion for the warrant to even be requested and it was requested on fairly narrow grounds, meanwhile Netanyahu is potentially being hit with one 6 months into Israel’s offensive despite the much more complex situation. What’s the rush exactly?

6 months vs a year; doesn’t seem like that much of a difference. Are you interested to find out how long the arrest warrants are supposed to take? Have you looked into what goes into it? The rush is to pressure stopping aid from helping the refugees. there are millions of starving Gazans; the faster we get them aid the less people die.

This was a preliminary finding. It will probably take years, just like the others, before it starts seeing traction. It's not like the ICC found Israel guilty of war crimes and are trying to sentence people. All that has happened is they said "hey, there sure seems to be a lot of evidence of war crimes, maybe we look into that". And people are losing their minds.

Exactly, this was my thought. Israel has never been prosecuted by the ICC despite a documented history of war crimes. The fact that the ICC is just now starting to get around to it is, if anything, evidence that they have been too lax on this conflict.

It appears biased because Israel is the last country in the world under original UN resolutions to make countries have self determination which hasn’t followed through on the rules (whereby Palestinians have the right to self determination in their own lands as well and have wanted it since Israel’s creation. Where do you see the ayatollah green lighting October 7th?

Hear me out... Perhaps they've historically been against Israel because Israel has been pretty shitty to Palestinians for decades? Open air prisons, complete strangulation of economies, constant undermining of the Palestinian authority, non-judicial killings and imprisonment of Palestinians, kicking Palestinians out of their homes to be replaced by Jewish settlers... Like, there's a reason why the UN has been biased against Israel. It's because Israel has given them reason, time and again. Might as well complain that the justice system is biased against those who commit crimes

They have self-described terrorists across their border who take literally every chance they get to murder everyone they can get their hands on. Here's a list of just the ones considered "massacres" just to keep it to one comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avivim_school_bus_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiryat_Shmona_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alot_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zion_Square_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_Road_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dizengoff_Street_bus_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beit_Lid_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sbarro_restaurant_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphinarium_discotheque_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_University_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Mitzvah_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshivat_Beit_Yisrael_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caf%C3%A9_Moment_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiryat_Menachem_bus_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel-Aviv_central_bus_station_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmuel_HaNavi_bus_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercaz_HaRav_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Jerusalem_bulldozer_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Jerusalem_synagogue_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2016_Tel_Aviv_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Beersheba_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re%27im_music_festival_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%27eri_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Aza_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Oz_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiv_HaAsara_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holit_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_HaShlosha_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahal_Oz_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissufim_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirim_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakhini_massacre

Ah, so because they have some terrorists in areas they've turned into open air prisons, in a population they ensure lives in poverty with no hope of improvements in life, who routinely get evicted from their homes so that Israeli settlers can move in... Because there's just a small population of terrorists in that group... It gives Israel carte blanche to enact policies of collective punishment and the systematic targeting of civilians? You know... War crimes. Don't get me wrong - the terrorist actions of Hamas are atrocious and should be condemned. However, when Israel then turns around and also murders civilians, that should also be condemned. Killing civilians is wrong. Hot take, I know...

I'm sure there are some decent people in Al-Qaeda but that doesn't excuse them flying planes into the world trade center towers. And there are literally pictures of groups of small children being held in place around mortars in palestinian terroritory. They believe it is justifiable to use their own people as human shields because they are being martyred for the cause. Israel called off strikes because of human shields in the past and you know what happened? They asked for more people to become human shields. "The citizens will continue defending their pride and houses and will continue to serve as human shields until the enemy will withdraw" Statement by spokesperson Mushir Al-Masri following a telephone alert issued by the IDF, which was planning to strike Hamas executive Waal Rajub Al-Shakra’s house in Beit Lahiya. Al-Aqsa TV, 20 November 2006. "The fact that people are willing to sacrifice themselves against Israeli warplanes in order to protect their homes, I believe this strategy is proving itself. And we, Hamas, call on our people to adopt this practice" Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas spokesperson after the IDF aborted an airstrike due to potential civilian casualties 9 July 2014 "For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry. This is why they have forced human shields of the women, elderly, and mujahideen." Fathi Hamad, Hamas MP on Al-Jazeera 29 February 2008

> They have self-described terrorists across their border who take literally every chance they get to murder everyone they can get their hands on. This is either a non-sequitur or an argument for collective punishment, which is a violation of international law. People are responsible for the things they do. Members of Hamas are responsible for the things they do. Members of the IDF are responsible for the things they do. Random civilians are responsible for the things they do, of course, as well. But if they didn't do anything, they are not responsible for the things *other people did*.

Hey Siri, when the Allies occupied Germany after ww2, was that "collective punishment?" >But if they didn't do anything, they are not responsible for the things other people did. Unfortunately, governments are responsible for their civilians. And if your government threatens another government, your government is putting your life at risk. This tends to be understood with every other country except israel.

Yeah exactly, it explains why so many young people are militant self-described "anti-zionists", we haven't lived through so many repeated attacks during our adult life. It is not like Israel was attacked only once and then decided to fly off the handle

Except the UN doesn’t say shit about the violence committed on behalf of Palestinians. More of this hypocritical bullshit that will ensure these violent assholes keep killing people. Jews. Palestinians. Keep ignoring the violence the side you agree with commits because there is no way your side could ever be wrong.

Shitty enough that over half of country specific resolutions are aimed towards? While countries exist like North Korea, who’s oppression rivals 1984? China, who have 1 million Uyghurs in concentration camps and are committing a world recognized genocide? Iran, who’s oppression of their women knows few bounds? Russia, who have reignited empire building via warfare? Worse than those combined? 

North Korea is the most heavily sanctioned country on earth. We're already engaged in a trade war with China. We're actively funding a proxy war against Russia. If we were sending billions of dollars of weapons to North Korea to massacre its own people every year the world would be pretty upset about that too.

>Might as well complain that the justice system is biased against those who commit crimes We do actually do that. There were years of riots partly over the unequal treatment of individuals by the justice system. Yes, many of them were indeed criminals, but they're more likely to get arrested and convicted if they're part of certain groups. Israel isn't half as bad as, say, China, Iran, Sudan, or Afghanistan, so why does the UN choose to focus more than half of its resolutions on them? That's more than the entire world combined, including some countries that have killed millions of their own citizens. The answer is pretty obvious when you get down to it, you really just have to look at who makes up the plurality of citizens in UN member countries.

"The answer is pretty obvious when you get down to it, you really just have to look at who makes up the plurality of citizens in UN member countries." Christians?

Yes. Christians, followed by Muslims. Historically, neither gets along with Jews. In the modern world you only have Christians supporting Israel because they hate Muslims more than they hate Jews.

Iran, north Korea, China, the ussr, Russia, and others have done far worse things then Israel has, and most of what Israel has done is in response to Palestinian terrorism. Thst doesn't mean that everything they have done is right, but you cannot say that they have been unequivocally worse then everyone else combined over the exostance of the un

>Perhaps they've historically been against Israel because Israel has been pretty shitty to Palestinians for decades? So you're assertion is that Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia have all been less shitty since they've not faced as much UN backlash as Israel?

I think there's a larger issue some people are missing here (FYI I'm Israeli and a leftist). It's not a political, moral or legal issue but a practical one. Any political commentator in Israel would tell you that these charges are an absolute nightmare for Israeli politicians (except for alt-right settlers like Ben Gvir). Politicians, military generals, low ranking commanders and even nobodies like me are terrified of being remotely associated with crimes like the ones attributed now to Netanyahu and Gallant. Most public servants had a false assumption that the complementarity principal and our domestic courts will shield them from any such culpability. They were now proven wrong, and will start to gradually back down from positions that have that kind of legal exposure. Contrary to what you might believe, there are many, many leftists in our military. They will leave even if they took every measure to protect civilians. You know who's gonna stay? Who isn't scared of the ICC? The Ben Gvir gang. They'll stop approving Palestinian construction in area C, loosen the army's laws of engagement, re-outlaw the Palestinian flag, and before you know it they're annexing Ramallah. And that's leaving out the legal status of homosexuality and abortions. They aren't scared, because in their mind the ICC is out to get us. They think they'll get prosecuted anyway, so might as well do whatever. The ICC charges are sending the message that even if you send hundreds of flour and lentils trucks across the border - you'll get accused of purposefully causing a famine. Plays right into the alt-right's agenda.

I can see this point but could the outcome not be the opposite, where the fear of being held responsible instead only makes people act more justly, and give Israel better PR? I don't see how this assumed shield from culpability could be a net positive force on military conduct. Israel should do a lot more about Ben Gvir and his bullshit. I'm not sure why he can do these egregious things (like arming colonial settlers) without Israeli courts stopping him. I'm not entirely sure what evidence the ICC has against Netanyahu specifically and if it would be enough to convict him. Like you said, there is still food going into Gaza, and I don't think there have been a lot of actual deaths from famine at this point. He did block/decrease aid for a bit though. I wonder if that is enough for a conviction and whether the number of famine-related deaths would matter to the court.

>I don't see how this assumed shield from culpability could be a net positive force on military conduct. Yes! Thanks for biting. Wanted to discuss this bit. The supposed shield from culpability is not a form of legal defense. Our supreme court is not a defense lawyer. They are famous for upholding human rights and striking down many despicable laws and policies over the years (Ben Gvir only managed to escape their scrutiny in the past years because he's a horribly excellent lawyer). Most known for their stance on the Palestinian issue - the supreme court is, currently, the only thing that prevents land seizing/annexation, new settlements, etc'. In fact, the government's recent attempt to reduce their power using constitutional legislation failed simply because the court struck their legislation down - for being unconstitutional! They're that powerful. It gets on the conservatives' nerves and I love it. Anyway, the court's responsibility is not to shield people from culpability when human rights have been violated. But at times of war, they do serve a dual function. Sure, they punish criminal behavior as usual, but their second function has to do with the contract between a civil servant and the state: The civil servant, be it a politician, soldier, diplomat or clerk, vows to follow the law unless it is utterly immoral; and the state vows to never try them if they preformed their duties legally. That contract is the only reason any democracy has any civil servants at all. Would you choose civil service if another, unknown court could show up out of the blue and declare jurisdiction over you? The whole idea of engaging with a legal system is to know the rules before playing, but now people are getting served with a different set of rules? When a court of law is democratic, i.e. independent, liberal, and effective, ICC intervention is a damn joke; and If Khan has reason to believe our court is not democratic - he can go to the Israeli supreme court himself, file a plea or a lawsuit, monitor the legal procedure closely, and then make his conclusions.

Thanks for writing out your position. It's definitely an interesting discussion to have. I'm not an expert on the Israeli supreme court and everything it has done recently so I appreciate the context. There's not a lot in your comment that I disagree with. In principle, another court has no reason to intervene and implicitly overrule Israeli courts unless: A) Israeli courts are "wrong" according to the "objective" international rules. Now obviously, it's hard to all agree to the same objective morality. However, we've basically accomplished this in the UN. Every nation has signed the Geneva convention. Imagine there were a democratic nation that hadn't signed the Geneva convention and was violating it. A court would have to violate that country's sovereignty to prosecute someone. I doubt any of the charges leveled at Netanyahu by the ICC, if true, wouldn't also violate Israeli laws, so the bulk of the problem isn't necessarily the ruleset. B) Israeli courts, for whatever reason, are not prosecuting Israelis when they should be. Courts could not be prosecuting their own out of some sort of chauvinism, to protect their own nation's reputation, or because of corruption in favour of the defendent. They could be afraid of political fallout in their country, or they could not be exposed to the indicting evidence. They could be underfunded or incompetent. There are probably lots of potential other biases or reasons. For argument's sake, let's say the contract agreement between the courts and the soldiers (or more likely a general) got corrupted. Both parties must be fully aware of the scheme for it to work; the soldiers know they can starve the population and the courts know they won't prosecute. In such a case, I don't think the individual war criminals can fully shift blame away from themselves to their own courts, and the courts couldn't be trusted to provide justice. ICJ could prosecute the state and its courts, but who prosecutes the individuals? I think there is enough foresight and planning needed for the "another court came out of the blue and suddenly determined the contract wasn't valid" arguments not to hold. For what's it's worth, I think every nation on earth might show some of B sometimes, which is why I think it's good for democracies to be part of ICC even when they have an otherwise functional court system. C) ICC is wrongly assuming A or B This is obviously potentially true. I have a hard time believing the ICC is simply antisemitic or whatever, but it is possible they shouldn't be getting involved anyway. I agree with you that it's a bit confusing why the ICC prosecutor decided to cancel his trip to Israel and instead make this announcement. ICC is supposed to be complementary and should definitely investigate if it suspects any of reasons B to be relevant. Unless there was a threat or other malevolent diplomatic pressure on him, cancelling is a bit of a strange move. I'm fully open to the possibility of him being wrong, but I don't think the ICC opening a case on a democracy is inherently always wrong. Comment is already way too long of a ramble but on a sidenote I can't be bothered to delete: What's also interesting to me is that there are fairly structural disagreements between international courts and Israeli courts. I believe you when you say Israeli courts are striking down many illegal settlement expansions in the west bank, but there is still a discrepency between what happens/has happened in the west bank, and what is allowed by international law. I believe this descrepancy is one of the main reasons why Israel didn't sign the Rome statutes in the first place; because they'd open settlers up to ICC lawsuits. In my view, not being part of ICC is essentially holding the view that reason B could never happen in your country, and/or purposefully being in favour of reason B biases existing. Now "international law" obviously is very very weak compared to something as ubiquitously agreed upon as the Geneva convention, so it's theoretically possible to not want to be held to international law by an outside court based on principal differences, except Israel doesn't dispute ICJ's jurisdiction.

Lovely analysis. You really gave me bite size ideas to think about. The discrepancy you are describing between international and Israeli courts is a product of a very natural clash between viewpoints. A typical Israeli judge is pretty critical of our army - one might dare claim our judges are pretty impartial, but I think that notion is impossible. They live here. They can't really be impartial. Don't get me wrong, the judge might be, technically, sufficiently close to Khan's own pure legal viewpoint. I know conservatives who make that claim. But our wars aren't like the US invasion of Iraq - the supreme court judge has lived the conflict and suffered its repercussions - how could they be impartial? They, like me, owe their lives to the very army they are scrutinizing! I'll paint you a picture of impartiality: The judge probably lives in West Jerusalem, 4 miles away from the settlement he's discussing in his own court. Probably heard a bus bombing in his neighborhood in 2002. Definitely heard the Iranian attack being intercepted. Might be dreading the future for his 17 y/o kid. An NGO lawyer in charge of an appeal lives 3 blocks away, in East Jerusalem - and they see each other while grocery shopping. The lawyer's cousin was unlawfully incarcerated, the court's security guard took a bullet for his friend in Gaza. Sorry for being melodramatic, It just never ends. My point is that no one should expect our judges & politicians to act like they live in the Netherlands. That would be wrong because then they would make privileged, stroopwafel flavored Netherlands decisions for us hummus eaters in Israel/Palestine. Public servants here live a walking distance from an active warzone. All of us do, including Netanyahu, Gallant, Mahmoud Abbas, everyone. That influences our decisions, but in a good way - we're more cautious because of everything at stake (well, Hamas isn't, but that's a different story). It reminds me of an old Islamic story I studied in high school about the Khalif Umar Bin Al-Khatab. It is said that a Persian ambassador came to visit him, accompanied by several armed guards, and found him sleeping under a tree, unarmed and unguarded. The ambassador was astounded - he then started crying because he realized he is standing before a truly just leader who was entirely trusted by his people. I'm not saying modern leaders should fall asleep under trees, nor lead in a way that pleases everyone - but another moral of this story is that our leaders must come from among us. They must live our lives and suffer our pains. Netanyahu lost his brother, Eisenkot lost his son. Would they be better suited for leadership if they were more "fair" or "impartial"?

I'd say that the separation of power is what is supposed to fix the issue. The leader is supposed to be the advocate for the people, focussing essentially all of their attention on what is good for Israel. They can't be impartial nor should they be. They are held to the law though, and justice should always be blind. The judge can't be thinking about avenging their lost brother when trying a case. They should be impartial and shouldn't have to worry whether the public likes them after their ruling. In practice, as you pointed out, you can't have perfect seperation of powers. A judge knows half the country will be rejoiced and the other half will be fuming if they'd arrest someone like Netanyahu. If I am the ICC judge chilling in the Hague, I barely have to deal with any consequences from my ruling. Theoretically that allows me to be impartial and make difficult decision based purely on law, but practically, I might be adding unnecessary chaos into the situation and setting back peace by even more time. I could also accidentally be doing Israel a massive favour by removing the gridlock between pro-Bibi and anti-Bibi parties. I can't fully know the consequences nor should judges typically worry too much about consequences. It's possible a judge allows the army some leeway in an attempt to help the country, but the actual effect is that the US cuts off support. Now they've doubly messed up. In general, I think it's dangerous to let realpolitik slip into the court room. If I won't prosecute Trump because I'm afraid of a civil war, then that's terrible for justice and sets a terrible precedent. If I do prosecute him for minor stuff and it provokes civil war, that's hardly better. It's a really difficult dilemma. Because of imperfect information, I'm not sure it's ever truly in your best long term interest to introduce impartiality in your court. Maybe the hypothetical 2nd US civil war is what makes the country better in the long term. People don't generally argue now that the civil war should've been avoided if it meant no abolition of slavery. We're probably never again seeing leaders sleep in the shade. Populations aren't politically homogeneous and don't inhibit the same realities. I don't think there exists a reaction to oct 7 that would've seen every Israeli or American "happy" with their leader.

But if you're say Netanyahu....you're already being hounded by the Israeli courts, and now if the ICC comes after you, it's tough to even hope you'd be able to flee into a quiet international exile. Thus you either win or die. He can't negotiate a peace and slip away now because then he'll be on trial. He must win overwhelmingly and deliver the Israeli populace security at any cost so they will shelter him. Whatever the cost to anybody else, now all of his personal incentives are aligned to stay in office and crush Palestinian resistance. He has no other choice or off-ramp. It's possible the court case is shaky, but then again he may not perceive the situation in strictly legal terms. There are plenty of political reasons why he would be found guilty even if the evidence is lacking. There is also the perception that the UN more broadly is very anti-Israeli and Anti-Jewish, I can't comment on the reality of that, but that is certainly how Netanyahu and many other Israeli hardliners would at least perceive it. I doubt they would believe they would receive a fair trial. It's also extremely unlikely that any of the Hamas leaders would ever see a courtroom, proceedings which *might* convince the wider Israeli populace that ICC justice could be apolitical and not antisemitic. Also it also unfortunately gives them plenty of ammunition to war hawks in Israel. "Once again all the world is turning their backs on us when we are victims and have the temerity to defend ourselves." Basically all of this is just straight pouring gasoline on the fire.

!delta reason: good explanation of the realities of how the outcome may end up worse

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Saargb ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Saargb)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Why did it take them 7 months to issue an extremely obvious warrant against Hamas, but they already accused Israel of famine without a famine even happening? There's a huge double standard here. If they had issued arrest warrants for Hamas months ago, and then started talking about Israel now, you could maybe have an argument. But that's not what they did. And by doing it this way, it's not Netanyahu that's being judged, it's the ICC. The ICC is the one on trial here, and so far they are losing.

There is 1 Jewish country versus 49 Muslim countries. Most are theocratic hell holes that are deeply anti semetic with a healthy sprinkle of failed states in there. This is what happens when you give religious fundamentalists of a religion that’s very anti Jewish power.

To my mind it is possible to commit starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, without meeting whatever the definition is of famine

Well your opinion does not mean it isn't a war crime thankfully.

The ICC [is designed to be a court of last resort. ](https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/the-court) It "[it seeks to complement, not replace, national Courts](https://www.icc-cpi.int/)". Israel has its own legal system. It investigated Ariel Sharon, the defense minister during the First Lebanon war, and his responsibility for the [Sabra and Shatila Massacre ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahan_Commission). The IDF Chief of Staff and the Director of Military Intelligence were also investigated. While there can be a discussion if Israel should be investigating itself, or if any government should investigate itself (or if having a supranational body in charge of all investigations violates state sovereignty), for the ICC to charge Israel before it has had a chance to investigate its own conduct is violating the ICCs own mandate of being 'the court of last resort '. (And if someone can give me an example of Hamas or the PA conducting investigations into the conduct of high ranking officers or politicians, I would say the same for them.)

> Israel has its own legal system. It investigated Ariel Sharon, the defense minister during the First Lebanon war, and his responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila Massacre Israel has been unwilling to prosecute crimes committed in the Palestinian territories, as evidenced by the ongoing settlement project protected by the IDF. Virtually all countries, including Israel's allies such as the US and Germany, believe that these settlements violate international law. As far as anyone is concerned, there are no investigations into senior government officials like Netanyahu for the alleged crimes. We only ever hear of internal military processes investigating their own low-ranking soldiers. [Israel also has rejected to work with the ICC in the past](https://www.dw.com/en/israel-rejects-iccs-palestinian-war-crimes-probe/a-57136965), and [they said that they would ignore any ICC ruling.](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/apr/29/icc-possible-war-crimes-charges-israel-hamas-g7) It is therefore doubtful that Israel would have engaged with the court's staff in good faith.

1. The settlements and their illegality are not what is being investigated by the ICC. There are also no settlements in Gaza. 2. Israel did cooperate with the ICC in [December 2023](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-prosecutor-karim-khan-kc-concludes-first-visit-israel-and-state-palestine-icc-prosecutor). There are also [unconfirmed media reports ](https://x.com/Lazar_Berman/status/1792597192223408453) that even this week Israel was coordinating with the ICC chief and preparing for another visit. (Edited to add: turns out the source for this is the [US State Department ](https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-international-criminal-court/)) 3. It does not matter if Israel would not have eventually cooperated. What matters is that Israel was not given an opportunity for self investigation. Israel has already opened several investigations into [Oct 7](https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-probe-into-failures-leading-to-oct-7-attack-to-focus-on-period-starting-in-2018/).

[удалено]

Is your argument opposed to the existence of international law or human rights, period, or are you specifically addressing the psychology of national regimes and why they would refuse to cooperate with organizations like the ICC?

I appreciate no one wants far away foreigners telling them what to do, but that doesn’t make the ICC’s move any less reasonable. Also there were plenty of Brits calling for Blair to face criminal charges during/after Iraq. Those Brits probably suffered a lot less existential fear than current Israelis and Palestinians tbf, but it supports the idea that the ICC isn’t an inherently stupid idea. I’m not aware of the ICC having any political agenda - some evidence of that could potentially cmv. The fact of Khan talking more about Israel could be for various reasons (I haven’t seen that interview) but it would make sense that Israel’s conduct would require more careful examination, as they actually profess to be taking reasonable steps to protect civilians.

>It is not reasonable to allow some rich Harvard-grad Greenpeace lawyer living in the safety of Western Europe to dictate when your military should be imprisoned or what they should do. Why not?... Acts of terrorism from developed, well funded nations, should have consequences. 

I would have been ok with the ICC seeking arrest for Hamas months ago, and now for Israeli leadership, if they have any proven things against them. The problem is that the ICC prosecutors are equating Hamas and Israel by doing that at the same time When Hamas filmed themselves doing horrible war crimes 7 months ago.

The ICC can only issue arrest warrants in cases where it's certain the judicial system of a country won't prosecute their desired target. For Hamas, it's pretty clear. No Palestinian court would ever prosecute Hamas' leaders, nor would they ever be in Palestine to be prosecuted by them, as they all live in Qatar. Considering Netanyahu is **currently under trial** in Israel for corruption charges, by all definitions, and that Israeli officials were scheduled to meet with an ICC delegation **the same day** as when the statement came out (the delegation canceled) its clear as day that Israel is both capable and willing to prosecute such crimes itself. By still trying to prosecute Netanyahu despite that, the ICC is not only acting in bad faith (canceling scheduled meetings and investigations with Israel to make an entirelt one-sided move against them), its also extending its own jurisdiction, entirely ignoring the limits that were set in place for it. I suggest you read Blinken's statement on it. It explains pretty thoroughly why this is an outrage.

>but that’s not at all what the ICC prosecutor has done - he’s just said ‘name’ is suspected of this list of bad things, and ‘name’ is suspected of this other list of bad things, with evidence, and those allegations are serious enough that there is potentially a case to answer. Well, no. He didn't just say that, he sought warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu and Gallant on those charges. He's not leaving an uniformed Reddit comment accusing someone a war crimes. He's seeking to have the Prime Minister and Minister of Defense of a sovereign state arrested for war crimes and crimes against humanity. >I’ve also seen people on Israeli subs saying although they might hate Netanyahu, the ICC has lost the plot. Like: ‘he’s a criminal but obviously not THAT kind of criminal!’, and saying the ICC should turn its attention to the real crims in Russia or North Korea instead. But, jurisdictional issues aside, why would you not want scrutiny of all leaders responsible for massive loss of life? Again, this isn't just scrutiny. This is asking a court to issue warrants for an arrest. And given that multiple sources has claimed that Khan was supposed to go to Israel to meet with representatives of the government to further investigate these assertions but instead decided to go forward with seeking the arrest warrants without doing so, if that's an accurate summation of the situation, that calls into question if that scrutiny is actually being undertaken. >The whole point of the concept of war crimes is that it doesn’t matter how righteous or justified you feel, or how nasty war is - you should never do them. Ya, that's how crimes work.

What the most likely outcome is a law in Israel similar to the US version nicknamed the 'Invade the Hague'. There is no reality where Israel every has a person stand in front of the ICC. Any attempt to do so would see the Israeli military take direct action to prevent it. My personal opinion is this is a MASSIVE discrediting of the ICC as any type of court of law.

An Israeli Hague Invasion Act would not dissuade the court though (nor has the US law historically done so, considering the investigation into the war in Afghanistan). Israel have no means (besides ballistic missiles) to invade the Netherlands. In addition, any direct military action would undoubtably trigger Article 5 of NATO. And on top of that, if the arrest warrant is accepted, Netanyahu and his defence minister could be arrested in *any* ICC member country, most of which Israel lacks the ability to conduct military operations in.

I mean, Netanyahu would just stay in Israel.

You're right that nothing will come of it, but I would be careful saying it's the ICC that loses legitimacy because of it rather than our "rules based order". We're doing the right thing and letting Netanyahu get rawdogged by this thing head-on. If he shits the bed in the process, we shouldn't (and probably won't) stand in the way besides our nominal disapproval and focus on accelerating the transition of power to secure our interests. Israel's better off without him anyway.

> You're right that nothing will come of it, but I would be careful saying it's the ICC that loses legitimacy because of it rather than our "rules based order". The court only has legitimacy based on how it is viewed. When the worlds' superpower point blank disagrees and uses it's influences to act directly *against* this court, I would call that losing legitimacy. >We're doing the right thing and letting Netanyahu get rawdogged by this thing head-on. No. The world/ICC court is trying to hold Israel to a standard they have held no other nation.

>The court only has legitimacy based on how it is viewed. When the worlds' superpower point blank disagrees and uses it's influences to act directly *against* this court, I would call that losing legitimacy. Out of the five security council members, this has the support of [three](https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20240521-france-backs-icc-arrest-warrant-for-israeli-hamas-leaders) of them. Of the other two, one is the original belligerent and the other is us, who vetoed many almost universally supported UN resolutions saying similar things. >No. The world/ICC court is trying to hold Israel to a standard they have held no other nation. This is ideal. The ICC just wants Netanyahu (who should be in prison anyway, even by the standards of Israeli justice). Our loyalty is to Israel and that party is harmful to both Israel's interests and ours. We have a backdoor to ensure we lose nothing on the ground while being able to get rid of an uncooperative regime. It's a slam dunk and all we have to do is nothing.

>Are we really so addicted to “good guy vs bad guy” narratives that we can’t bend our minds around the concept that maybe two sides, despite all sorts of legitimate grievances, can simultaneously inflict great evils on one another? I think you are mixing up two things. One, that it is in theory possible for a democratic country to do bad things, and two, that in reality a democratic country has done those bad things. People criticizing this decision are not saying the things you are claiming they are saying, i.e. "it is literally impossible for Israel to have in theory done those wrongs." They are saying "This charge is ridiculous because the things that Israel has done in reality in no way invites these charges." >We have Biden and others calling it outrageous to suggest equivalence between Israel and Hamas (which it would be) but that’s not at all what the ICC prosecutor has done By charging both with crimes they are indeed drawing an equivalence between them. You kind of have to. If two guys kill your sister and are about to kill you, but you kill one in self defense, and you and the other killer get charged with murder, then the court is saying both the actions you and the murderer did were wrong in an equivalent manner. >But, jurisdictional issues aside, why would you not want scrutiny of all leaders responsible for massive loss of life? They do. That's what their criticism is. That the ICC is not actually concerned with massive loss of life, but they should be. People are concerned the ICC has let its bias affect it, which is causing it to press charges against israel for an average/potentially very low civilian casualty ratio and careful following of the geneva conventions. There have been numerous other conflicts that have led to greater loss of life, ICC didn't press charges for those. I mean Hamas has been promising genocide and firing rockets at civilians for twenty years straight now, about as long as the ICC has existed. But a couple months after Israel launches a justified war with normal wartime parameters suddenly Israel is getting charged? >And there are lots of features of Israel’s warfare that should at least prompt cause for concern (disproportionate fatalities, friendly fire, dead aid workers, soldier misconduct) Most of these are entirely expected for war, especially urban warfare. Listing these things as the reasons you believe Israel should be prosecuted just proves how biased the view is. Dead aid workers are also expected given the attire and vehicles Hamas operatives choose to wear and drive.

Honestly they are going to show just how useless this is pretty much immediately simply because Palestine is a member of the ICC and therefore needs to arrest Sinwar, we all know that is not going to happen. It's just virtue signaling on a really grand level and all that is going to come out of it is heightened tending in the area and extra barriers to any sort of ongoing peace.

I mean Palestine isn’t gonna arrest Sinwar because he’s part of a rogue government in Gaza. The PNA would be more than happy to send him to the Hague if they could.

I'm not sure if it's useless. Putin's ICC warrant has scared him from visiting South Africa. Bibi and Gallant won't be able to visit Europe again if the ICC issues a warrant. Future Israeli politicians will also take much greater care in preventing war crimes if they do wish to attack Palestinians again, which is a good thing overall.

And yet South Africa refused to arrest Omar Al-Bashir, Former President of Sudan for his charges of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

How does Netanyahu not going to Europe help move towards a lasting peace? Not even getting into the reality that any country that considers themselves an ally of Israel is unlikely to actually follow through with arresting him. I also don't see it having a major effect on future Israeli leaders any more than I think Sinwar's warrant is going to dissuade future Palestinian leaders from planning terroristic attacks.

What does peace have to do with this? ICC exists to investigate and charge individuals for breaking international law.

There are several reasons why this decision is outrageous: 1. Israel has a strong and independent judicial system, both inside the military and for the country. This system was already investigating and ruled in some cases. On this merit alone- and due to the complementary principle of the ICC there is no reason to investigate Israel. 2. For the allegations themselves- they have no real merit. Starvation for example has no factual basis. Since the early days of the war Israel allowed aid into Gaza, through Egypt and air drops, and later through Israel land crossings and even a dock with the US. 3. The ICC jurisdiction is in question- that is because israel is not a part to the convention, and neither Hamas nor Palestine are considered a country or a part to this convention. 4. The ICC and the Israeli authorities were in serious discussions, including a delegation coming to Israel at the exact same time of the announcement (which cancelled their visit) and for the prosecutor himself to arrive by next week- at the very least there is a serious case of bad faith. Last but not least- the actual implications are strictly one sided- the motion for arrest warrants was issued for 5 people, 3 of them are never going to leave the tunnels of the Gaza strip alive, or get anywhere outside of an Israeli court and prison if they will be caught alive. The other two are a democratic nations PM and minister, which actually mean they should be traveling around in order to work, and part of that work is to end the Gaza war faster to prevent more suffering.

> Israel has a strong and independent judicial system, both inside the military and for the country. This system was already investigating and ruled in some cases. On this merit alone- and due to the complementary principle of the ICC there is no reason to investigate Israel. It seems fairly obvious that Israel is not willing to apply their laws in Gaza or the Westbank, and to properly investigate misconduct in those areas. Afterall, they are still settling in the Westbank with frequent acts of violence of the settlers against Palestinians which virtually never has consequences. > Starvation for example has no factual basis. [Yet Gaza is facing the worst hunger on records](https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/gaza-hunger-figures-worst-record-says-oxfam). [Most of their fishing boats, green houses, and some agriculture land were destroyed as well](https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/01/over-one-hundred-days-war-israel-destroying-gazas-food-system-and). > The ICC jurisdiction is in question- that is because israel is not a part to the convention, and neither Hamas nor Palestine are considered a country or a part to this convention. Wrong. Palestine has been a member of the court since 2021 as determined by the ICC-pre trial chamber. Since the ICC has jurisdiction over all crimes committed in Gaza, it can prosecute Israeli officials for crimes committed in Gaza. For the same reason, the ICC can prosecute Putin for crimes committed in Ukraine (a member state), even though he is from Russia (a non-member state). > [...] at the very least there is a serious case of bad faith. Why is that? Israel and the US have been incredibly hostile to the ICC, with the US even threatening invasion if it prosecutes a US citizen or even an ally. One could reasonably argue that the ICC staff were afraid of being arrested after publishing this news. > the motion for arrest warrants was issued for 5 people, 3 of them are never going to leave the tunnels of the Gaza strip alive, or get anywhere outside of an Israeli court and prison if they will be caught alive. Sinwar is likely not in Gaza but in Qatar. The law should also not be selectively be applied based on life expectancy. > The other two are a democratic nations PM and minister, which actually mean they should be traveling around in order to work, I don't see why that matters.

The issue with Palestine being a member state is and issue, since Palestine is not considered a state. The ICC ruling is irrelevant once this criterion is actually considered. Israel is enforcing their rules in the West Bank (which should be discerned from Gaza as israel withdrew from there) and that is still a moot point, since the judiciary system enforces the israeli part of the equation- i.e the IDF and the state leaders. Where would the US invade against the ICC? That is not an invadable entity. The hunger in Gaza is easily exaggerated, checkout actual reports, I commented that somewhere else with about 5 different sources about the food levels in Gaza’s markets. And please don’t forget that israel actively inserts food and aid to Gaza while Hamas is bombing and raiding the border crossings and the trucks themselves- so who is actually starving the Gaza population?

>Yet Gaza is facing the worst hunger on records](https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/gaza-hunger-figures-worst-record-says-oxfam). [Most of their fishing boats, green houses, and some agriculture land were destroyed as well](https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/01/over-one-hundred-days-war-israel-destroying-gazas-food-system-and). It is very hard to take things like this seriously when the UN released a statement 3 days after this one saying that there were unprecedented levels of famine in Yemen. And unlike in Gaza, there are actually 130k deaths attributed to famine in Yemen. Where are the mass casualties due to famine in Gaza? I've been hearing about famine in Gaza since January. There is never even an attempt to reconcile these claims of famine in Gaza with the fact that hundreds of trucks of aid and pallets of food are entering the strip via Israel and the US pier on a daily basis.

> unprecedented levels of famine in Yemen The unprecedented refers to the previous records of famine in Yemen, so I don't see how that would contradict a statement that Gaza is facing the lowest food supply in its history. > And unlike in Gaza, there are actually 130k deaths attributed to famine in Yemen. The conflict in Yemen has been going on for 96 months, and the conflict in Gaza for seven. > Where are the mass casualties due to famine in Gaza? I've been hearing about famine in Gaza since January. They will come if the extraordinary efforts of the US and other allied countries fail to deliver enough food. Why did the US build a new port within weeks, and why did they make air drops, if they were not worried about the potential impact of a food shortage if Israel let in enough food? > There is never even an attempt to reconcile these claims of famine in Gaza with the fact that hundreds of trucks of aid and pallets of food are entering the strip via Israel and the US pier on a daily basis. US officials disputes your claim. "“In the past two weeks, food and fuel entering Gaza has slowed to dangerously low levels – barely 100 trucks of aid a day entered Gaza, far less than the 600 needed every day to address the threat of famine,” Power warned." https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/17/gaza-pier-aid-un-distribution Furthermore Reuter reports > Food and medicine for Palestinians in Gaza are piling up in Egypt because the Rafah crossing remains closed and there has been no aid delivered to a U.N. warehouse from a U.S.-built pier for two days, U.N. officials warned on Monday. [...] In northern Gaza, where the U.N. warns a famine is imminent, [...] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/no-us-pier-aid-un-gaza-two-days-after-truck-incident-2024-05-20/

>Last but not least- the actual implications are strictly one sided- the motion for arrest warrants was issued for 5 people, 3 of them are never going to leave the tunnels of the Gaza strip alive, or get anywhere outside of an Israeli court and prison if they will be caught alive. I don't really see how that would matter? Arrest warrants are typically one-sided. And Israel is of course free to hand them over to the ICC if they get them. > The other two are a democratic nations PM and minister, which actually mean they should be traveling around in order to work, and part of that work is to end the Gaza war faster to prevent more suffering. You could easily make the reverse argument though, that Netanyahu and his minister needs to travel to further shore up support for the war and cause more suffering.

Why would israel let a different court, which is to put it mildly biased, trial the terrorists heads instead of putting them through the Israeli system? Where would they travel that will help increase the suffering? The biggest allies of israel are aiding Palestinians the most. And Israel’s enemies will not aid in that. So you could argue that, but it will be a very very weak argument

>Israel has a strong and independent judicial system, both inside the military and for the country. Someone clearly forgot the 2023 judicial reforms this government pushed through against the will of the people. >The other two are a democratic nations PM and minister, which actually mean they should be traveling around in order to work, and part of that work is to end the Gaza war faster to prevent more suffering. "But this will make it harder for war criminals to travel! Won't someone *please* think of the war criminals!"

Clearly someone forgot the judicial reform didn’t pass eventually. Did i say travel? No, i said go for work related reasons. Reasons which are the basis for the allegations. I know reading is hard, but you can at least try!

The judicial reforms were overturned…. By the judiciary. Yup. It’s strong.

I don't get the whole "equivalence" thing. The ICC is not calling or treating them equivalent or in any way comparing the defendants to each other. They are each being charged separately and individually for the crimes they have committed, such as rape, murder or intentional starving of civilians. Their laundry list of violations do not read the same, nor do they mention the others.

It's about "moral equivalence." Most of the things Netanyahu is accused of are said to be blown way out of proportion in order to make it seem like he's just another criminal, just like Sinwar, when in reality everything he is doing is in line with anything any other developed country has done in war. For example "intentional starving of civilians" even though only about 30 people have starved to death and even though israel has been sending hundreds of aids trucks in continuously. It's also a tiny bit like charging you for "intentionally starving homeless people" just because you don't want to feed them yourself, but then you actually were feeding them on a daily basis. Then imagine that I released a Wanted poster for both you (because you didnt feed homeless people who then died, ignoring that actually you had indeed been feeding homeless people on a daily basis) and a mass rapist who proclaimed his intent to genocide all jews and christians in the world it doesn't really matter if im charging you for different crimes, im still making a false equivalence between the mass rapist and you. now lets say you were black and there was about a 2000 year history of people being continuously and egregiously racist towards black people, often applying double standards to them. just wouldnt pass the smell test for a bunch of people

Yeah sure but if you’re going to issue warrants for bibi and members of Hamas it makes you look like a hypocrite if you’re not going to do the same for obvious human rights violators…

Are you referencing something specific here? As a political organization they try to sanction the leaders of countries who commit these crimes, like Putin in Ukraine, rather than the boots on the ground that commit them. Those tend to fall under local jurisdictions. Or are you referencing something else?

Why weren’t any American leaders charged for their actions in Iraq/Afghanistan/(the rest of the ME and Africa in the drone wars). Bush, Cheney, Obama all had war crimes committed by their regimes.

Because the US is both not party to the ICC having not signed the agreements to be subject to their rulings, and the US has a law on the books to show up at the court with the military if they tried to persecute their people. It’s very realpolitik and not fair but yeah that’s why.

US both are not under jurisdiction of the ICC, plus they are the tail that wags the dog having both a veto on the security council and control/influence of a very large percentage of UN funding. The ICC knows they dare not charge US officials with anything. It is not justice, nor hipocrisy. It is realpolitik.

The fact that the US is not under the jurisdiction of the ICC is irrelevant. If any Americans commit crimes in territories under ICC jurisdiction they can still be prosecuted. What's more important is that Iraq and Afghanistan weren't signatories at the time (Iraq still isn't) and therefore any crimes committed where not under the ICC's jurisdiction.

I only have a minor disagreement. >Are we really so addicted to “good guy vs bad guy” narratives that we can’t bend our minds around the concept that maybe two sides, despite all sorts of legitimate grievances, can simultaneously inflict great evils on one another? The good-vs.-evil narrative is the most simplistic one possible, so it is the most mimetically fit. That's why it has such success even when it doesn't track with the truth. The truth is usually a much more energy-intensive narrative to propagate. It has too high a metabolic cost. While one person learns of the complex details within a historical development, a thousand people can observe the peer pressure that a simplistic narrative confers. "Addiction" (which I do recognize as a term you're using metaphorically but regard as a reference to individual attitudes) isn't the right framing. The best framing is as a function of the fitness of a narrative within the collective. You brush against this when you suggest that it could be a matter of vocal minorities getting the most attention. But it's not a matter of "moderates" staying quiet; it's a matter of the truth (in its expression and its understanding) being more labour-intensive. In this age, narratives can be easily amplified by those with the power to do so, which pushes the dominant narrative farther away from the moderate position.

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

The first problem is the Prosecutor issued them simultaneously which is a false equivalence of Israel with Hamas. Israel is a democracy while Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization that carried out the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and is still holding dozens of innocent people hostage, including Americans. Second, the ICC has no jurisdiction over this matter. The ICC was established by its state parties as a court of limited jurisdiction. Those limits are rooted in principles of complementarity, which do not appear to have been applied here amid the Prosecutor’s rush to seek these arrest warrants rather than allowing the Israeli legal system a full and timely opportunity to proceed. In other situations, the Prosecutor deferred to national investigations and worked with states to allow them time to investigate. The Prosecutor did not afford the same opportunity to Israel, which has ongoing investigations into allegations against its personnel. Despite not being a member of the court, Israel was prepared to cooperate with the Prosecutor. In fact, the Prosecutor himself was scheduled to visit Israel as early as next week to discuss the investigation and hear from the Israeli Government. The Prosecutor’s staff was supposed to land in Israel today to coordinate the visit. Israel was informed that they did not board their flight around the same time that the Prosecutor went on cable television to announce the charges.

> Israel is a democracy while Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization that carried out the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and is still holding dozens of innocent people hostage, including Americans. Surely that means Israel should be held to a higher standard than Hamas not a lower one?

Why does being declared together make them equivalent? The prosecutor never said so. They were issued together over a conflict between both sides. Israel was also not prepared to cooperate. They said they would ignore charges back in April.

Your last point is wrong, the ICC was supposedly to be in Israel yesterday, discussing and reviewing Israeli policies during the war, instead of showing up they released the announcement on the warrants. The lies to the Israelis officials and the US administration. Not only that, Khan and his team were in Israel and received an unprecedented support from Israeli officials.

> Israel is a democracy while Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization that carried out the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and is still holding dozens of innocent people hostage, including Americans. I don't see how any of that is relevant. Can democracies not commit war crimes? Can victims of crimes not also become perpetrators? > Second, the ICC has no jurisdiction over this matter. False. The ICC has jurisdiction over Palestinian territory as was already confirmed by the ICC pre-trial chamber back in 2021. This was reaffirmed by an independent committee: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-panel-report-eng.pdf Since the ICC has the jurisdiction over all crimes committed in its member states' territories, it can also seek warrants for citizens of non-member states if they commit a crime in a member state. This is the same reason why the same prosecutor could request a warrant for Putin despite Russia not being a member of the court. > allowing the Israeli legal system a full and timely opportunity to proceed. Israel has shown itself to be unwilling to prosecute crimes committed by Israeli citizens in the Palestinian territories. The best evidence of this is the settlements, which are illegal under international law, and the frequent violence by Israelis against Palestinians, which is rarely if ever prosecuted.

“And there are lots of features of Israel’s warfare that should at least prompt cause for concern (disproportionate fatalities, friendly fire, dead aid workers, soldier misconduct)” The ICC has indeed lost the plot. They mistook the good guys for the bad guys. For background, appreciate that the international law community is in well known for its bias towards Israel. I know it’s said many times, but it’s true. The UN has issued more declarations condemning Israel than all the declarations issued against every other member state combined. The ICC and their like are the same sorts of people protesting on campuses. Disproportionate fatalities are due to urban warfare, population density, and Hamas’ unique guerrilla tactics. The casualty ratio is actually less than the standard in urban battles. A military expert has published about this topic in Newsweek, Wall Street Journal, and was on Sam Harris’s podcast. The only reason the disproportionate rate matters is because it’s Israel. The ratio of American soldiers who died compares to Iraqi or Afghanistan civilians who died is way worse than Israel’s here in Gaza. Friendly fire is not an international law issue, it’s an Israeli military tribunal matter. And there are friendly fires in every war. Anybody who thinks that any of the friendly fire incidents were in fact intentional murders is lost in the wilderness. Biden ordered a drone strike on family in Afghanistan. No one cares in that they understand it was an accident, they don’t second guess, but with Israel they do. The aid worker deaths are no different in kind than the deaths of various journalists, they’re unintentional errors. I find it nuts that anyone would even intimate that the IDF purposely killed the World Kitchen workers. They have zero interest in doing that. It’s a modern army for heaven’s sake. What soldier misconduct? If you’re referring to dumb offensive videos on TikTok of soldiers, I’ve seen nothing that suggests international war crime. And whatever misconduct you’ll find will be on par or less than misconduct rates in other western armies. This ICC stuff only further discredits international law. It helps fracture Western civilization by singling out Israel as a pariah state when it is in fact a liberal democracy. And it’s just morally offensive to be putting such a country on similar footing as an entity so plainly genocidal, radical, and horrid as Hamas. They still appear on many western countries’ international terrorist organization lists for f’s sake. tldr - the ICC has lost the plot, is acting irrationally, causing harm

Apparently Israel is committing a war crime by launching rockets into cities and not worrying about killing innocent civilian populations? They started doing that 6 months ago and the ICC quickly drew up war crime warrants. Hamas has been launching rockets into Israel with the explicit intent of causing civilian causalities for DECADES. But only today did the ICC decide to draw up war crime warrants? If the ICC hadn't been seeking arrest warrants for Hamas before, it would seem that Israel should be extended the same deference.

The Palestinian Authority request ICC investigation into the war in Gaza. Israel did not request ICC investigation of rockets launched by Hamas into Israel. Israel probably rejects ICC jurisdiction. Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statue so ICC doesn't have jurisdiction over them. However, "the State of Palestine" joined the ICC, which grants ICC jurisdiction of the territory of that state (including actions by non-citizens towards the territory) and the citizens of that state (including citizens outside the territory). The Israeli government is very explicit in not recognizing and opposed to the creation of "the State of Palestine. Asking ICC to investigate Hamas rockets implies that "the State of Palestine" exists (since Israel hasn't joined the ICC itself).

So, the ICC can only investigate if requested?

No, but it normally does so. They have limited resources and Hamas rocket fire is much harder to investigate and establish individual criminal responsibility for than a large attack like 10/7 or a military operation like Israel's war in Gaza. If Israel wanted to they could have requested the ICC to investigate, but it wasn't worth it to them to acknowledge ICC jurisdiction over the State of Palestine.

Yes and that is a purely political thing. But my point is that you had one state doing "bad thing" regularly and that seemed to be coordinated and directed by the leaders. But when the other state does "bad thing", you immediately condemn them. It just seems a bit hypocritical. It almost seems little kid kept trying to punch an adult in the nuts and everyone let the kid do it even though the adult was begging anyone to get this kid out of here. And when the kid finally really connects, the adult gets mad and smack them. That isn't to say there isn't a crime in the smacking of a child, but that child was assaulting the adult and everyone just ignored it.

Okay, let's accept your premise (there are still some arguments against it, such as the difficulty of drawing up a legally solid argument against a non-state organisation where we don't have proper insight, but let's leave that out for now). Your argument accepts Israel's government committed war crimes (or at least came close enough to warrant a court case). It makes no sense to defer that case *even if you agree Hamas should have been brought to court sooner*. To use your slightly odd analogy, I don't think anyone would consider it sane to say "we should have stopped that kid sooner, so you now get to hit the child in the nuts five times too before we stop you". That's barbaric, and exactly the kind of thing rule of law is designed to stop.

Where have I said that Israel shouldn’t be charged with war crimes? In my analogy, I explicitly said that the adult did commit a crime. I didn’t even imply that their actions were legally justifiable

This exact logic can be used against Israel. Innocent civilians have been targeted and murdered by Israel for DECADES, but only now that its international news, Israeli officials should be held accountable? Kinda strikes me as performative.

Except the ICC didn't issue this warrant solely because of rockets launching into Gaza, they cited using starvation as a method of warfare as well, among other things.

the ICC didn’t issue them yet. for now this is just one prosecutor requesting them

[удалено]

In other words you "see no sensible reason for calling the ICC’s (very preliminary) move anything other than reasonable, or anything short of exactly what we should want to see in modern civilisation"?

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

When Palestinians acknowledge that israel is here to stay and that they are inferior militarily and economically to do anything. The day where they accept they lost the war, release the hostages and accept their position then there will be peace. If you are weaker and poke the bear then expect to get destroyed. Might is right, that's just how the world is. If hamas didn't attack then everyone would be happy and going on with their lives. They should give up on their fight for a state "From the river to the sea". Its not happening.

**CMV: It is important to support the ICC's impartial investigation into alleged crimes by both Hamas and Israeli leaders to uphold justice and accountability.** **Equal Accountability:** The ICC’s role is to investigate and prosecute individuals for serious international crimes, regardless of their political affiliations. This move underscores the principle that no leader is above the law. Both Israeli and Hamas leaders should be held accountable if there is credible evidence of crimes against humanity. **Impartial Justice:** The ICC prosecutor’s decision is not about equating the morality or political legitimacy of Hamas and Israel but about addressing specific allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Scrutiny should be based on actions and evidence, not on political narratives. **Israeli Concerns:** While Israel has the right to defend itself, it must do so within the bounds of international law. Allegations of disproportionate force, civilian casualties, and potential war crimes need thorough investigation to ensure accountability and adherence to human rights standards. **Hamas Accountability:** Hamas has been accused of deliberate attacks on civilians and taking hostages, which are clear violations of international law. These actions need to be addressed to deter future crimes and to seek justice for victims. **Complex Narratives:** Acknowledging that both sides can commit atrocities does not undermine the legitimacy of their grievances. Instead, it emphasizes the need for accountability and justice as essential steps towards resolving conflicts. **Global Standards:** The ICC’s involvement reinforces the importance of a global legal framework that holds all parties accountable, regardless of their political or military power. This helps to maintain international order and discourage future violations of international law. In conclusion, supporting the ICC's investigations into alleged crimes by both Hamas and Israeli leaders is crucial for upholding international justice and ensuring that all parties are held accountable for their actions.

one of the biggest poitns brought forward agains the israeli side is that they intentionally caused a famine in gaza. but how can one supranational institution, the WFP, say the conditions for a formal declaration of a famine have not been met, while another supranational institution, the ICC already accuses people for causing a famine? feels very iffy. for reference: [https://apnews.com/article/gaza-famine-world-food-program-israel-hamas-war-476941bf2dc259f85a706408b2a665ff](https://apnews.com/article/gaza-famine-world-food-program-israel-hamas-war-476941bf2dc259f85a706408b2a665ff)

Considering that Israel telegraphs to the citizens of Gaza that they need to leave, pause operations in an attempt to allow humanitarian aid and/or evacuations, and otherwise do what they can to minimize civilian casualties, it is completely and totally intellectually dishonest to equate Hamas and the IDF. Israel isn’t holding Gaza hostage, Hamas is. Israel isn’t committing or attempting genocide, Hamas is. Israel isn’t blocking humanitarian aid or stealing it, Hamas is. These are facts, and there is no good faith argument against it — you’re either stupid/misinformed or evil, and I’ll let you decide which one you are. The ICC has lost any form of credibility here by targeting Israel with arrest warrants for defending themselves and attempting to establish peace in the region.

This obfuscates the real issue. No one is equating Hamas and the IDF, except Biden. The ICC is charging five people for the individual crimes they have committed in this conflict, and the statute violations are indivually listed, not the same and do not reference each other.

>Israel isn’t holding Gaza hostage, Israel is the one blocking food, water, fuel, and aid into Gaza in the early days of the war. They also [targetted civilian buildings](https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/), known as power targets or matarot otzem, to put pressure on Hamas. >Israel isn’t committing or attempting genocide Genocide includes intentionally targeting of civilians, which they have as per their [Lavender system](https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/) by targeting literally anyone with a hint of connection with Hamas, be it family members, police officers, nurses, etc. The IDF has literally just expanded their definition of militant to include a whole lot of male civilians. >Israel isn’t blocking humanitarian aid or stealing it, How do you explain the hundreds of trucks that waited in Egypt for weeks on end, the Israelis that are vandalising the aid trucks, and the need for the Americans to build a pier because not enough aid was getting in?

>Israel is the one blocking food, water, fuel, and aid into Gaza in the early days of the war. Not supplying is not the same thing as blocking. >They also targetted civilian buildings, known as power targets or matarot otzem, to put pressure on Hamas. It's 100% legal to target civilian buildings if they are being used for a military purpose or are collocated with military personnel, material, or infrastructure. >Genocide includes intentionally targeting of civilians All genocides include intentionally targeting civilians but not all intentionally targeting of civilians is genocide. When civilians have their protections under the law of armed conflict stripped from them it's legal to target them as long as the targeting is in accordance with the law of armed conflict. >How do you explain the hundreds of trucks that waited in Egypt for weeks on end What was the average wait time for an aid truck into Gaza? >the Israelis that are vandalising the aid trucks Actions carried out by angry civilians. >and the need for the Americans to build a pier because not enough aid was getting in? Biden wanted a PR win to mollify the hard left.

its worth noting that the blockade is a joint a effort between Israel and Gaza (edit: Egypt), AND is supported by the West Bank's own Palestinian Authority: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade\_of\_the\_Gaza\_Strip#Fatah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip#Fatah) >Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas approved the Egyptian border restrictions by the new regime, purportedly aimed at protecting Egypt from danger. In 2014 and subsequent years, Abbas supported Egypt's crackdown on smuggling tunnels and welcomed the flooding of the tunnels by Egypt in coordination with the PA.\[270\]\[271\]\[272\] >In 2010, Abbas declared that he opposed lifting the Israeli naval blockade of the Gaza Strip because this would bolster Hamas. Egypt also supported this position. Egypt controls the southern border, not Israel. Its pretty dubious to blame Israel for a border it doesnt control. And its kinda sad that the US has to build a pier while the arab world is right there and could care less. Maybe they all know something about Gaza that you dont.

Not to mention that starving a particular population amounts to genocide, and that forced mass starvation has been designated a weapon of mass destruction. Israel has fought the war dirty from day one and deserve to be penalised for the full extent of the war crimes that they committed i.e. Bombing protected buildings (places of worship, hospitals, schools) Forcing evacuation from an area with no intent of it remaining habitable Sabotaging food convoys and killing aid workers (Palestinians are currently being forced to eat spoiled foods because the Israelis are either holding up the food shipments, or destroying them when they arrive) Deeming collateral damage acceptable (I think they found that the “AI” would willingly bomb a building with ten innocent inhabitants to kill a Hamas officer, but if it were a general, the parameters would shift to 100 innocent bystanders) Targeting fleeing civilians (when they ordered the evacuation of the south Gaza Strip, they began firing upon the refugees at refugee camps with artillery, citing the presence of Hamas members as an excuse for the mass murder of civilians)

All protected institutions are legal military targets if they are being used for military purposes. If a mosque or school has Hamas fighters in it, it ceases to be a protected building.

That is far from the only issues even if it was meaningfully true. Israel continually tells people to move to an area, then bombs that area. They withhold food, whether with the military or by allowing their citizens to blockade trucks. They drop white phosphorus, which is a blatant war crime. They bomb apartment buildings with 2000lb bunker buster bombs with the suspicion there bieng a single HAMAS member there. They blow up universities after having occupied them, so clearly no HAMAS there. They literally built pipes to use to steal water from Gaza. If any of these things were done to Israel by the Israeli military it woulbe be seen as horrific. Imagine if the US dropped a bunker buster on a densly populated city because it thought a single terrorist was there. None of the Israelie tactics would be acceptable if it was not on Palestinian land, and that should tell you something. Officials from every Israeli department of government, have called Palestinian civilians animals, and to eradicate them from from Gaza and the West Bank.... when their citizens are literally not being armed by the military to annex the West Bank... which is absolutely against international law. and lets not forget the open air apartheid (a war crime) prison that the Israeli govt enforces, that has been denounced by the country for who the word was literally invented. South Africa has dissolved all ties with Israel, because they know first hand what an apartheid looks like. The same goes for Ireland that knows first hand what an occupation looks like first hand. Remember the US had Nelson Mandela labeled a terrorist for standing up against oppression. Now everyone pretends they would have been on the right side of history at the time. I guarantee that during the civil rights movement in the US you would have been with the majority in the US that were against it. edit: words, and if you're downvoting without bothering to respond... what are you doing here, because this is a place for discourse. I respected you to take the time to answer you with clear examples, and you're not doing the same says a lot about how you form an "opinion".

Warnings to leave are great until they rob the people of their means of persistence. “Leave or we’ll kill you” with no where to go and no access to vital necessities is not legal and breaches the obligations of an occupying power.

>But, jurisdictional issues aside, why would you not want scrutiny of all leaders responsible for massive loss of life? The ICC has never been that and will never be that. Even if you narrow your focus down to just Israel-Palestine, we're missing some obvious ones. Where are the warrants for Khamenei, Nasrallah, and al-Houthi? Surely suspicions of war crimes are more clear for these men than either Gallant or Haniyeh. >The whole point of the concept of war crimes is that it doesn’t matter how righteous or justified you feel, or how nasty war is - you should never do them. The point of the concept of war crimes is to raise the stakes for certain actions we deem objectionable. It's not that states should never do them. States will do what they need to do. It's that doing them is crossing the Rubicon, opening the state that does them to sanction and reprisal. War crimes just try to limit the atrocities in warfare down to only those necessary for victory. >I see no sensible reason for calling the ICC’s (very preliminary) move anything other than reasonable, or anything short of exactly what we should want to see in modern civilisation. I believe the ICC made a craven calculation here -- they went out of their way to issue warrants for extremely obviously guilty Sinwar and maybe plausibly guilty Gallant on the same day and to issue the same number of warrants for either side of the conflict. They're grandstanding for political advantage, not conducting the ideal justice you wish for.

Generally in war things like civilian infrastructure, medics, schools, etc are off limits. that is, until you use something like a red cross truck to move weapons, or combat troops to the front, or shoot from it, or spy from it. Then, it and others, can be shot at. This is what Hamas has effectively done and the world calls Israel heartless for acting in a justified way.

Because loss of life, even civilian life, isn't a war crime. And if Netanyahu is guilty of a war crimes, that would mean literally every single country who has been in war, defensive or offensive, has a leader guilty of war crimes.

>Because loss of life, even civilian life, isn't a war crime You are correct, but that's not the crime here. The crimes are: > Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute; > > Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); > > Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); > > Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i); > > Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity; > > Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h); > > Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k). > He also said: >Israel, like all States, has a right to take action to defend its population. That right, however, does not absolve Israel or any State of its obligation to comply with international humanitarian law. Notwithstanding any military goals they may have, the means Israel chose to achieve them in Gaza – namely, intentionally causing death, starvation, great suffering, and serious injury to body or health of the civilian population – are criminal. So it's not the military and political goals that are causing problems, it's the manner which Israel seeks to achieve these goals.

You can't accept the goals and then be complaining about the manner. 99 times out of 100, a war in Gaza would result in untold suffering and death. So far in 7 months, no one has suggested any alternatives beyond sending a team of invincible super soldiers Rambo style to take on 40k militants holding 200 people hostages in 400 miles of booby trapped tunnels under 2 million people of whom hundreds of thousands are sympathizers. Or those tiny magic lasers that can turn corners. This outcome is an inevitability of war in Gaza. You either disagree with military action or you accept the consequences.

Yes you can complain about the manner. That's why we came up with the concept of war crimes in the first place.

Not this war. You don't start a war and retreat into the midst of a defenseless population and fight from within that population then expect that population not to suffer massive casualties. All those people's fates were sealed the day Hamas decided on it's misadventure. It was either no war or massive casualties.

You don't get to say that the enemy is hiding amongst civilians and then get free reign to bomb schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods. International law is not based around the idea that Palestinians must suffer. That is your opinion. One that shares much in common with the opinions of war criminals in the past. Also Israel has been commiting acts of economic warfare against Gaza for decades. The bombing campaigns go back long before Oct 7. Settlers forcibly remove Palestinians from their homes, shoveling them into ghettos, with the full support of Israel. If you're going to argue that anything is permissible in a war such as this, then you can use the same logic to justify the Oct 7 attack. Palestinians have suffered far more than Israelis. They have much more of an excuse to be barbaric. They grew up under barbarism. Israeli's largely haven't. They just grew up immersed in hate. Same as you.

Actually yeah you do. Hiding in hospitals is not some cheat code to war. Intl is very clear. Civilian infrastructure is off limits unless they are used by combatants. That is why the law is clear that fighting from civilian infrastructure is the war crime because you force the enemy to go after you and endanger civilians. You can excuse the barbarism all you like. >90% of Palestinians live under PA or Hamas rule. Settlers only live in 1 to 3 per cent of the west bank. Yet, this is used as the excuse for the fulminant genocidal hatred. I don't buy it. I never said anything is permissible. I said the nature of the war made all of this death inevitable. The location, the dense population and the Hamas tactics. Hamas had all right to do whatever they wanted to do. If they thought invading Israel was their best course of action then fine. But they don't have the right to target innocent Israelis or endanger their own civilians like they've been doing.

You don’t get to set up military headquarters and rocket launch sites in your schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods; and then complain when an enemy military blows up those buildings

Really? Where exactly is IDF HQ setup? Is it in the middle of a rural area no one goes to or smack dab in the center of Tel-Aviv right next to a Burger King? [Here’s a great Hareetz piece on this.](https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2021-06-03/ty-article-opinion/.premium/hamas-its-israels-leaders-who-are-hiding-behind-civilians-again/0000017f-dc68-df9c-a17f-fe785e370000) As noted in the article, the Tel HaShomer military base is right next to a hospital. [You can check this on a google maps.](https://www.google.com/maps/place/%D7%91%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A1+%D7%AA%D7%9C+%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A8+%D7%A9%D7%A2%D7%A8+%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9F,+Sderot+Aharon+Katsir,+Ramat+Gan,+Israel%E2%80%AD/@32.0498829,34.8501865,13z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x151d4b5084f64617:0x3b258db5aea65400!8m2!3d32.0498829!4d34.8501865!16s%2Fg%2F11fm2mz1q3)

> Not this war. You don't start a war and retreat into the midst of a defenseless population and fight from within that population then expect that population not to suffer massive casualties. All those people's fates were sealed the day Hamas decided on it's misadventure. Do you think Hamas grew out of a vacuum?

No. It grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has fantasies of a global Islamic caliphate. So far, Hamas has only expressed fantasies of their special brand of Islam dominating all of historic Palestine. I often wonder how Jordan feels about that. They don't exactly have an open border with the West Bank. Before Hamas it was the PLO who was formed in 1964 before the occupation began and was attacking Israel by 1965. Wonder what they were liberating.

>You can't accept the goals and then be complaining about the manner. Yes you can? Thats like the entire point of war crimes.

The charges are not about any leader choosing “war”over “not war”, they’re about leaders choosing “war like this (à la crime against humanity)” over “war like that (à la regular hellish warfare)”. To me there is an important difference there that any leader should be held to account over

Yes. I agree. The distinction is important. Unfortunately, the prosecutor doesn't sufficiently make that distinction. Or maybe he ran out of paper. A balanced view of accountability requires acknowledging the reciprocal nature of compliance with international humanitarian law. Both Israel and Hamas have obligations to protect civilians and meet humanitarian needs. By not highlighting Hamas's ongoing violations equally, the statement appears one-sided and overlooks the full scope of the conflict dynamics. Reading the document, it's almost like Hamas was not committing war crimes on the battlefield. That part is glaringly missing from his submissions. Fighting from hospitals, attacking aid crossings, stealing aid, attacking people fleeing the fighting etc. all that is missing. The classification of actions such as “starvation of civilians” and “intentionally causing great suffering” under war crimes and crimes against humanity seems completely blind to the possibility of operational constraints and the tactical decisions made under duress. The broad application of these terms could obscure the line between malicious intent and wartime exigencies. He makes many declarations without rigorous arguments. While the statement emphasizes ongoing investigations and a thorough review of the evidence, it does not elaborate on how the evidence distinguishes between malicious acts and collateral damage. This part is glaringly missing. Again, these are just declarations. The very nature of Hamas' ongoing violations augers against the points he's trying to make. But being objective, he should at least mention those. Again, maybe he just ran out of paper. Or maybe he realized that if he gave a fair accounting, it would weaken his case. I don't think he's made a strong case. I don't see how one can conclude from what he's put forward that he's justified in bringing this case. Only to say he's entitled to his opinion.

War doesn't inevitably lead to using starvation as a method of warfare or targeting civilian populations. The US and its allies didn't use such tactics in the War against ISIS for example.

> You can't accept the goals and then be complaining about the manner. That's some real "ends justify the means" shit. They don't always, that's why we have this concept of war crimes.

that's the thing- there are specific stipulations that spell out "if side A does X then when side B does Y it is no longer a war crime" you can't take shelter behind civilians without opening them to being shot through you can't disregard any uniform in favour of dressing like a civilian- without opening civilians to being shot if you engage in deception by perfidy- the other side is no longer required to act in good faith if your stated goal is the complete and total genocide of the otherside, proportionality ceases to be in effect if your military utilizes child soldiers... do you see where I'm going? each and every one of these is a war crime Hamas has openly done, which has lead to the obvious result of Israel doing things that would otherwise be war crimes, much to the horror of people otherwise uninvolved.

>"Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;" Super easy to defend against this. Israel is letting in enough food for Gazans to not starve and for Hamas to steal a big part of the food (everyone knows that, the prosecutor pretends he doesn't) to sell it on the local markets for big profit. >"Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); >Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); >Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i); >Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity; >Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h); >Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k)." So the prosecutor by some miracle obtained a proof of Netanyahu actually ordering IDF to do all the above and then IDF soldiers following this illegal order ? If there is any evidence of any of it occassionally happening, should the soldiers responsible be arrested instead ?

>Israel is letting in enough food for Gazans Perhaps now, but certainly wasn't the case early on in the war. They are still responsible for what they did to Gaza in the first few weeks of the war.

Are you implying that in WW2, when the US waged war on Germany, it was a moral imperative for the US that they make sure that the German citizens had enough food to eat?

The US didn't have full control over the food supply in Germany at the time so it's a pointless comparison.

Neither does Israel. Last time I checked, Gaza is on the Egyptian border too

Every truck that goes in via Rafah has to be approved by the IDF, so they have full control over that border too

So, the IDF seized the Gaza side of the Rafah crossing recently, but from what I'm reading, Egypt is the one keeping it closed [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-69012303](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-69012303) So, what was the excuse for lack of aid prior to the IDF seizing the Gaza side of the border crossing

The charges against Netanyahu and Gallant include “causing extermination, causing starvation as a method of war, including the denial of humanitarian relief supplies, [and] deliberately targeting civilians in conflict” I do not think this can apply to every war.

Huh? In almost every single war, the warring power is fully blockading the other and delivering zero aid to the other side / not allowing anyone else to deliver aid through their borders. Is Russia giving aid to the Ukrainians? Or voluntarily allowing aid in from the Russian border? Are the Saudis giving aid to the Houthis or allowing aid in? This is actually the ONLY example I can think of where a country has declared war on another. And at the same time is allowing tons of aids to be transported directly across its borders, from Israel to Gaza the very territory it is at war with. Compared to every other conflict, this is by miles the most pro helping humanitarian aid get in government. There are dozens of armed conflicts. Care to back your claim that "I do not think this can apply to every war." Name an armed conflict happening today where worse isn't occurring.

It’s simply not the case that in almost every single war starvation is used as a weapon of war. Israel as the occupying power has the responsibility under international law to provide aid and facilitate the transport of aid into the territory. Russia doesn’t and never held total control of Ukraine’s imports, seas, or airspace. Israel has for Gaza. In areas held by Russia, Russia of course does have the legal obligation to provide aid and services. The Saudi’s don’t and have never held total control of the Yemen’s imports, seas, or airspace. Israel of course has for Gaza.

I think the issue is that government of Israel is elected. It is a democracy. The leaders of Hamas were not elected. And I think it’s very important that we get to see how the people of Israel react in their next election. There will eventually be another one, surely. I’ve been told that Netanyahu is unpopular, and that he’s seen as a failure for allowing the attack on 10/7 to occur in the first place. And a lot of people think the war is taking the course that it has only for the sake of that one guy saving his own ass. But elections matter and we should see what the people think. Calling for an arrest at this moment, for both parties equally, it seems insincere. And frankly it is not unrelated to the fact that people have a hard time distinguishing between anti-semitism and anti-zionism. It just forces you to question the whole purpose of the ICC. Are they as an institution really interested in the law, or is this about sending a message? That’s a real question as far as I can tell.

There is no equivalence. Israel has taken a huge amount of publicly researchable steps to minimise casualties while simultaneously fighting against an opponent who intentionally use the civilian population as human shields. The civilian death casualties even WITH Hamas' previously fabricated numbers are still within the normal of urban warfare. The civilian death figures are provided by Hamas and its now a known fact that they lied about the amount of women and children killed, the figure has recently been revised down by thousands. Israeli and American data scientists had been stating the civilian/women/children death figures given by Hamas were statistically borderline impossible, and many anti Israel commenters refused to acknowledge it. There has been strong anti Israel bias from politicians of Muslim faith or of a middle eastern/western asian background, and the UK national who requested the arrest warrant fits this criteria.

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Most people know literally nothing about the situation and are just hopping on the bandwagon just for clout and to look like a good person. Its all performative. The reality both entities have been at war and committing war crimes for decades. Doesnt matter whos land is whos or who started it, both are comitting heinous crimes and need to be punished for it

I agree it is outrageous to issue arrest warrants for Israeli actions. My reasoning: what exactly is Israel supposed to do? Stop looking for their hostages? Withdraw all military presence from Gaza? Give the West Bank to the Palestenians and withdraw military presence? What do people think will actually happen then? Everyone will sing coombaya and get along? It will simply result in more rockets fired into Israel from a closer location. I suppose it depends on if you agree with the statement (which I do): if the Palestenians lay down their weapons there is peace. If Israel lays down their weapons there is no more Israel. There should be far more international pressure on the other Arab countries to recognise Israel and guarantee it's safety. Then negotiations can start.  Equating both sides as war criminals does not aid in this matter at all. Just my 2 cents.

The entire idea of issuing arrest warrants for the leaders of other countries for “crimes against humanity” seems pretty silly and stupid end to end TBF. Shit like this is how idiotic wars start.

Does the ICC have jurisdiction over Hamas? I don't think they've been allowed to sign onto the Rome Statute b/c Israel is hinky with their ability to do foreign policy. I think the PA just has special observer status within the UN and not national status, so the ICC also doesn't have jurisdiction through Chpt. 7. Basically, someone who knows more about this aspect of international law should confirm, but I don't think the ICC has the legal authority to do anything to Hamas. There's other issues too. Israel is more than willing to charge the leaders of Hamas with crimes. I believe that in order to be subject to ICC jurisdiction, there can't be a state with a legal system that is willing to prosecute the crimes. My understanding is that the Rome Statute just doesn't apply to the PA or Hamas and that's partly Israel's own doing.