ICC works in conjunction with national courts. If a country has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong. Or not.
Israel’s judiciary is both functional and independent. Very independent. Of Netanyahu in particular.
And the Israeli judiciary seems to be going along with this.
Source: https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works
> The ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.
No, it does not.
> ICC works in conjunction with national courts
Not in the way you are suggesting.
> If a country has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong
No, the ICC will rule a case inadmissible if a state has investigated and/or prosecuted that specific case (not just if it has some general level of legal functionality), unless the ICC also fines that the investigation or prosecution was not genuine (e.g., was pretextual for the purpose of, say, giving the accused an exonerating document to wave around to protect against ICC prosecution.)
See Article 17 of the Rome Statute.
No. Israel’s courts ratifying alleged war crimes is the Israeli national system being “unwilling or unable to [apply international law] genuinely.”
Notably, the US is NOT a signatory of the ICC (this was a whole thing in the Iraq War days).
[0] - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_states.sv...
(Edit: I'm a dummy, this was the ICTY, not the ICC, but the ICTY was the precursor model of the ICC in the aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars).
If the israeli judicial system made a good faith attempt to prosecute this crime following the standards of international law, it would probably prevent this warrant even though Israel is not a party to the court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
The Biden admin cooperated with the ICC, specifically quietly handing documents to the ICC that details Putin's war crimes and urging them to submit arrest warrants for Putin. Notably Russia is also not a signatory of the ICC, so there is definitely precedent for this process that even has had the backing of the US.
IMO Khan's speech today really speaks for itself. The "International Rule of Law" is nothing but a joke if we don't not apply it equally and blindly that will ultimately lead to the degradation of modern society and our species. I highly urge people to go and check out his speech on the matter and to form your own opinion.
“Rule of law” means all people are equal before the law.
It’s hard to pull off. Some nations have, most haven’t.
But Chairman Xi isn’t going to face charges for his crimes against Uyghurs.
Most countries have no rule of law, and internationally, none do.
The fact that China gets away with its treatment of the Uyghurs (and plenty of other major powers that technically break ICC laws) is definitely an example of how much international law is a farce, though they aren't getting around the ICC by staying within their own borders.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_t...
Part of the "Rule of Law" is enforcement of that law. Who could realistically enforce it against the US? How about China?
This would mean that Netanyahu has been charged, tried and eventually acquitted of the same crimes. ICC investigates if the national proceedings are genuine.
To start the process, Israeli prosecutor must prosecute.
Does the fact that the ICC disagrees with the Israeli courts mean the ICC is correct?
> 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.[0]
---
The ICC defines:
> 1. Complementarity: The principle of complementarity governs the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction. This distinguishes the Court in several significant ways from other known institutions, including the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (the ICTY and the ICTR). The Statute recognizes that States have the first responsibility and right to prosecute international crimes. The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings. The principle of complementarity is based both on respect for the primary jurisdiction of States and on considerations of efficiency and effectiveness, since States will generally have the best access to evidence and witnesses and the resources to carry out proceedings. Moreover, there are limits on the number of prosecutions the ICC, a single institution, can feasibly conduct.[1]
namely,
> The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings.
The US argues that the ICC has not adequately allowed this process to play out through the courts in Israel.
---
The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs states:
> The criteria of unwillingness or inability to carry out proceedings would involve some indication of purposely shielding the accused from criminal responsibility or a lack of intent to bring the person to justice. This may be inferred from political interference or deliberate obstruction and delay, from institutional deficiencies due to political subordination of the legal system, or procedural irregularities indicating a lack of willingness and inability to investigate or prosecute genuinely.[2]
---
Imo the hermeneutics are clear, though it will be up to the lawyers from either side to make arguments in favor of/against.
[0]: https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-internatio...
[1]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/20B...
[2]: https://jcpa.org/article/would-judicial-reforms-in-israel-op....
"Prosecutor’s rush to seek these arrest warrants" does not seem to be true.
ICC prosecutor did not bring this case quickly without warning. He has consistently demanded that action must be taken or he will prosecute. Israel's Supreme Court has the authority to conduct judicial review of laws and government decisions and intervene in exceptional, extreme cases. Israeli prosecutors have had time to charge.
>Since last year, in Ramallah, in Cairo, in Israel and in Rafah, I have consistently emphasised that international humanitarian law demands that Israel take urgent action to immediately allow access to humanitarian aid in Gaza at scale. I specifically underlined that starvation as a method of war and the denial of humanitarian relief constitute Rome Statute offences. I could not have been clearer.
>As I also repeatedly underlined in my public statements, those who do not comply with the law should not complain later when my Office takes action. That day has come.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-...
btw. The US has demanded same and put conditions to military aid.
EDIT: It's also important to note the odd timing of asking for arrest warrants for the Hamas leadership at the same time as the Israeli arrest warrants.
Clearly unlike Israel there is no chance in *$#@ that Hamas would prosecute their own leadership for violation of international humanitarian law. The Hamas violations have also occurred earlier.
I.e. Israel should be given more time for its independent legal system to evaluate whether or not there's a case and pursue it. Israel justice system has put prime ministers and presidents on trial. Hamas shouldn't be given any time.
Given this you'd think arrest warrants for Hamas leadership would come a lot sooner.
Since this isn't the case one has to wonder if the prosecutor is doing a "both sides" kind of thing, maybe afraid of backlash if they only go after one side, in which case the response of Israel to the request to increase aid (which has happened) is not relevant.
How long was that supposed ramp up? Maybe a couple weeks out of 7 months.
EDIT: I can't find a concise summary but latest update: "422 aid trucks were inspected and transferred to the Gaza Strip, yesterday, (May.19). These trucks entered from the various aid routes we developed: Ashdod port, Erez crossing, Judea and Samaria, and JLOTS (maritime route)."
Supposedly the UN said Gaza needs a minimum of 100 trucks a day. https://www.newarab.com/news/un-puts-gaza-humanitarian-aid-n...
EDIT2: It's worth mentioning that since Israel took control of the Gaza side of the Rafah crossing Egypt is refusing to let aid in through that crossing.
It should be noted in context that even bringing in aid is dangerous. The population attacks the aid drivers for two reasons (one, to get the aid, and two, they consider those drivers "traitors" and have been attacking them for long before the current conflict). And there is not insignificant risk to the Gazans as well, there was an incident a few months ago where an aid truck ran people over trying to stop it and some people were killed in a very gruesome fashion.
I think yesterday or the day before the first aid came in via the port, actually.
The Hamas started calling this the "Flour Massacre" since it has a certain ring to it. Given where the information is coming from I suspect it's not true. Like anything else, we don't have independent information. The IDF did investigate this as well and admitted to shooting at people approaching their security vehicles (that were there to secure the aid delivery).
Need about 2X10^6 X 2000 = 4X10^9 calories as day.
At 600 cal/kg you need then 6.67 X 10^6 kg of rice per day.
Truckloads = 6.67X10^6 kg / 35,000 kg/truck = 190 truckloads of rice per day.
Most likely conclusion is Salafists and their supporters lie about everything.
Are you the salafist you speak of?
> Are you the salafist you speak of?
> Clearly unlike Israel there is no chance in *$#@ that Hamas would prosecute their own leadership for violation of international humanitarian law.
Huh, I almost forgot there were massive protests against the current PM when he set out to cripple the ability of the said Judiciary from trying him in court. But go on.
> it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.
And if you read the last part of the sentence you quoted it should make it pretty clear that it doesn't work like you have interpreted it.
It's similar to the ICC's impotent protest of Putin, when they only would pose a serious concern to those who would oppose Putin, and face investigation for their methods. The ICC is demonstrating the logical flaws at the very heart of its structure.
Most importantly, if a sheriff was trying to catch a murderer by burning down the hotel where the murderer was known to sleep in, with all other guests still inside, I assure you any legal system would seek to arrest the sheriff just as much as the original murderer.
Secondly, while Hamas is clearly a terrorist organization, it is also the de facto and de jure sovereign power in Gaza, it's not an outlaw gang. Just like Hitler was not an outlaw pirate, even though his actions were the highest crimes against humanity.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...
The situation and history is impressively messy.
Let's extend your hypothetical-- let's stipulate there is a bloodthirsty monster that holds an entire hotel hostage while actively bombing and attacking a nearby town. The monster is de facto hotel manager, because the the despairing people in the hotel at some point elected the the monster to rule the hotel. The sheriff of the town next door (which is being bombed) shows up and defends the town as best they can by attacking the hotel, and there ensues a pitched battle.
What role at that point do bewigged stateless jurists play who have no force of arms at their disposal to defend or attack or secure the peace? As a matter of history Germany did suffer mightily in WWII for the crimes of the Nazis; if the ICC were in operation then would it have arrested (or investigated and hobbled) Churchill, Zukov, Patton and Eisenhower? And then impotently and cynically declared its dissatisfaction with Hitler and Goebbels after blunting the Allies' efforts solve the problem the only practical way available to anyone, by force of arms?
I sympathize with the humanitarian concerns on both sides, but in this case the ICC is demonstrating its own flaws, which are legion. In your hypothetical, the only people threatened by the bewigged jurists are the sheriff and town precisely because they respect the international order and rule of law, and the ICC would, practically speaking, due to its inherent flaws, solely do the bidding of a monster.
What were the people despairing of in this scenario? Did it have something to do with the actions of the nearby town?
Today, France or the UK or Germany or my own country, Romania, can claim that collaboration with the regime in Israel and/or the one in Gaza is not problematic, because no court of law has found that they engage in genocide. If the ICC finds that there is a credible enough case that they would issue arrest warrants for the highest ranking politicians of those two states, then this would be no longer acceptable. They would have no more fig leaf to hide behind: a court we recognize as legitimate has made it clear that there is a plausible case for genocide taking place, and so we must (if we abide by our own laws, treaties, and logic) end our collaboration with these regimes and seek to bring them to justice.
And I find it very interesting that you're comparing the Palestinians with Nazi Germany, and Israel with the Allies. In fact it was Israel that invaded and is currently occupying the Palestinian territories, just like Nazi Germany did with so much of Europe, and it is Israel conducting a genocidal attack in Gaza, not the other way around. Palestine is much closer in this scenario to occupied France or Poland, striking back occasionally at their occupiers. Unfortunately, they are lacking powerful allies like those two countries had to help them free themselves, and they have also been radicalized and are choosing to murderously and condemnably attack the civilian population of Israel instead of focusing on military and state installations as those revolutionary forces mostly did.
If Israel did so, Hamas would rampage and slaughter the people of Israel just as they did Oct. 7.
If Hamas did so, on Oct. 6 they would have lived in peace. If they did so now, the civilians of Gaza would live in peace, and Israel probably would downgrade its activities even against the Hamas organization specifically.
This indeed is the key issue in every war, which by its very nature is a failure of both politics and of "justice" of the bewigged variety. There is no "justice" in war, only the right to self defense which Israel alone reasonably claims here. I tend to be sympathetic to international institutions like the ICC, but this demonstrates it's either corrupt or impractical or both.
Peace in the sense of no actual violence, perhaps. But, from everything I’ve read, the actual conditions imposed on Gaza by Israel prior to October 7 seem barely tolerable by those at the receiving end. As far as I can tell, the West Bank has merely been peaceful-ish.
> If they did so now, the civilians of Gaza would live in peace
There are ~2.4 million people in Gaza, total land area of 141 square miles, no usable water or electricity (does anyone actual believe that, if Israel turned the water and electricity supplies back on right now, that anything would actually work?) and nowhere near enough food. Reports suggest that over half of the housing stock has been destroyed. There wasn’t a whole lot of economic activity before the war.
What would happen if Hamas disarmed itself tomorrow? Or disappeared outright? I don’t think Gaza would magically be okay.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Conference_of_1946%E2...
That is a fabrication that goes boldly against everything we know. If Hamas layed down their arms, the Gaza population would still live in an open-air prison, with no access to anything that Israel doesn't want them to have. It's very likely that Israeli settlers would start stealing their land like they do in the West Bank, with help from the IDF and enthusiastic support from the Israeli government.
It's telling that Netanyahu and most others in the Israeli government, and the general Israeli public, have been explicit and consistent for at least a decade: they see no future for Gaza and the West Bank different from the present. A two-state solution is unacceptable to them, and an integration of such a large Arab population into a single Israeli state would undermine the Jewish character of Israel. So, if the Palestinians put down their arms, they'll continue to live as a stateless people, without the right to leave the territory except at the whims of a country they have no say in. Basically, they'll live as prisoners, as will their children, and their children's children.
The alternative argument seems to be that Hamas should sacrifice Gazan civilians to make a moral point. There's a scene in Shrek about that kind of logic.
Even still, I do not agree at all that if Hamas stops fighting, Israel would immediately stop hostilities. I think they have proven very clearly, through words and actions, that they are seeking to break the spirit of Palestinians (or at least of Gazans), and to punish them for October 7th. If Hamas surrendered, Israel would just claim that they didn't, that it's either a ruse or that only a handful of the terrorists have surrendered and they need to continue the killing until they can confirm.
Again, I would say, the Rule of Lord Farquaad applies.
Edit: it does mention Sinwar.
Pretty clearly the U.S. and the South Vietnamese military. Just because you can't tell who is a combatant and who isn't doesn't give you permission to slaughter entire villages.
If the group killing your soldiers isn't adhering to these rules of war then all the civilians in the area will find themselves at risk.
There is no world where combatants can expect to be allowed to enjoy the protections civilians are afforded while still killing you.
The US base in Okinawa has a rather dubious reputation that continues.
That is true, but this does not take away the protection afforded to civilians. As a concrete example, if you take fire from people in civilian clothing holed up in a hospital, then you can return fire in that specific occasion, but you may not start to indiscriminately fire upon people in civilian clothing or hospitals.
(Also, you are not required to wear a uniform. You are required to distinguish yourself from the civpop by at least openly wearing arms and/or wearing a distinctive sign. Keep in mind not everyone in a uniform is a combatant, and not all combatants are armed.)
If group of villagers resists you, maybe you have no right to be there.
Yes, because Hamas uses human shields and hospitals as bases.
Still civilians, obviously. Cheering something does not make you lose civilian status. Only actively engaging in combat in some capacity does.
Does compulsory military service and being a reserve make you a valid military target?
People can justify killing in all sorts of ways.
No.
> People can justify killing in all sorts of ways.
Which is why we have international laws, in which smart people sat down and codified how this all works.
And yet it is ignored in every war. It’s almost as though encouraging killing people leads to problems.
I think the answer to all these questions entirely depends on which side of the conflict you support, those who see Palestinians as hapless victims who have been abused by the evil Jews will say of course none of this is combat and attacking those innocent people is the highest war crime; on the other hand those who see Jews just trying to live in peace in their homeland being attacked by bedeviled Palestinians will argue that assisting soldiers in war makes you an active combatant, and thus a legitimate (though possibly regrettable) military target.
There are international laws that define these things. Sure, some of it is a judgement call, like all laws, but those laws do exist.
I'm not a lawyer or very knowledgable about international law, but I'll try to answer to my best understanding:
> There were many people who streamed over the fence with Hamas, is invasion engaging in active combat?
Yes, if they are actively attacking civilians. If they "streamed over the fence" to rob and loot (which many did), I'm not quite sure.
> There were many people who spit on, hit, or otherwise assaulted the kidnapped civilians, is that actively engaging in combat?
Spit on? I don't think so, not if they weren't the ones who captured the kidnapped civilians and they were just "passing through" as in the infamous videos. Other forms of assault? Depends on that context.
> does jailing civilians against their will count as actively engaging in combat?
Yes, I'm fairly sure that keeping a hostage makes you an active combatant (and committing a war crime).
> IDF soldiers report many children and women acting as spotters for Hamas, is that active combat?
Yes, spotters are quite clearly combatants.
> I think the answer to all these questions entirely depends on which side of the conflict you support,
It shouldn't, really. That's what international law is for (and in general, our principles shouldn't depend on which side we support).
My main disagreement with most people, I find, is a disagreement on the base facts. Most people are ignorant of most of the base facts of what is going on in this conflict. Though yes, sometimes people do agree on the facts and interpret them differently.
It is also a war crime, and doesn't even have the fig leaf of an active war to justify it.
> Displacement of civilian populations in occupied areas, and mass settlement of occupier civilian populations into the West Bank also needs to be up there.
There was a UN resolution in I think 1973 that deemed Israeli settlements in the West Bank "illegal" without stating what law was being transgressed. There is a law that governments can not move their populations into occupied territories (as the Germans did to Poland, and the law exists specifically in response to that) but no law against the population getting up and moving itself (as the Germans did to France) because international law applies to States, not Persons.
The term "no legal basis" is often thrown around referring to Israeli settlements but that is quite the red herring - anything is legal if there is no law forbidding it. And specifically in this case, actually, there in fact _is_ a law saying that anyone can build a house in the West Bank - the Ottoman law that nobody today has any legal jurisdiction to change.
A final argument against Israeli settlements is that Israel must "give back" the land to the Arabs. It is true that the Israelis occupy the West Bank, but the "give back" part is not. The last state to rule this area that was not an occupation was Great Britian, and even that only under UN Mandate that has since ended (remember, the Jordanian rule was occupation as well). And the ruler before that, the Ottoman Empire, no longer exists and the successor state (Turkey) is not interested in ruling the area (interesting how that might play out, actually).
I actually have been looking for some solid basis of denying the Jews the right to live in the West Bank for about a year and a half now, but I simply can not find such a base. Unless one considers the UN resolutions to be a solid base, but the basis of those resolutions is completely missing - they just seem to be decisions not based on any existing laws in the best case and willfully misinterpreted in the worst case. I'm reading them, and other related documents, in English because I don't speak Chinese, French, or Spanish and my Arabic and Russian are very poor.
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, last paragraph.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...
That is the same as a transfer under IHL.
Thank you.
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/israeli-settlements-in-t...
Legal Framework, 11:
According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, construction began for approximately 1,280 housing units in the first half of 2023 in Area C.
All of these Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, because they amount to the transfer by Israel of its population into an occupied territory.
For another, that document specifically mentions that the new buildings are in Area C, which has been recinded by the PA (for purpose of discussion, the details are far more complicated than that).
You asked for "something official", "[not] a blog post", "an official declaration".
I took up the challenge and found for you an official document of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights declaring " All of these Israeli settlements are illegal under international law".
> not a statement of what law is being broken.
From the linked document:
International human rights law and international humanitarian law apply concurrently in the Occupied Palestinian Territory of Gaza, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan. This includes the obligations contained in the international human rights treaties to which Israel is a State party,[4] as well as the Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907 (Hague Regulations) and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), which are binding upon Israel as the occupying Power under international humanitarian law
I have no stance on the matter.
You're welcome.
This has been pointed out multiple times now. I'll repeat it once more:
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
▶Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, last paragraph.◀
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...
Out of context you are trying to use that quote to protect some land from people living on it. But if you read the entire article, the article clearly protects people from forced transfer - both the residents of the occupied territory and the citizens of the occupying power.
I added emphasis to the quote in the comment you're replying to since you missed it the first time.
And brought up yet again in peer replies while I've been asleep.
You've oft mentioned your repeated failure despite your best efforts to find out which laws are being violated here .. it may have something to do with your demonstrated habit of simply not reading closely.
As mentioned I myself have no stance here other than someone who took an interest in the question and sought a reference.
You appear to be either arguing in bad faith or someone troubled by a reading disorder.
> It's been repeatedly mentioned.
> And brought up yet again in peer replies while I've been asleep.
> You've oft mentioned your repeated failure despite your best efforts to find out which laws are being violated here .. it may have something to do with your demonstrated habit of simply not reading closely.
> As mentioned I myself have no stance here other than someone who took an interest in the question and sought a reference.
> You appear to be either arguing in bad faith or someone troubled by a reading disorder.
You should take up your case for why this is wrong with the lawyers who proof read the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
> In any case, repeating something does not make it correct.
Indeed. This entire thread is repleat with comments by yourself repeating the claim that you have debunked this interpretation.
> You might not have a stance, but you seem to be affected by the "it's repeated often, so it must be true" thought process - you even defend it.
Read more carefully - I have stated an official position in an official report and referenced it.
This is exactly how we reported such things in the mineral intelligence and energy intelligence companies we launched and later sold on, one to Standard and Poor (of the S&P index).
> The laws are actually quite clear.
Indeed.
You can easily see how the UN Human Rights lawyers read and applied the convention in the case where an occupying country failed to contain their citizens, and went further to support them.
That is the inaction and the action of the state at fault.
Though formally a non-governmental organization, it is funded by the Israeli government and leases lands from the Civil Administration to settle in the West Bank."
This is false.
West Bank settlement is funded by the Israeli government through the World Zionist Organization.
EDIT: downvoters, please understand, the above statement is true. The government of Israel supports settlement via the WZO, which has a division (named "Settlement Division") with the specific purpose of making settlement possible through whatever loopholes can be exploited.
The downvotes are an attempt to obfuscate this fact.
"One of the mechanisms used by the government to favor the Jewish local authorities in the West Bank, in comparison with local authorities inside Israel, is to channel funding through the Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organization. Although the entire budget of the Settlement Division comes from state funds, as a non-governmental body it is not subject to the rules applying to government ministries in Israel."
https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/200205_land_g...
In the sense of Article 49 -- "transfer" obviously means any form of actively supported migration (not the coerced transfer) of these peoples into the OT.
In fact, in this specific case, there exists a pre-occupation law that specifically allows for it.
Which "law"? Something from the time of the Mandate?
> In the sense of Article 49 -- "transfer" obviously means any form of actively supported migration (not the coerced transfer) of these peoples into the OT.
> Which "law"? Something from the time of the Mandate?
It protects civilians in occupied territories. Not the supposed "rights" of persons from an Occupying country to settle into these territories under the protection of the Occupier's armed forces and civil administration (as is the current situation in the West Bank).
This is plainly obvious from the language of the GCIV; and it is the overwhelming consensus interpretation of legal scholars on in regard to this section.
This flies in the face of most of what I've heard/read on the subject. Israel is considered an occupying power (in WB and Gaza), and occupying powers in general aren't allowed to build settlements in occupied territories, no?
I'm not sure how the Ottoman law is connected to this at all? Why is that the reigning law of that land, the Ottomans haven't had ownership of it since 1918. Isn't it considered Jordanian land, since they annexed it after 1948?
> This flies in the face of most of what I've heard/read on the subject. Israel is considered an occupying power (in WB and Gaza), and occupying powers in general aren't allowed to build settlements in occupied territories, no?
First I've heard of this interpretation of international law, interesting.
How does incentivizing civilians financially to move there fit into this? How does protecting civilians via the military fit into this?
> Wait, you're saying that because Israel isn't moving citizens into the WB, and it's being done voluntarily, then that makes it legal?
> How does incentivizing civilians financially to move there fit into this? How does protecting civilians via the military fit into this?
Do you know of a good place to read about this?
> There is no financial incentive, other than far more general financial considerations such as the expense of living in e.g. Tel Aviv
This seems false to me. I don't know many details, but it's pretty often discussed that there are different incentives. I can link you to a B'Tselem report about this, but I assume you dislike them as much as I do. So here's instead a CBS story about there being financial incentives to encourage settlers (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israeli-govt-offers-incentives-...).
And if that doesn't work for you, here's a Hebrew-language source about why there's been a rise in home purchases in the WB: https://bizreef.co.il/%D7%94%D7%96%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A7-%...
I'll quote a few relevant sentences (translated to English):
> For example, the government eased the rules for obtaining loans to purchase properties in the area. Additionally, it lowered the taxes on property purchases. Moreover, the government created incentives for entrepreneurs to build in the area.
> As for the military protecting civilians, does not every military protecting it's civilians?
Of course, but the specific accusation against settlers is that they go and build settlements, sometimes purposefully to disrupt Palestinian villages, and then the army has to go surround them and protect them, disrupting the villages more.
There have been numerous terrible incidents, since October 7th, of settlers using various forms of intimidation to drive out Palestinians, e.g. setting houses on fire, sometimes while being protected (but not stopped) by the IDF.
Establishment of settlements is also at least tacitly, and in some cases explicitly, supported by the government, which undercuts the claim that this is citizens acting solely of their own accord.
> None of this addresses the resettlement or removal of existing people, which is plainly a violation of article 49.
If you have specific incidents of displacement that you word like me to address, I'll do that. The recent Sheik Jarrah incident that made international headlines was a property dispute - in fact a terrific example if you want to discuss it as the Jordanian occupation displaced the Jewish family living there.
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Anybody interesting in this should look a bit further up in the thread for my response to the same comment by the same poster. I've continued the conversation only there.
There is much noise me about the settlements, but after a year and a half of researching this I come up empty searching for any solid arguments against them.
False. It directly funds organizations which promote settlement.
> Isn't it considered Jordanian land, since they annexed it after 1948?
Everything in this conflict is a war of words and changing one's interpretation of past events to suit current goals.
You don't need to bring the Ottoman empire back to reverse the expulsion of Palestinians from settlement areas.
> Indeed, it's not clear why the parent poster is talking about countries, when war crimes are crimes against people.
> I'm not sure how the Ottoman law is connected to this at all? Why is that the reigning law of that land, the Ottomans haven't had ownership of it since 1918.
The Israeli occupation can not change the laws of the West Bank. An occupation can pass temporary orders, which are usually limited to (and often renewed after) three years.
Neither could the Jordanian occupation changed the laws of the West Bank, for the same reason.
The British Mandate was allowed to changed laws, and they did change many laws. However Ottoman property laws are very, very complicated and they decided that there was no reason to mess with it. So during the British Mandate the Ottoman property laws remained.
So the land in question has been through a UN mandate and two occupations (one still ongoing), without the property laws being changed. Those Ottoman laws still stand.
If Netanyahu is punished for this, then GWB must face a more severe punishments for his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan which saw far more collateral damage.
> It has to happen in a place where the ICC has jurisdiction.
> Palestine has ratified the Rome Statue
In any case, The Palestinian Authority does not rule the Gaza strip. Then were overthrown in a very bloody coup, 2005 or 2006, in which Hamas threw some 100 PA members off the top of the buildings.
The gist of the argument can be gleaned from its sub-headings:
Palestine is a State for the purposes of the Statute under relevant principles and rules of international law...... 25
C.1. The Montevideo criteria have been less restrictively applied in certain cases........ 25
C.2. It is appropriate to apply the Montevideo criteria less restrictively to Palestine, for the purposes of the Rome Statute ..... 29
C.2.a. The Palestinian people have a right to self-determination and it has been recognised that this implies a right to an independent and sovereign State of Palestine... 30
C.2.b. The exercise of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination is being obstructed by practices contrary to international law................... 32
C.2.c. Palestine has been recognised by a significant number of States.............. 34
C.2.d. No other State has sovereignty over the Occupied Palestinian Territory............ 35
C.2.e. Palestine’s status as a State Party must be given effect........ 36
C.2.f. The Prosecution’s alternative position is consistent with international law ........ 39
C.2.g. Participants’ arguments regarding a possible referral by the Security Council are unclear.......... 40
D. The Oslo Accords do not Bar the Exercise of the Court’s Jurisdiction........ 40
D.1. The Oslo Accords regulated a gradual transfer of power to the Palestinian Authority over most of the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) and Gaza.............. 40
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20230609070357/http://www.icc-cp...
Coincidentally, Josep Borrell, the foreign policy chief of the EU, announced earlier in the month that several of the bloc's member states intend to recognise Palestinian statehood on the 21st of May - today.
See: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/spain-ireland-reco....
You would be incorrect [0]. The UN recognizes a "State of Palestine" independent of the specific government, which includes both Gaza and the West Bank. This entity, the state of Palestine, not the PLA (that would be weird, like saying the Tory party is signatory to the Rome statute), is signatory to the Rome statute. The state of Palestine is a non-member observer state in the UN.
You're correct that it's good to be precise here, so you should do so around the specific political entity of Palestine when that is what is being discussed.
[0]: Depositary notification of Accession to the Rome Statute by the State of Palestine; https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2015/CN.13.2015-E...
> Hamas threw some 100 PA members off the top of the buildings
Also you should support this, because this seems 1) ridiculous given the total number of casualties and nature of the fighting 2) I can only find claim of 2 persons being thrown off building, 1 from Fatah and 1 from Hamas.
Eg. hundred page report from PCHR named "Report on Bloody Fighting in the Gaza Strip from 7 to 14 June 2007" doesn't mention 100 PA thrown off the rooftops.
I think warrants issued against Sinwar, Al-Masri and Haniyeh are very likely. Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant IMHO are over 50%
Proportationality and intention are important when the ICC interprets what constitutes war crime or crime against humanity. These cases also set up a precedents. Arrest warrant for Netanyahu and Gallant is for:
- 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).