But the analogy breaks down here because (1) the UK and USA had strongly antisemitic attitudes at the time and imposed very small quotas on the number of Jews they accepted as refugees and (2) it appears that Israel is not pursuing extermination of Palestinians.
Saving them was not an objective of the war effort and was opposed by many due to domestic anti-Semitism and ethno-nationalism (Nazism had significant open sympathy in the US at the time).
Until the political tides changed in the US/UK, both countries definitely wasted time during which many perished in the Holocaust. Mostly people watched as the Nazis killed millions. There was no public uproar to intervene while the events were happening.
It's also not clear that either country would have ever accepted millions of Holocaust refugees, even though the US certainly had the space. The creation of the state of Israel after the war in a way helped them not have to face that question.
1. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-united...
But there is also a religious rationale. In fundamentalist Christianity, the re-establishment of the state of Israel to its biblically described borders is a precondition for the return of the Messiah and Judgement Day, when the same Jewish people will supposedly be given a last chance to convert ... or else. So the policy is in part rooted in the anti-Semitism of Christian eschatology.
Those ideas had strong appeal after WW2, and they are a major policy motivator of the Christian religious right-wing in the US today.
I suppose a better term would be "evangelical protestant fundamentalist Christianity", although I suspect that even there, some small number of them are not focused on politicizing Christian eschatology.
Some were committed 7 months ago, the other were allegedly committed a short time ago.
Putting them both in the same release is utterly repugnant.
Israel is not at fault for trying to recover hostages from a population aiding and abetting terrorists. Have you even seen footage of a Hamas member in uniform being killed? They dress as civilians so their rightful killing is interpreted as "war crimes" by gullible American students.
The prosecutors at the ICC are neither gullible nor American.
> Palestine using human shields are not Israel's war crimes
Starvation as a war tactic ... can't be human shields? Dropping a bomb every 50secs for the first 2 weeks and now again in the past week killing 15k+ can't be human shields? Withholding aid, inciting genocide, destroying large swathes of infrastructure isn't merely human shields.
> gullible American students
I know one such student quite well. They are Jewish, right-wing, and all their life were taught (at the Jewish school they attended, and by their family) to support Israel. Then they went out into the world, and met some Palestinians. Now they are leading protests against the war
War crimes are war crimes, and these were committed in the same war. This is like complaining a corporation and an employee were charged in the same press release. They’re different, but not in the respect of the alleged crimes.
> why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
Refusing refugees isn’t a war crime and isn’t—to my knowledge—under the ICC’s jurisdiction.