The Israeli defense minister went on TV on 9 October 2023 [0] and declared that he was going to starve Gaza:
"We are imposing a complete siege on the city of Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly."
I assume that this explicit admission of guilt is why he has been charged.
The Geneva Conventions prohibit attacks on agricultural areas, livestock, production of food, etc. Not blockades.
> We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.
He's referring to Hamas and those are the nicest words said about them.
[0]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...
Okay. Sure. The Israeli navy has blockaded Gazan ports since 2007, not since October. It bombed the control tower of the airport in 1999 and bulldozed the runways in 2002.
And it told Gaza any attempt to build an airport would have the same happen to it.
Israel is not responsible for feeding Gaza. But with closed land border, and those blockades, it is responsible for some of the results.
> He's referring to Hamas and those are the nicest words said about them.
Why did Netanyahu give them billions over the last couple of decades, these human animals?
With all due respect, no asked them to. Its about letting the aid from those are feeding. And maybe not raze the grain silos and farms? And not bulldozing the olive farms, both by the military and its citizens?
Citation needed. When the PLO and Arafat were becoming less militant, and more diplomatic, that's when Netanyahu and Mossad started sending tens of millions a month to Hamas, to keep it as the "public enemy number one". But if Hamas goes away, then Netanyahu has to explain why he won't support a two party state (because "from the river to the sea" has also been Likud's platform and policy).
Wasn't this internationally donated Palestinian aid money?
Furthermore, there's no way in hell Netanyahu gets his endgame (wiping Hamas off the face of the planet) without either exterminating all Palestinians in Gaza (which absolutely is a war crime, orders or no) or significantly backing down on several of the things Israel does to Palestine to make it mad. He also has no reason to simply snipe some of the higher-ups, patch up the holes in the Iron Dome, and declare victory. Netanyahu needs the war to continue so he can continue delaying his corruption trial long enough to declare himself above the law with a judicial reform.
To be clear, yes, Israel is more western and more liberal than Palestine, but that gap is closing faster than I think anyone would like to admit.
>In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
Because countries do not recognize migration as a human right. If the ICC did this and was consistent about it, they'd have to challenge basically every restrictive immigration policy ever. I'd personally love that, but given how many countries in the EU are making handbrake turns to the right wing specifically so they never have to take in another refugee ever again[2], the EU would rather just invade the Hague like Bush threatened to.
Furthermore, (one of) the reason(s) why the 'three state solution'[3] never really panned out is because Egypt and Jordan don't want to become hosts for further revaunchism. Hamas will set up shop in their new home and Israel will just invade them - like they did in the Yom Kippur War. For similar reasons Israel has never wanted to entertain the 'one state solution'[1] that would also have solved this conflict decades ago, because they (mostly correctly) think Hamas will never be satisfied until Palestine extends from the border to the sea and all the Jews have been deported.
[1] Just abolish the Palestine/Israel border and let people live and work wherever
[2] Which, to be clear, is also a travesty.
[3] Move Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan and let Israel take over the rest of the land