Yes.
> that seems to be the biggest, intellectually honest hole in the ICC's warrants.
No warrants have been issued nor have the specifics of any of the charges sought, beyond the names of the crimes, been made public. No oene can talk about what the holes in the charges that might ne issued in the future are, only of strawman charges that they have invented to argue against.
Iraq is kind of a terrible example.
Over a hundred thousand civilians died in Iraq. Maybe most of them died in urban combat settings.
Isn't the "Battle of Fallujah" a whitewash of the Siege of Fallujah? (https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2012/1/4/seven-years-afte...)
"Early Target of Offensive Is a Hospital" (https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/world/middleeast/early-ta...)
"US Admits Using White Phosphorus in Fallujah" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/16/iraq.usa)
This isn't whataboutism. War is horrible.
Israel started by dropping bombs on hundreds of sleeping families, leveling entire neighborhoods and after a month of that, started fighting some ragtag scavenger fighters (non-state actor), who have almost no external support, while continuing to level everything remotely related to governance, culture, or other social institutions that came in their path for seemingly no reason but the desire to completely erase possiblity for Palestinians to live in Gaza.
Seems more like an extermination campaign, and no, you can't fight that lawfully.
I might not want to ever be on either side of such a war, but that seems to be the biggest, intellectually honest hole in the ICC's warrants.
After all they are supposed to be an alternative to the justice system of violence.