Current WAR CRIMES Israel - * ICC issues warrants for Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu & Yoav Gallant & for Hamas's Mohammed Deif

[Kurve]

The ICC has also issued a warrant for Hamas leader Mohammed Deif, who Israel says they have killed.

According to the ICC, the chamber “found reasonable grounds to believe” that Deif was “responsible for the crimes against humanity of murder; extermination; torture; and rape and other form of sexual violence; as well as the war crimes of murder, cruel treatment, torture; taking hostages; outrages upon personal dignity; and rape and other form of sexual violence”.

It also said there were reasonable grounds to believe the crimes against humanity were “part of a widespread and systematic attack directed by Hamas and other armed groups against the civilian population of Israel”.

For Netanyahu and Gallant, who was replaced as defence minister earlier this month, the chamber “found reasonable grounds to believe” that they “each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts”.

It also found reasonable grounds to believe that “each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population”.




INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT - Elements of Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes

Rules - Updated Crime Board Rules - READ BEFORE POSTING

General Information The BigFooty Crime board is a community that fosters discussion on current and past crimes, some which have social and media notoriety, that attracts the attention of public opinion and discussion on such matters. Please read these rules very carefully, both the Big Footy...

www.bigfooty.com

If you feel sad, this is the best.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Hamas rejected a permanent ceasefire on UNSC 2735 10 June 2024 that was tabled by the US in the UNSC and even passed the UNSC after 14 votes for, 1 abstention.

This resolution is very similar to the one that's just being agreed aside from the stipulation that Palestine must be governed as a united entity following the end of the war with a view to agreeing a permanent two state solution.

And before the usual suspects try, the text of this resolution clearly states Israel accepted it and called for Hamas to accept it.

Ben-Gvir admitted yesterday that he has been blocking all the ceasefire deals. This has been widely reported, including in this thread.

Did you forget that this was explained to you yesterday?

 

[Zidane98]

That's ****ing weird, because wikipedia says something completely different.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2735 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 2205139

Couldn't be you are telling fibs, could it?

Hilarious you are quoting Wikipedia over the actual published UN security resolution.

*

 

[Zidane98]

Ben-Gvir admitted yesterday that he has been blocking all the ceasefire deals. This has been widely reported, including in this thread.

Did you forget that this was explained to you yesterday?

Ben Gvir doesn't have the ability to block anything despite what he says.

You know this.

 

[Zidane98]

From memory, the US said Israel agreed. Israel never said they agreed, and they certainly never signed it.

The resolution that passed the security council clearly states Israel agreed to it and urged Hamas to agree.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

The resolution that passed the security council clearly states Israel agreed to it and urged Hamas to agree.

Israel has a long history of not complying with and ignoring UN resolutions.

You know this.

 

[Kurve]

Ben Gvir doesn't have the ability to block anything despite what he says.

You know this.

Yeh I think Gvir's message is to the more hardcore elements in his base, the extremist fundies whose ambitions were to settle Gaza.

 

[Zidane98]

Israel has a long history of not complying with and ignoring UN resolutions.

You know this.

Except in this case the official resolution that passed the security council clearly states Israel did accept it.

Therefore your post is completely irrelevant.

 

[faible]

Yeh I think Gvir's message is to the more hardcore elements in his base, the extremist fundies whose ambitions were to settle Gaza.

Gvir and Smotrich make up the coalition that allows Netanyahu to retain power.

If Gvir convinces Smotrich and the party to pull out of that coalition, Netanyahu loses power (unless he can do a deal with another party for the seats).

So Gvir and Smotrich do have some power.

 

[Kurve]

Gvir and Smotrich make up the coalition that allows Netanyahu to retain power.

If Gvir convinces Smotrich and the party to pull out of that coalition, Netanyahu loses power (unless he can do a deal with another party for the seats).

So Gvir and Smotrich do have some power.

Gvir confirmed though, that he wouldn't take Netanyahu down. It's that comment which leads me to thinking it's just Gvir playing to his base.

 

[faible]

The resolution that passed the security council clearly states Israel agreed to it and urged Hamas to agree.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hamas-accepts-un-ceasefire-resolution-ready-negotiate-over-details-official-says-2024-06-11/

The US said Israel agreed. Israel never confirmed or denied that. This is where the statement in the UNSC resolution comes from. There never appeared to be any action to implement this.

You know this.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Gvir confirmed though, that he wouldn't take Netanyahu down. It's that comment which leads me to thinking it's just Gvir playing to his base.

Is Gvir one of those paper tigers that Jazny posts cute pictures of?

 

[faible]

Gvir confirmed though, that he wouldn't take Netanyahu down. It's that comment which leads me to thinking it's just Gvir playing to his base.

He confirmed it on this occasion, not necessarily on prior ones. But that would be the mechanism by which Smotrich and Gvir can wield power.

 

[faible]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/pms-rejection-of-lebanon-ceasefire-plan-shatters-ties-with-biden-tv-report/amp/

The US also mistakenly believed Israel agreed to something on this occasion.

 

[FIGJAM]

Why do you think so many organisations are calling it a Genocide? Including the UN Special Committee.

Two months on from those comments, they're made to look like idiots. No big deal! They made a call, got on the bandwagon and have face planted. They do plenty of good otherwise.

Of course, there is still a chance Israel are intentionally making a power play to shut the hostage protests up at home by getting them and then reignite it later at a much fiercer level and then completely murder and/or flush all Gazan's out into the sea.

If that happens, I'll come in here and apologise to you. But I don't think I'll have to and until that time, it's not a ****en genocide!

 

[Zidane98]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hamas-accepts-un-ceasefire-resolution-ready-negotiate-over-details-official-says-2024-06-11/

The US said Israel agreed. Israel never confirmed or denied that. This is where the statement in the UNSC resolution comes from. There never appeared to be any action to implement this.

You know this.

It is a fact that UNSC resolution 2735 passed on 10th June 2024 states Israel accepts the resolution passed and urges Hamas to accept it.

None of your claims are backed up by any official UNSC documentation.

You know this.

 

[faible]

He confirmed it on this occasion, not necessarily on prior ones. But that would be the mechanism by which Smotrich and Gvir can wield power.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-january-16-2025/

Interestingly, looks like Smotrich might pull his party out of the coalition

 

[faible]

Also read somewhere that Israel’s cabinet is expected to vote around 11am local time. It’s currently 10am.

 

[Kurve]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-january-16-2025/

Interestingly, looks like Smotrich might pull his party out of the coalition

Smotrich also is playing to his base but if he follows through, the government can still rule on a slim majority.

Citing an unnamed source familiar with the details of the Religious Zionism party’s deliberations, Ynet reports that Smotrich is worried the deal will “stick to him” and damage his reputation among his voter base if he remains in the coalition.

 

[FIGJAM]

The ICJ didn't say that. It's a misreporting, it's been cleared up by Judge Donahue a long time ago, but it keeps coming up again and again.

“The court test for deciding whether to impose measures uses the idea of plausibility, but the test is the plausibility of the rights that are asserted by the applicant, in this case South Africa, so the court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide, and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court" - Judge Donahue.

They didn't find it was plausible that there is a genocide. If the ICJ had a really good reason to believe there was an ongoing genocide, you would imagine their provisional measures would have been a lot stronger than they were. We don't really know what they think with regards to the case though.

Fair enough!

 

[Tall poppy Syndrome]

The ICJ didn't say that. It's a misreporting, it's been cleared up by Judge Donahue a long time ago, but it keeps coming up again and again.

“The court test for deciding whether to impose measures uses the idea of plausibility, but the test is the plausibility of the rights that are asserted by the applicant, in this case South Africa, so the court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide, and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court" - Judge Donahue.

They didn't find it was plausible that there is a genocide. If the ICJ had a really good reason to believe there was an ongoing genocide, you would imagine their provisional measures would have been a lot stronger than they were. We don't really know what they think with regards to the case though.

Jesus is this true? The whole Israel is committing genocide comes from this and nothing more? Surely there’s more to it than this the way people have been asserting the ICJ believes there’s a plausible case, which in turn has rapidly become assertions of actual genocide. Please someone help me here.

But then let’s assume genocide is happening. Forget definitions, international law and morality for a moment, what is Israel’s strategic interest in doing so?

I mean presumably there’s 2 reasons right?

1. Kill all the Palestinians before they try and kill us. Brutal, existential, but at least it makes strategic sense right? If this is the motivation what I simply can’t wrap my head around is why Israel is so useless at it, killing 45,000 out of how many? Surely they’d just level the place entirely and literally kill everyone if this is the threat they’re countering, especially given their capabilities?

2. So if it’s not this presumably the motivation would be bloodlust? Just doing it for kicks right? And again killing 45,000 out of so many instead of finishing the job is kind of the equivalent of a cat playing with a mouse, rather than killing it? But again a genocide like this doesn’t seem to make any strategic sense? It’s kind of like Israel saying well this genocide makes us an international pariah and doesn’t actually neutralise the threat through killing all the Palestinians but F$&k it killing lots of Palestinians is too much fun anyway, I mean we’re Israelis/Jews/Zionists (whatever the fashionable pejorative is these days) and we just can’t help this bloodlust.

Is there some third or other obvious strategic motivation for genocide by Israel that makes sense?

I mean I’m all for a 2 state solution and getting Israeli settlers off the West Bank and prosecuting actual war crimes.

But the genocide claims are doing my head in. Maybe I’m missing something but right now the claims feel so incredibly ridiculous - it’s like trying to follow the internal logic of Norman Finkelstein. For God’s sake someone, make it make sense! Please!

 

[faible]

Smotrich also is playing to his base but if he follows through, the government can still rule on a slim majority.

Citing an unnamed source familiar with the details of the Religious Zionism party’s deliberations, Ynet reports that Smotrich is worried the deal will “stick to him” and damage his reputation among his voter base if he remains in the coalition.

Sounds like 61 seats is needed for majority, and that’s what they’ll have if Smotrich pulls out.

Also how toxic is the bloke if the current situation in Gaza isn’t enough for him.

 

[Kurve]

Also read somewhere that Israel’s cabinet is expected to vote around 11am local time. It’s currently 10am.

Some say Trump had nothing to do with this latest deal when US hostages will be released first, one day before his deadline of the 20th when he's appointed as the Prez.

I don't think he pulled any punches with Netanyahu.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Jesus is this true? The whole Israel is committing genocide comes from this and nothing more? Surely there’s more to it than this the way people have been asserting the ICJ believes there’s a plausible case, which in turn has rapidly become assertions of actual genocide. Please someone help me here.

But then let’s assume genocide is happening. Forget definitions, international law and morality for a moment, what is Israel’s strategic interest in doing so?

I mean presumably there’s 2 reasons right?

1. Kill all the Palestinians before they try and kill us. Brutal, existential, but at least it makes strategic sense right? If this is the motivation what I simply can’t wrap my head around is why Israel is so useless at it, killing 45,000 out of how many? Surely they’d just level the place entirely and literally kill everyone if this is the threat they’re countering, especially given their capabilities?

2. So if it’s not this presumably the motivation would be bloodlust? Just doing it for kicks right? And again killing 45,000 out of so many instead of finishing the job is kind of the equivalent of a cat playing with a mouse, rather than killing it? But again a genocide like this doesn’t seem to make any strategic sense? It’s kind of like Israel saying well this genocide makes us an international pariah and doesn’t actually neutralise the threat through killing all the Palestinians but F$&k it killing lots of Palestinians is too much fun anyway, I mean we’re Israelis/Jews/Zionists (whatever the fashionable pejorative is these days) and we just can’t help this bloodlust.

Is there some third or other obvious strategic motivation for genocide by Israel that makes sense?

I mean I’m all for a 2 state solution and getting Israeli settlers off the West Bank and prosecuting actual war crimes.

But the genocide claims are doing my head in. Maybe I’m missing something but right now the claims feel so incredibly ridiculous - it’s like trying to follow the internal logic of Norman Finkelstein. For God’s sake someone, make it make sense! Please!

We've seen plenty of videos on social media that look like genocide, and videos of Israeli politicians inciting genocidal acts.
Jazny digging for technicalities in one sentence of one judges' words, while ignoring all the words from the rest of the bench doesn't change that.

The amount of evidence that South Africa has presented to the ICJ is overwhelming.

 

[Jazny]

Jesus is this true? The whole Israel is committing genocide comes from this and nothing more? Surely there’s more to it than this the way people have been asserting the ICJ believes there’s a plausible case, which in turn has rapidly become assertions of actual genocide. Please someone help me here.

What I said is true. They ICJ haven't handed out a verdict on it and may not for awhile, so we don't actually know how they will determine the case, but they absolute did not find that Israel is plausibly committing genocide. That was misreporting. The BBC covered this well in the article below. You can also find an interview with Judge Donahue where she clarifies it.

Israel-Gaza: What did the ICJ ruling really say?

The ICJ ruling has come under intense scrutiny, centring on the word "plausible". What did the court mean?

www.bbc.com

1. Kill all the Palestinians before they try and kill us. Brutal, existential, but at least it makes strategic sense right? If this is the motivation what I simply can’t wrap my head around is why Israel is so useless at it, killing 45,000 out of how many? Surely they’d just level the place entirely and literally kill everyone if this is the threat they’re countering, especially given their capabilities?

I don't know that would even make strategic sense. It would completely isolate Israel from the world. America would drop them as a key ally. They would probably be drawn into intense regional fighting that would make the last 15 months look like nothing, but they wouldn't have American or European backing at all. I think that would be suicide, immoral, and the worst thing they could do.

But if they did that, they would have effectively wiped Gaza out in 3 months max (bomb and starving campaign). It would be way higher than 46,000.

Is there some third or other obvious strategic motivation for genocide by Israel that makes sense?

Not really. But previous genocides haven't really made sense either, often just motivated by hatred.

I mean I’m all for a 2 state solution and getting Israeli settlers off the West Bank and prosecuting actual war crimes.

But the genocide claims are doing my head in. Maybe I’m missing something but right now the claims feel so incredibly ridiculous - it’s like trying to follow the internal logic of Norman Finkelstein. For God’s sake someone, make it make sense! Please!

It doesn't make much sense. When you ask people who believe it, they are pretty bad at explaining it. They usually don't bother to try. If you look at all the previous 3 recognised cases of genocide under the 48 definition, they are all extremely wild and looking nothing like the Israel Hamas war has looked. If the ICJ do find genocide, it's going to be a very unusual case of genocide.

 

[faible]

Live: Ceasefire approval delayed as Israel claims Hamas walked back on terms

Israel and Hamas previously agreed to a complex ceasefire deal that will see hostilities in Gaza end and hostages and prisoners released in stages. Follow live.

www.abc.net.au

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Hamas has backtracked on an earlier understanding of the ceasefire agreement.

In a statement obtained by Associated Press, he said Hamas was objecting to a part of the agreement that gave Israel the ability to veto the release of certain Palestinian prisoners.

Under the deal, Hamas would release dozens of hostages in exchange for Israel releasing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.

Hamas was trying to dictate which Palestinian prisoners would be released, Netanyahu said.

Hamas did not immediately respond to Netanyahu’s statement.