Well, he is still free to visit the top two countries by GDP. Millions of people spend their entire lives in one or the other. I think he’ll manage.
But yes, to anyone asking “What are we going to do about this?”, the answer is “We are going to wait until Netanyahu (or Gallant) visits a country under ICC jurisdiction”.
Kamala Harris just did a Wired autocomplete interview.
Sorry, NYT. Get in line behind Hot Ones.
Guilt does not require a normally working psyche. It requires understanding the difference between right and wrong. And by that we mean understanding that society has made some things illegal and expects you not to do them.
I am certain that Ethan Crumbley knew that some things are illegal. Therefore he is capable of guilt.
they have open warrants
No, there are no open warrants against Israel.
ICC prosecutors have requested arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant based on war crimes in Palestine (which is an ICC member). But ICC courts haven’t issued warrants yet, and it may never happen. If it did, it would not restrict Israelis in general. It would just mean that Netanyahu and Gallant could not visit ICC states.
At no point has the ICC ever entered a non-ICC country to drag anyone in, in fact they are explicitly forbidden from doing so. Some other country could take it upon themselves to declare war on Israel and try to capture and extradite him. Spoiler alert: that’s never going to happen, because it isn’t worth it. Whether you like it or not, countries prioritize respect for sovereignty over prosecuting war crimes.
The only people who can drag in Netanyahu are Israelis themselves. That’s why when anyone asks
what are we actually going to do about it this time
the answer is always “we are going to do nothing”.
Just ask Joseph Kony, who is still free despite an ICC warrant issued in 2006. Or Ahmed Haroun. Or Omar al-Bashir. All are wanted for war crimes, yet nobody can be bothered to bring them in.
does not negate the prior agreement
If you check the link, you’ll see that the treaty specifies Israel’s obligations after leaving. Namely, they are obligated to cooperate with active investigations commencing prior to withdrawal.
They left in 2002. There are no remaining investigations that were active prior to withdrawal.
it mean they aren’t breaking international law
They are “breaking international law” in the sense that I am “breaking Russian law” when I protest their invasion of Ukraine.
Russian law is meaningless to me unless I am in Russia. And the ICC is meaningless unless someone is in a state that accepts ICC jurisdiction.
There are plenty of people with ICC arrest warrants who have not been dragged to the Hague. Including Putin. They avoid going to the Hague simply by never setting foot in countries under ICC jurisdiction.
there’s clauses that allow most of those bodies to act directly against them now without reprocussion
There are no such clauses.
Keep in mind that the USA also withdrew from the ICC. China never signed at all. Nevertheless, international bodies cannot act against the USA or China “without repercussion”. The same is true of Israel.
the hague
Israel (like the USA) has withdrawn from the Rome Statute and no longer accepts jurisdiction of the ICC.
Unlike you or me, states are sovereign and are allowed to withdraw from treaty jurisdiction. The ICC even specifies the process for doing so.
It’s internationally illegal
Booby traps are banned by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. But like all treaties, failure to abide by it simply means Israel’s enemies won’t abide by it.
Treaties are like contracts. When you sign an employment contract, your employer agrees to pay you and you agree to show up to work. If you fail to show up, your employer can’t really force you to work. They just stop paying you. And if your employer unilaterally decides not to pay you any more then you can decide not to show up to work any more.
Likewise, if a country exits the EU or NATO or NAFTA or the Geneva Convention, then they stop receiving the benefits of membership. Nothing more.
First of all, I never said Hezbollah are terrorists.
More important, this is about legality not morality. Governments adhere to the laws of armed conflict not out morality, but because they want their enemies to adhere to them. International law is always transactional.
So if a government doesn’t adhere to the laws of armed conflict, then its enemies won’t adhere to them either. That’s pretty much the only enforcement mechanism, by the way.
In all of those fringe cases, 12 people thought the person was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. And beyond any reasonable doubt basically means 100% certainty (ie any doubt is unreasonable).
People who think it’s ok to execute someone when guilt is “100% certain” are the people who designed the current system.
Does launching rockets at Israel violate international law?
Did the kids killed by rockets in a soccer field pose an imminent lethal threat?
Weight depends on location. For example, you would weigh less on the moon.
I think you can. For example, I am 100% sure that Ethan Crumbley shot his classmates. (That doesn’t mean I think he should be executed though).
If they get one “unimportant” fact wrong, then why should I trust the “important” facts?
“Harris has a consistent platform and refuses to flip-flop the second time she is asked about it”
It’s not up to Congress, states decide how to run their elections.
If none of the facts need to be correct except that police pointed a gun at someone’s head, why read the other 2000+ words in the article?
We passed a historic climate bill and nobody cared. When nobody cares, politicians focus their energy on something else.
I don’t think that said there is footage of him buying rope, they said there is evidence of him buying rope. That could be something like a credit card charge, eyewitness reports, etc.
he was close enough to the ground that at least his feet were touching
FWIW, he was found in a seated position
An indictment against Netanyahu doesn’t really affect Israel’s trade deals. Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of the Economy, etc are free to go where they need to conclude any deals.
And most of Netanyahu’s foreign trips before indictment were to the US and Russia, which he is still free to visit. He also frequently visits Jordan, which is an ICC member but in the past has refused to arrest visitors with ICC warrants.