The International Criminal Court (ICC)

[Jayhawker Soule]

From The Washington Post Editorial Board:

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons and waged a bloody campaign of ethnic cleansing in his brutal suppression of an uprising that has killed half a million people, many of them civilians. In Myanmar, military dictator Gen. Min Aung Hlaing and his army have been responsible for bombing civilian villages in its war against the long-persecuted Rohingya minority. And in Sudan, a new potential genocide threatens the Darfur region’s Black Masalit people at the hands of Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, who is known as Hemedti, and his Rapid Support Forces.​

​

So who does the International Criminal Court wish to arrest for war crimes? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense chief Yoav Gallant. [source]​

I'm no friend of Netanyahu and Gallant, but the curation of the ICC should be disqualifying.

 

[InChrist]

From The Washington Post Editorial Board:

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons and waged a bloody campaign of ethnic cleansing in his brutal suppression of an uprising that has killed half a million people, many of them civilians. In Myanmar, military dictator Gen. Min Aung Hlaing and his army have been responsible for bombing civilian villages in its war against the long-persecuted Rohingya minority. And in Sudan, a new potential genocide threatens the Darfur region’s Black Masalit people at the hands of Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, who is known as Hemedti, and his Rapid Support Forces.​

​

So who does the International Criminal Court wish to arrest for war crimes? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense chief Yoav Gallant. [source]​

I'm no friend of Netanyahu and Gallant, but the curation of the ICC should be disqualifying.

I think the ruling of the ICC against Netanyahu and Gallant, while ignoring atrocities as those you listed, displays complete hypocrisy, a double standard, and clearly a hostile attitude toward the people and nation of Israel.


“The ICC ruling is blatantly anti-semitic, Smith asserted, adding that “it is one of the worst marks on them imaginable to indict a sitting prime minister who is defending his country against aggression.”

“It’s demonic, and we need to call it out,” he concluded.

Israeli leaders were rightfully enraged by the targeting of their Prime Minister and the open bias of the international court. Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, wrote: “The ICC’s decision is the pinnacle of diplomatic terrorism. It targets the only democracy in the Middle East and rewards the barbarity and violence of extremist terrorist organizations. The State of Israel fights for the moral values of the Western world, but today these values have been trampled on. We will never give up our basic right to self-defense and no institution or resolution of the UN will change this.”

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katzcalled the ICC ruling a “moral disgrace, entirely tainted by antisemitism,” adding that it “drags the international judicial system to an unprecedented low.”

https://harbingersdaily.com/the-pinnacle-of-diplomatic-terrorism-israeli-officials-congressmen-and-christian-leaders-decry-the-hypocrisy-of-icc-arrest-warrants/

 

[Estro Felino]

The fact that the ICC didn't punish the crimes in Argentina during Videla's dictatorship or the crimes of certain troops in Iraq and in Libya...shows clearly that their credibility is below zero.

Legal double standards is not allowed in our incredibly advanced civilization.

That is, a murderer is acquitted and the other is sentenced to life.

 

[Estro Felino]

And by the way....I am not saying that I approve of the Gazan War.
I am against all wars.

But from that court...I don't accept anything.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm no friend of Netanyahu and Gallant, but the curation of the ICC should be disqualifying.

I hope also for Putin.

Or...does the ICC magically becomes juridically reliable...when it deals with the enemies of the Sorosian Empire?

 

[InChrist]

The fact that the ICC didn't punish the crimes in Argentina during Videla's dictatorship or the crimes of certain troops in Iraq and in Libya...shows clearly that their credibility is below ZERO.

Legal double standards is not allowed in our incredibly advanced civilization.

That is, a murderer is acquitted and the other is sentenced to life.

I agree, the ICC has no credibility and their rulings should be ignored.

 

[anotherneil]

From The Washington Post Editorial Board:

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons and waged a bloody campaign of ethnic cleansing in his brutal suppression of an uprising that has killed half a million people, many of them civilians. In Myanmar, military dictator Gen. Min Aung Hlaing and his army have been responsible for bombing civilian villages in its war against the long-persecuted Rohingya minority. And in Sudan, a new potential genocide threatens the Darfur region’s Black Masalit people at the hands of Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, who is known as Hemedti, and his Rapid Support Forces.​

​

So who does the International Criminal Court wish to arrest for war crimes? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense chief Yoav Gallant. [source]​

I'm no friend of Netanyahu and Gallant, but the curation of the ICC should be disqualifying.

Why, and why do you, in a seemingly callous way & with blatant disregard, omit the fact that the ICC also issued an arrest warrant for Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri (Deif) (source: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situat...issues-warrant-arrest-mohammed-diab-ibrahim)?

I'm no fan of the ICC; in fact, my position regarding the UN and US is to get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of the US (unless they pay each and every individual US citizen an exorbitant periodic fee to house their headquarters here in the US), but your cherry picking curation should be disqualifying.

 

[Estro Felino]

Why, and why do you, in a seemingly callous way & with blatant disregard, omit the fact that the ICC also issued an arrest warrant for Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri (Deif) (source: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situat...issues-warrant-arrest-mohammed-diab-ibrahim)?

I'm no fan of the ICC; in fact, my position regarding the UN and US is to get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of the US (unless they pay each and every individual US citizen an exorbitant periodic fee to house their headquarters here in the US), but your cherry picking curation should be disqualifying.

Where was the ICC during the Donbas War? From 2014 to 2021?
On vacation?
I mean...come on...who are they?

Nobody.

 

[Heyo]

From The Washington Post Editorial Board:

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons and waged a bloody campaign of ethnic cleansing in his brutal suppression of an uprising that has killed half a million people, many of them civilians. In Myanmar, military dictator Gen. Min Aung Hlaing and his army have been responsible for bombing civilian villages in its war against the long-persecuted Rohingya minority. And in Sudan, a new potential genocide threatens the Darfur region’s Black Masalit people at the hands of Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, who is known as Hemedti, and his Rapid Support Forces.​

​

So who does the International Criminal Court wish to arrest for war crimes? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense chief Yoav Gallant. [source]​

I'm no friend of Netanyahu and Gallant, but the curation of the ICC should be disqualifying.

You aren't very well versed in jurisdiction, are you?

A court (and that does include the ICC) doesn't decide to issue an arrest warrant by itself. They react to a request by a prosecutor.
Also, the court has limited jurisdiction. Not all nations have ratified the Rome Statute.

 

[anotherneil]

Where was the ICC during the Donbas War? From 2014 to 2021?
On vacation?
I mean...come on...who are they?

Nobody.

Do you think the UN serves any useful practical purpose that benefits humanity? To me, it's just an attempt at one world government & I have an idea of who the intended head of this one world government is - just look at who has many votes in the UN & I'm referring to the monarch from London.

 

[Debater Slayer]

From The Washington Post Editorial Board:

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons and waged a bloody campaign of ethnic cleansing in his brutal suppression of an uprising that has killed half a million people, many of them civilians. In Myanmar, military dictator Gen. Min Aung Hlaing and his army have been responsible for bombing civilian villages in its war against the long-persecuted Rohingya minority. And in Sudan, a new potential genocide threatens the Darfur region’s Black Masalit people at the hands of Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, who is known as Hemedti, and his Rapid Support Forces.​

​

So who does the International Criminal Court wish to arrest for war crimes? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense chief Yoav Gallant. [source]​

I'm no friend of Netanyahu and Gallant, but the curation of the ICC should be disqualifying.

As far as I know, Myanmar, Sudan, and Syria are not state parties to the Rome Statute, whereas Palestine is. Similarly, while Russia is not a state party, Ukraine is, so Putin had an arrest warrant issued against him too.

This is not to say that the ICC doesn't have inconsistencies and flaws, but if Israel's allies—especially the most powerful and influential ones like the US and Germany—had not been so thoroughly complicit in and approving of the atrocities in Gaza and the illegal occupation of the West Bank, I doubt the arrest warrants would have been necessary, but none of them have done anything notable to stop the mass slaughter and expansion of illegal settlements. I appreciate that the ICC has at least tried to take some sort of action against the ongoing mass slaughter and abuse.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think the ruling of the ICC against Netanyahu and Gallant, while ignoring atrocities as those you listed, displays complete hypocrisy, a double standard, and clearly a hostile attitude toward the people and nation of Israel.

I find the above as predictable as it is an oversimplification of the ruling and its reasons. However, I'm not surprised: I'm aware that supporters of hardline evangelical Zionism usually consider the ongoing massacres to be part of a holy war, so the default position in such an extreme framework is usually to dismiss any criticism of the Israeli government's actions and find ad hoc rationalizations for them.

As for the site you posted ("The Harbinger Daily"), I think its purpose should be highlighted: it is readily obvious that it is a hardline, fundamentalist source that promotes theocracy, hostility to other religions, and antipathy to science. That such a source would support atrocities as part of a perceived holy war doesn't surprise me, although I still find the site and indeed the unquestioning support for any country on the basis of a literalist belief about the end times to be genuinely cultlike and dangerous.

Hardline evangelical Zionism seems to me the mirror image of Islamism and no less dangerous and hostile to human rights and peace.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why, and why do you, in a seemingly callous way ...

<yawn>

you're back​

</yawn>

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You aren't very well versed in jurisdiction, are you?

No.

 

[anotherneil]

<yawn>

you're back​

</yawn>

So, no good reason; duly noted.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As far as I know, Myanmar, Sudan, and Syria are not state parties to the Rome Statute, whereas Palestine is. Similarly, while Russia is not a state party, Ukraine is, so Putin had an arrest warrant issued against him too.

This is not to say that the ICC doesn't have inconsistencies and flaws, but if Israel's allies—especially the most powerful and influential ones like the US and Germany—had not been so thoroughly complicit in and approving of the atrocities in Gaza and the illegal occupation of the West Bank, I doubt the arrest warrants would have been necessary, but none of them have done anything notable to stop the mass slaughter and expansion of illegal settlements.

Agree.

I appreciate that the ICC has at least tried to take some sort of action against the ongoing mass slaughter and abuse.

The point of this thread was to note "that the ICC has at least tried to take some sort of action against the ongoing mass slaughter and abuse" with stark selectively warranting more than a suggestion of "inconsistencies and flaws."

And, of course, none of this should detract from the just condemnation of the horrors being perpetrated by the Israeli regime.

 

[Heyo]

Do you think the UN serves any useful practical purpose that benefits humanity? To me, it's just an attempt at one world government & I have an idea of who the intended head of this one world government is - just look at who has many votes in the UN & I'm referring to the monarch from London.

The UN was, at the time of its founding in '42, an attempt to prevent wars like WWII. It was never thought of as world government, and it isn't now.
Adult people agree to rules, that regulate social living at a wide range of communities, and form entities that enforce the rules.
You have a mayor at your town, a county executive, a parliament and a governor at your State and you have a President.
Only at the country level, we behave like kindergarteners, refusing to give up a little sovereignty for social cohesion.

The UN is currently the only organization that is trying to prevent total chaos on a global level. It is flawed in many ways, most of all because some members are very privileged.
But it is the only thing we've got.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The point of this thread was to note "that the ICC has at least tried to take some sort of action against the ongoing mass slaughter and abuse" with stark selectively warranting more than a suggestion of "inconsistencies and flaws."

Noted. I have long believed that the ICC, like the ICJ, is in major need of reform in order to be more consistent and perhaps have some sort of actual power so that its rulings are no longer primarily symbolic gestures. I think the fact that most of the world's largest nuclear powers—the US, China, Russia, and India—are not members of the ICC highly reduces the chances of such reform and most likely means it will remain a barely functional body for the foreserable future.

As for the apparent indifference to the plights of Syrians, Sudanese, and the Rohyngia (not just from many international bodies but also from a large number of major media outlets and officials), I find it downright appalling and would add the horrifying situation in the Congo, among others, to that list.

And, of course, none of this should detract from the just condemnation of the horrors being perpetrated by the Israeli regime.

I agree.

 

[anotherneil]

The UN was, at the time of its founding in '42, an attempt to prevent wars like WWII.

I'm already familiar with the narrative pertaining to the UN & the use of the League of Nations to get it to where it's at now.

It was never thought of as world government, and it isn't now.

Prove it & good luck trying to prove a negative.

Adult people agree to rules, that regulate social living at a wide range of communities, and form entities that enforce the rules.
You have a mayor at your town, a county executive, a parliament and a governor at your State and you have a President.

What is this, an elementary school civics lesson that I don't need?

Only at the country level, we behave like kindergarteners, refusing to give up a little sovereignty for social cohesion.

I don't know about behaving like kindergarteners; it's behaving like mature, skeptical, responsible adults who don't want to be oppressed, enslaved, or subjected to genocide.

Maybe in your country you have no concept of this, because you're conditioned to be a loyal subject or whatever, but here in the US we have some mottos & sayings; we've also made flags with them - for example:

The UN is currently the only organization that is trying to prevent total chaos on a global level.

How's that working out?

It is flawed in many ways, most of all because some members are very privileged.

Hence the reason it needs to go & it sounds like we're in agreement about the UN.

But it is the only thing we've got.

We don't need it or want it.

 

[Heyo]

Hence the reason it needs to go & it sounds like we're in agreement about the UN.

We don't need it or want it.

We need it, or something better, preferably something better, but until that happens, let's keep the flawed surrogate.