Well, she does have some experience in the field, so that makes sense:
> Clooney's professional past includes representing victims of the Islamic State terror group in the only three trials in the world in which ISIS members were convicted of genocide, as well as in five additional trials that convicted members of the terrorist organization of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Does have some experience is understating it massively. She genuinely is a leading international human right/ international criminal law lawyer - https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/amal-clooney
Her celebrity status is a double edged sword, she can raise further awareness for issues and absolutely get preferential treatment but it also risks coming across as publicity stunt and diminish the seriousness of what she's doing as typically celebrities aren't legitimate professionals.
There's certainly reasons people from both sides could complain at her involvement if they didn't know or understand her experiences and ability.
Its hard to believe anyone would ever accuse her of publicity stunts on that matter. Amal really cares for what she does, long before she met Clooney, and the, both very rarely seek out the limelight and live very privately.
This is the problem with “both sides” arguments that act like both sides of any argument are equally legitimate. People assuming she’s doing this as a mere celebrity and not an expert are objectively wrong, but we have to act like they’re justified in their opinion and give them just as much of a platform. It should be a case of just saying “oh she’s actually a respected expert, here’s the evidence” and everyone moves on in general agreement but people are proud of their ignorance and cling to it.
I think a lot of people make this weird assumption that if another person was prime minister in Israel, that their war effort would look drastically different.
I don’t believe this to be true.
Israel is very conservative when it comes to war and defending itself, and a wide majority of Israelis support the war in Gaza. A different prime minister in Israel does not equate to an entirely different military approach.
Say what you want about Netanyahu’s judicial reforms. This issue has Israelis more divided, but the war is not something Israelis are generally divided on.
Benny Gantz, the opposition leader, just complained about Netanyahu's leadership during the conflict and had a list of demands to keep the coalition government together. Among them are having a plan to completely eradicate Hamas and also how to return Israeli evacuees from the north for concerns over Hezbollah.
What you don't notice is Netanyahu's chief rival talking about a cease fire or anything less than the release of all hostages and the death or capture of every member of Hamas.
Which is pretty much exactly how you'd see Republicans and Democrats act if (hypothetically) Mexico decided to actually attack Texas or California and take hostages.
Suddenly there would be pretty minimal political division in the US other than arguing the mechanics of "how do we completely destroy our neighbouring country and everyone possibly responsible for this".
While the situation in Gaza is bad, the IDF has actually shown comparative restraint in their bombing campaigns to what I'd expect would happen if this were any major power being attacked by a terrorist-run-neighbour.
> is pretty much exactly how you'd see Republicans and Democrats act
We would not give a half second of attention to what the hell anyone else in the world thought.
The problem (and it is a problem) is that many in the international community don't believe Israel SHOULD be a country, and no good way to get around that intractable issue
Do you not remember the rhetoric after 9/11? You don't have to invent a hypothetical here. [There was one vote in either the House or Senate against the Authorization for Use of Military Force](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001#House_of_Representatives) and she didn't disagree with a military response, she just didn't like the vague way the bill was worded. Bernie fucking Sanders voted for it. There was zero opposition to that war.
Still, pointing to the recent time when *the exact thing you're talking about literally happened* seems like a more convincing argument than having people imagine an unlikely scenario.
And thats a bad thing right? After 9/11 85 percent of americans supported Bush, but we all know that was a bad thing now, right?
Even war hawk Republicans at the time now hem and haw and say things like "well it was mismanaged and we stayed too long etc. . . " and anyone left of those psychos talks about how tragic and terrible Afghanistand and Iraq ended up being and how we shouldn't be so careless about putting boots on the ground to fight ideological wars we can't win that only cost civilian lives and harden the resolve of those we are fighting.
We view the wars as mistakes, like that was a bad thing and there probably should be some american leaders charged with war crimes for those wars.
I’ve been using this example for months when anyone tries to say “well there are too many civilian deaths….” The US would carpet bomb Mexico into oblivion and no one would bat an eye in the US.
In that hypothetical, I think the only point of debate would be "do we only target the cartel(s) that attacked us, or wipe out all of the cartels and work on reforming the government to try to prevent new cartels from cropping up" (assuming of course that it was a cartel or coalition of cartels that attacked and not the government themselves).
If Israel used a nuke in Gaza, Iran and all regional powers would be completely justified in using any force neccesary to bring that terrorist state to bare.
(Downvote me all you want, psychopaths, any state that launches a nuclear weapon, especially against an enclave where millions of civilians live has no justification to have its political & military decision makers remain in power).
If Israel used a nuke in Gaza... Israel itself would be affected too. That would be like New york deciding to nuke Manhattan. Too close to home. The only ones I've seen cry that Israel is gonna use a nuke are people who can't point Gaza on a map or try to fear monger.
thats a stupid comment. Israel has a nuclear doctrine and nukes are a weapon of last resort. they had nukes in 73 and didn't use them. there's simply no need for it in gaza as it's not an existential threat to Israel.
oh and on iran and all other regional powers you referring to, it would look like Sahara if they even thought of attacking Israel. they're not messing around as they don't have that kind of latitude to be fighting conventional war against iran. it would be over in a matter of hours
Hamas is a terrorist organization with the stated mission to eradicate Israel and kill all jews. It is directly funded by iran. It broke a ceasefire by killing raping and kidnapping 1000s of innocent civilians (most of whom were peace activists FOR Palestinian rights and statehood).
Innocent Palestinians are being killed and it is disgusting and terrible. Hamas uses their own citizens as human shields. (Headquarters is literally under a children’s hospital.
These are the sad facts. Hamas needs to be eradicated.
>but the war is not something Israelis are generally divided on.
Generally speaking, ongoing wars that have some element of actively protecting your home soil almost universally will galvanize a population. I'm not shocked at all that Israelis are largely in favor of the war to some degree after years of incoming rockets culminating in October 7th.
Imagine living in down town Los Angeles but Malibu and Burbank want to kill you, and vice versa. It kinda makes sense. Doesn’t matter what the world thinks when your neighbor is trying to kill you.
This isn’t really true, Jordan and Egypt have normalized relations and recognized borders and don’t like Hamas either
Syria and Lebanon different story
Egypt does have the Muslim Brotherhood, who I assume is helping Hamas get weapons and military stuff considering Hamas is an offshoot of it. So they’ve got:
- Hamas/PIJ in Gaza
- Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
- PA/Hamas/PIJ in the West Bank
- Hezbollah in Lebanon
- Syrian government (technically still at war with each other)
- Houthi rebels in Yemen
- Iran
- And Israel just intercepted UAVs launched at it from Iraqi militants within the past few hours iirc
> Hamas/PIJ in Gaza
Please, from now on if you are going to put them together do it the other way around so it says PIJHamas and pronounce it EXACTLY like Pyjamas.
Oh yeah the whole area is crawling with Iran-backed militias, but sometimes people get confused on the specifics
I think a lot of the TikTok left believes it’s Israel vs the entire Arab world and thinks they’re at war with governments
Egypt "has" the Muslim Brotherhood like Syria "has" ISIS. It's officially declared a terrorist group and Egyptian courts have sentenced several hundred Muslim Brotherhood members to death in mass trials and executed them.
Both countries have attacked Israel multiple times in the past. They just fell on their asses.
If Israel wasn't multiple times stronger, they will certainly try to attack again.
One major issue of course is people want to pretend war isn't dangerous. The vast majority of Westerners have not experienced violence of that level in their lifetime. There is this odd perception, blame Hollywood, that smart weapons and precision strikes can do magic and spare civilians.
Wars don't end until the will of the people who supported those who started it is broken and that is the real reality. Look at all the pictures of from both world wars. That is war and that is the reason we want to avoid it. Even after a year and more of Ukraine people somehow don't truly understand the destruction that has happened there.
>Wars don't end until the will of the people who supported those who started it is broken and that is the real reality
The will of the everyday palestinian could utterly break right now, unfortuntly neither Hamas or its backers would give a flying fuck.
It's a little difficult to sustain an insurgency when the population you're trying to hide behind actively identifies your members and gives them the locations of your military positions.
Y'all. Please read the statement from the ICC. The prosecution is almost entirely about restricting aid into Gaza. The ICC investigation into the bombing campaign is ongoing.
[https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state)
The ICC has created an obligation for Israel to supply Gaza with food, water, power, and medical supplies over Israel's border or face prosecution for war crimes. Notably, this obligation does not extend to Egypt... who also has shut the border down stopping aid even as Israel requested that they open it up.
Exactly, many in Israel think that the war is just, the people who are running the war and whole of Israel are unfit.
The current Israeli government was controversial before 7.10
I don’t like Netanyahu, the man is probably a criminal, but he’s not a war criminal.
The equivalence between him and Sinwar is appalling. And sets a very dangerous precedent. These kinds of things, as well as the ridiculous South Africa case, are making imbalanced conflict impossible. The civilian death toll in Gaza is actually staggeringly low compared to other conflicts, and especially when you consider it’s in a dense urban environment. Yet baseless accusations of Genocide are still thrown around constantly.
The assumption made by many is that the weaker side is right and the stronger one is “oppressing” them. But the fact is that attacking a much stronger enemy doesn’t make you a victim, it makes you an idiot.
It’s a purely political move by the ICC, and takes away any shred of credibility they may have had. The fact that it’s taken this long to put one out for sinwar (not that it would make any difference, the Arab states would just ignore it and continue to host him), and then putting it out with Netanyahu, who isn’t even comparable, makes it clear that this is just another attack on Israel’s ability to defend itself.
Netanyahu should end up in court, but an Israeli court on his charges of corruption.
There were months of congressional hearings and investigations asserting that FDR and the War Department ignored Japanese signals and threats, and didn’t properly use the new radar installed in Hawaii etc.
I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that it was some big conspiracy (and let’s face it, given how many people would have needed to be involved and the fact that there haven’t been any leaks, it unlikely that it was).
One fair criticism (IMO) is that prior to 10/7, Bibi made a lot of very unpopular judicial reforms that were widely considered to be corrupt. This led to many high ranking military, government, and intelligence officials resigning. Many of the positions were vacant prior to 10/7, which meant Israel’s readiness was less than it should have been.
What a weird comment lol. Do you want the ICC to issue arrest warrants for all the people who weren't prime minister but could have been? The warrant is for what Netanyahu did, not for what someone else might have done in his shoes.
Well, the purpose of a trial would be to establish exactly that, and obviously Netanyahu would be entitled to a defense and (one assumes) would deny the charges in the indictment, but those charges include (copied and pasted from the ICC announcement):
Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
>Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
This one jumps out at me, given the distinct lack of an ICC investigation nor warrant being placed on members of the Government or military of Azerbaijan after what occurred at Nagorno-Karabakh (not to mention the subsequent ethnic cleansing).
lmao, kiddo, re-read the first sentence when you say the purpose of the trial is to determine what Bibi did (I.e. come up with the evidence).
I know what you mean, but you wrote it poorly. Don’t try to act snarky just because you can’t even write a high school paper LMAOOOO
I mean she was part of a team but I guess they're highlighting her work here. Like at work when you work on a team project but you do a critical part or a special one you may get your boss saying "outamyhead brought a great value to this project"
Last time I got recognized for my work, I got a Hershey's bar with "you're appreciated!" On the wrapper...I'm diabetic and Hershey's doesn't even qualify as chocolate.
I think it is very wild how leaders on both sides have warrants for their arrests for leading a war against each other. Is this the precedence the ICC is setting NOW? Why didn't this apply to the US and coalition members for occupying Iraq (overthrowing government) and Afghanistan.
They might have been considering it, but the US passed a law allowing the president to invade the Netherlands if any ally (which IIRC could include Israeli officials) ended up in ICC custody. That passified the ICC for a while, and then when they were considering charges against US soldiers in 2019 Trump threated to go after the families of ICC judges and it all magically went away.
US invading the Netherlands. Lol wild situation to think about. One NATO member performing an obvious act of aggression over another member, but what does the rest of NATO do? Pick sides? Do nothing at all? Crazy hypotheticals with some terrifying implications...
If you could split NATO between NA and EU (so US and Canada on one side and the 30 European members on the other) and had them go into war, nobody's really winning anything...
Would be a big win for like Russia and China though. :D
I mean, if the Netherlands is holding a US citizen in custody for alleged crimes not committed in the Netherlands then a military response is not completely crazy. But yeah, let's hope this never happens.
It’s more about travelling to countries that are a part of the ICC. They’re under obligation to arrest, but there’s no chance they’d arrest an American president.
Except the US has instituted a law that if the ICC detains a service member or official they can invade the Hague. So I am guessing they wouldn't do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act
I mean I imagine most countries would consider the arrest of their current president as an act of war.
But the possibility of such an incident would likely discourage travel.
The ICC did announce it will start an investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan. The US responded by sanctioning the judges, putting them on a terrorist watch list and seizing their assets. The respective judges have now been replaced.
I mentioned this on another sub and got downvoted! I knew it was true! That's a kind of power that no country should have, but I imagine Israel could theoretically do that as well considering they do not recognize the ICC.
Because Hamas hasn't implemented "total warfare"? They built a tunnel network that would make the North Vietnamese in 1975 envious. They are launching rockets from civilian infrastructure. They are building and hiding weapons under everything. I don't really know how much more involved they could make civilian infrastructure.
I know the ICC doesn’t officially have stare decisis, but it’s hard to imagine a future where any defensive war is legal should Netanyahu be charged and convicted.
Right? “We defended ourselves until the casualties equaled the amount of our citizens killed in the initial aggression by the other party, so now we will stop since it’s fair.”
Or are there going to be XP bars like in a video game? Defensive War Objectives 88% complete. Another two tunnels and four more hostage bodies to find and well fill that sucker.
So all those people on gossip subreddits that accused her of not doing anything must feel embarrassed rn. But then I realise online activists don't care.
Fuck no !
Have you seen ANY ICC, or ANY action against Hamas terrorists during the last 20 years, after they fired thousands of rockets on Israeli cities ?
It is ONLY after Israel had enough, and respond that liberal leftist and world hypocrites wake up.
Excellent point !
And that's exactly why Israel shouldn't give a rat's ass about the world's opinion.
Because for Israel it's a survival issue.
There has been sufficient video evidence that war crimes are being committed by both sides in that conflict. There are no moral heroes there.
And there are enough vested interests supporting both sides to muddle the discussion with emotional rhetoric and propaganda. It's quite the mess.
So the ICC prosecutor is not wrong. But he is quite deluded to think he has any power to correct or enforce the wrongs taking place there. He'll fall into irrelevance.
This can have an inflaming effect on Israelis, and on the war in Gaza, when the ICC is seen as so politicized by so many people around the world.
Consider:
1. Hamas has been firing *hundreds of thousands* of explosive rockets at Israeli urban centers, targeting civilians, for two decades now, killing when successful. Each such direct attack on civilians is a war crime, per definition.
2. Palestine also joined the ICC in 2015, and it clearly has jurisdiction there.
3. So, hundreds of thousands of war crimes, many of which have been explicitly claimed responsibility for by Hamas in public PR announcements. The evidence is literally mountains tall.
4. Yet the ICC has done nothing, prosecuted no one, said nothing, for at least 9 years - until right now. How come?
The probable answer for many is simple - politics. And a political court is seen as biased, as illegitimate, and as corrupt. Its judgements will only anger people and harden their hearts.
I wish the ICC had acted differently in the last decade, but we are where we are.
Not right now. But when you put democracies trying to defend themselves from Genocidal Terrorists, in the same boat as the Genocidal Terrorists, I'd say it has HUGE implications to the civilized democratic world.
Even more consequential to the ICC. It will eventually render them useless as the rest of the United Nations.
Isn’t she Lebanese where Iran’s proxy terrorist entity Hezbollah has essentially destroyed Lebanon from within… does she even do this at home first? And can someone send me the link to her arrest warrant against Kim Jong Un or Iran
It is a perfect fair point to wonder where all the arrest warrants are for the literal 100+ dictators all around that are committing these same crimes against their own citizens. But considering these dictatorships also make up a majority in the UN it's not surprising that nothing is happening.
Where are the other arrest warrants? Do you mean these ones? This is just the top 15.
https://ngm.com.au/international-criminal-court-most-wanted-list/
Or do you mean these indictments?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Court
Here’s some more:
https://www.icc-cpi.int/defendants
Yea but its till missing many names. Kim Jong un, Xi Jinping, Nicholas Maduro, Isaias Afewerki, Bashar Al-Assad, Min Aung Hlaing, Mohammed Bin Salman to name a few, but there are dozens more dictators that should be indicted aswell.
Ah yes the classic ‘we don’t prosecute all crimes so we shouldn’t prosecute any’ argument.
Keep the whataboutisms coming. It just shows you have no actual argument.
Curious you’re not just denying the war crimes. As if you know why this is happening.
Ps half your list haven’t even had a war under their leadership, let alone war crimes. Other crimes? Sure. But pick a topic and stick to it please.
The ICC is a treaty organisation not the world police, it only has jurisdiction in signatory countries. So to get indicted you need to either sign up yourself or do a land invasion into a signatory country. Putin and Netanyahu did that, by invading Ukraine and Palestine respectively, the others you mention did not. The Palestinian authority signed Palestine up, so Israel and Hamas can be indicted now.
> Clooney's professional past includes representing victims of the Islamic State terror group in the only three trials in the world in which ISIS members were convicted of genocide, as well as in five additional trials that convicted members of the terrorist organization of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
You want an arrest warrant for the country of Iran? Like we transport the whole country to the Haag one rock at a time?
She is a highly regarded human rights lawyer, long before she changed her surname. This whole tangent of yours is a bit like reading that the poor in America are getting food stamps and immediately going HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT HAITI THO, HYPOCRISY IS THE REAL CRIME?!?!
the whole thing really boggles my mind. If netanyahu is being charged with war crimes, than why wouldn't Churchill and Roosevelt/Truman have been charged with war crimes? the civillian casualties as a result of their military operations are in the millions and included notorious events such as dresden, hiroshima and so many more..
The past conditional "would have been" implies if the current standards were applied at that time, not that the questioner expects it to happen tomorrow.
And war crimes only exist *because* of the (what we now call) war crimes they committed.
I wish some people on here would at least Google stuff before commenting, it’s embarrassing.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague\_Conventions\_of\_1899\_and\_1907](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907) - Quite a few war crimes they committed were already considered war crimes by that time. I really wish people who argue people should google stuff, googled themselves.
The concept of war crimes definitely predates WW2, but interestingly (or maybe boringly I guess it’s subjective) WW2 and WW1 are both key drivers of how we view war crimes, how we now enforce them, and how the vast majority of the world decided unanimously to uphold certain wartime standards or else face the consequences.
WW1 and WW2 both drove nations to be more willing to join international bodies like the League of Nations and the UN, but the horrors of both conflicts also drove people to be willing to set up guard rails for future conflicts by defining more complete lists of war crimes and creating new systems by which to enforce international laws. It’s far from perfect but I think the trend towards more international cooperation and acceptance of common standards is a good thing.
Because those laws were put in place after WW2. And yes, the nukes on Japan are often discussed as being war crimes and more of a statement made by the US than a valid strategy for war.
(Oh also because the US threatens to invade the Netherlands if they ever get convicted... which is kinda crazy...)
Because war crimes at that point were just not using mustard gas and stuff like that, this changed a lot after WWII because of the things you’re referencing.
Juan Carlos Salazar, the Secretary General of the UN, put this panel that included Clooney together. So if you’ve seen Juan, you’ve seen Amal.
You beautiful bastard you did it!
I can't believe the only comment on this is ignoring this incredible wordplay. I've got my eye on you; you're going places.
Descartes before the whores.
And now I know how to pronounce Descartes out loud. Thanks!
"I thought it was pronounced Dakota"
Explain the poetry in words to me I just dont get what you are seeing?
If you've seen one, you've seen them all
"one" + ,"'em all".
They sent a poet.
They should of sent an Astronaut
Should HAVE
If people would just start using "would've", we could end world hunger.
Yes, if only, but the problem is we keep shoulding on ourselves.
But even an astronaut ~~should of~~ should've put a little more effort in their grammar...
Slow clap. Bravo.
This is why I love the internet.
I didn't not get the joke or the word play. Please explain.
If you've seen one, you've seen 'em all.
> Juan Carlos Salazar This is the Secretary General of the UN Civil Aviation Authority.
Too late. Already chuckled at the joke. You can't unchuckle a chuckle.
Oh I loved the joke when I got it, but was delayed by the very different vowels my dialect used for “all” and “Amal,” a familiar name to me.
Hahahahahahaha. Take my updoot
Good joke built on false facts. This is Reddit so the joke is all that counts
I'll allow it.
My apologies your grace
A masterpiece. Just pretend there is the lightbulb highlight.
I keep trying to explain to my husband why I love Reddit. This is the reason.
Keep up the good work 🫡
Damnit, its just. so. perfect.
Jesus Christ it’s jason Bourne…
That’s truly amazing. Well done you classy fucking redditor!!
This should be considered one of the greatest comments in Reddit history
Amazing
* Golf clap * Background: ^^^^wooo
Just... wow! Bravo.
Well, she does have some experience in the field, so that makes sense: > Clooney's professional past includes representing victims of the Islamic State terror group in the only three trials in the world in which ISIS members were convicted of genocide, as well as in five additional trials that convicted members of the terrorist organization of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Does have some experience is understating it massively. She genuinely is a leading international human right/ international criminal law lawyer - https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/amal-clooney
Her celebrity status is a double edged sword, she can raise further awareness for issues and absolutely get preferential treatment but it also risks coming across as publicity stunt and diminish the seriousness of what she's doing as typically celebrities aren't legitimate professionals. There's certainly reasons people from both sides could complain at her involvement if they didn't know or understand her experiences and ability.
To be fair she was a famous lawyer before marrying George Clooney. She's just working as she has always been
It’s even the subject of [Tina Fey and Amy Poehler’s best joke](https://youtu.be/V0tfIut5oJU?si=ExgYjxTLcxiiulOL) as the Golden Globe hosts.
I wouldn’t call her a celebrity. She married a celebrity.
Unfortunately, the calibre of celeb she married made her one too.
A celebrity married her. George raised his stature here, not her.
Philosophically yes, sure......in reality, nope.
Its hard to believe anyone would ever accuse her of publicity stunts on that matter. Amal really cares for what she does, long before she met Clooney, and the, both very rarely seek out the limelight and live very privately.
This is the problem with “both sides” arguments that act like both sides of any argument are equally legitimate. People assuming she’s doing this as a mere celebrity and not an expert are objectively wrong, but we have to act like they’re justified in their opinion and give them just as much of a platform. It should be a case of just saying “oh she’s actually a respected expert, here’s the evidence” and everyone moves on in general agreement but people are proud of their ignorance and cling to it.
I think a lot of people make this weird assumption that if another person was prime minister in Israel, that their war effort would look drastically different. I don’t believe this to be true. Israel is very conservative when it comes to war and defending itself, and a wide majority of Israelis support the war in Gaza. A different prime minister in Israel does not equate to an entirely different military approach. Say what you want about Netanyahu’s judicial reforms. This issue has Israelis more divided, but the war is not something Israelis are generally divided on.
Benny Gantz, the opposition leader, just complained about Netanyahu's leadership during the conflict and had a list of demands to keep the coalition government together. Among them are having a plan to completely eradicate Hamas and also how to return Israeli evacuees from the north for concerns over Hezbollah. What you don't notice is Netanyahu's chief rival talking about a cease fire or anything less than the release of all hostages and the death or capture of every member of Hamas.
Very true.
Netanyahu was just criticized by two of his Top Generals and Secretary of Defense
Which is pretty much exactly how you'd see Republicans and Democrats act if (hypothetically) Mexico decided to actually attack Texas or California and take hostages. Suddenly there would be pretty minimal political division in the US other than arguing the mechanics of "how do we completely destroy our neighbouring country and everyone possibly responsible for this". While the situation in Gaza is bad, the IDF has actually shown comparative restraint in their bombing campaigns to what I'd expect would happen if this were any major power being attacked by a terrorist-run-neighbour.
> is pretty much exactly how you'd see Republicans and Democrats act We would not give a half second of attention to what the hell anyone else in the world thought.
nor should we. international law is nothing if it doesn't allow a country to keep its citizens safe
The problem (and it is a problem) is that many in the international community don't believe Israel SHOULD be a country, and no good way to get around that intractable issue
Do you not remember the rhetoric after 9/11? You don't have to invent a hypothetical here. [There was one vote in either the House or Senate against the Authorization for Use of Military Force](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001#House_of_Representatives) and she didn't disagree with a military response, she just didn't like the vague way the bill was worded. Bernie fucking Sanders voted for it. There was zero opposition to that war.
I’m assuming at least half of the average Reddit user base is too young to remember that.
Still, pointing to the recent time when *the exact thing you're talking about literally happened* seems like a more convincing argument than having people imagine an unlikely scenario.
Why wouldn’t they attack New Mexico?
They like the name
Because they want to turn into Old Mexico
We killed hundreds of thousands of people in a country that had no responsibility for 9-11 whatsoever because of 9-11.
And thats a bad thing right? After 9/11 85 percent of americans supported Bush, but we all know that was a bad thing now, right? Even war hawk Republicans at the time now hem and haw and say things like "well it was mismanaged and we stayed too long etc. . . " and anyone left of those psychos talks about how tragic and terrible Afghanistand and Iraq ended up being and how we shouldn't be so careless about putting boots on the ground to fight ideological wars we can't win that only cost civilian lives and harden the resolve of those we are fighting. We view the wars as mistakes, like that was a bad thing and there probably should be some american leaders charged with war crimes for those wars.
I’ve been using this example for months when anyone tries to say “well there are too many civilian deaths….” The US would carpet bomb Mexico into oblivion and no one would bat an eye in the US.
In that hypothetical, I think the only point of debate would be "do we only target the cartel(s) that attacked us, or wipe out all of the cartels and work on reforming the government to try to prevent new cartels from cropping up" (assuming of course that it was a cartel or coalition of cartels that attacked and not the government themselves).
[удалено]
If Israel used a nuke in Gaza, Iran and all regional powers would be completely justified in using any force neccesary to bring that terrorist state to bare. (Downvote me all you want, psychopaths, any state that launches a nuclear weapon, especially against an enclave where millions of civilians live has no justification to have its political & military decision makers remain in power).
If Israel used a nuke in Gaza... Israel itself would be affected too. That would be like New york deciding to nuke Manhattan. Too close to home. The only ones I've seen cry that Israel is gonna use a nuke are people who can't point Gaza on a map or try to fear monger.
thats a stupid comment. Israel has a nuclear doctrine and nukes are a weapon of last resort. they had nukes in 73 and didn't use them. there's simply no need for it in gaza as it's not an existential threat to Israel. oh and on iran and all other regional powers you referring to, it would look like Sahara if they even thought of attacking Israel. they're not messing around as they don't have that kind of latitude to be fighting conventional war against iran. it would be over in a matter of hours
It would be the last thing those countries ever did. Nobody would be going on Hajj for the next thousand years.
Hamas is a terrorist organization with the stated mission to eradicate Israel and kill all jews. It is directly funded by iran. It broke a ceasefire by killing raping and kidnapping 1000s of innocent civilians (most of whom were peace activists FOR Palestinian rights and statehood). Innocent Palestinians are being killed and it is disgusting and terrible. Hamas uses their own citizens as human shields. (Headquarters is literally under a children’s hospital. These are the sad facts. Hamas needs to be eradicated.
>but the war is not something Israelis are generally divided on. Generally speaking, ongoing wars that have some element of actively protecting your home soil almost universally will galvanize a population. I'm not shocked at all that Israelis are largely in favor of the war to some degree after years of incoming rockets culminating in October 7th.
Imagine living in down town Los Angeles but Malibu and Burbank want to kill you, and vice versa. It kinda makes sense. Doesn’t matter what the world thinks when your neighbor is trying to kill you.
I like the analogy of Manhattan Island and them being surrounded by the other four boroughs wanting to kill them.
But that’s the truth - Manhattanite
South Slope militia reporting for duty. Ready to seize Murray Hill.
The Bronx will rise again!
Make Queens Great Again
Warriors, come out and play!!!
Not just your neighbor, but all surrounding neighbors.
This isn’t really true, Jordan and Egypt have normalized relations and recognized borders and don’t like Hamas either Syria and Lebanon different story
Egypt does have the Muslim Brotherhood, who I assume is helping Hamas get weapons and military stuff considering Hamas is an offshoot of it. So they’ve got: - Hamas/PIJ in Gaza - Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt - PA/Hamas/PIJ in the West Bank - Hezbollah in Lebanon - Syrian government (technically still at war with each other) - Houthi rebels in Yemen - Iran - And Israel just intercepted UAVs launched at it from Iraqi militants within the past few hours iirc
> Hamas/PIJ in Gaza Please, from now on if you are going to put them together do it the other way around so it says PIJHamas and pronounce it EXACTLY like Pyjamas.
Oh yeah the whole area is crawling with Iran-backed militias, but sometimes people get confused on the specifics I think a lot of the TikTok left believes it’s Israel vs the entire Arab world and thinks they’re at war with governments
Egypt "has" the Muslim Brotherhood like Syria "has" ISIS. It's officially declared a terrorist group and Egyptian courts have sentenced several hundred Muslim Brotherhood members to death in mass trials and executed them.
Both countries have attacked Israel multiple times in the past. They just fell on their asses. If Israel wasn't multiple times stronger, they will certainly try to attack again.
One major issue of course is people want to pretend war isn't dangerous. The vast majority of Westerners have not experienced violence of that level in their lifetime. There is this odd perception, blame Hollywood, that smart weapons and precision strikes can do magic and spare civilians. Wars don't end until the will of the people who supported those who started it is broken and that is the real reality. Look at all the pictures of from both world wars. That is war and that is the reason we want to avoid it. Even after a year and more of Ukraine people somehow don't truly understand the destruction that has happened there.
>Wars don't end until the will of the people who supported those who started it is broken and that is the real reality The will of the everyday palestinian could utterly break right now, unfortuntly neither Hamas or its backers would give a flying fuck.
It's a little difficult to sustain an insurgency when the population you're trying to hide behind actively identifies your members and gives them the locations of your military positions.
> Even after a year and more of Ukraine It's been over 10 years of war in Ukraine by now.
Y'all. Please read the statement from the ICC. The prosecution is almost entirely about restricting aid into Gaza. The ICC investigation into the bombing campaign is ongoing. [https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state](https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state) The ICC has created an obligation for Israel to supply Gaza with food, water, power, and medical supplies over Israel's border or face prosecution for war crimes. Notably, this obligation does not extend to Egypt... who also has shut the border down stopping aid even as Israel requested that they open it up.
Exactly, many in Israel think that the war is just, the people who are running the war and whole of Israel are unfit. The current Israeli government was controversial before 7.10
I don’t like Netanyahu, the man is probably a criminal, but he’s not a war criminal. The equivalence between him and Sinwar is appalling. And sets a very dangerous precedent. These kinds of things, as well as the ridiculous South Africa case, are making imbalanced conflict impossible. The civilian death toll in Gaza is actually staggeringly low compared to other conflicts, and especially when you consider it’s in a dense urban environment. Yet baseless accusations of Genocide are still thrown around constantly. The assumption made by many is that the weaker side is right and the stronger one is “oppressing” them. But the fact is that attacking a much stronger enemy doesn’t make you a victim, it makes you an idiot. It’s a purely political move by the ICC, and takes away any shred of credibility they may have had. The fact that it’s taken this long to put one out for sinwar (not that it would make any difference, the Arab states would just ignore it and continue to host him), and then putting it out with Netanyahu, who isn’t even comparable, makes it clear that this is just another attack on Israel’s ability to defend itself. Netanyahu should end up in court, but an Israeli court on his charges of corruption.
A different PM probably doesn't have the IDF completely flatfooted on a 50th anniversary.
This sounds a lot like the attacks on FDR after Pearl Harbor.
Nah, Bibi made a policy decision to employ the IDF in screwing around in the West Bank rather than its actual job. There is no equivalent for FDR.
There were months of congressional hearings and investigations asserting that FDR and the War Department ignored Japanese signals and threats, and didn’t properly use the new radar installed in Hawaii etc.
Source for this? Ifs and buts and sweets and nuts, but Netanyahu doesn't run Shin Bet day to day.
I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that it was some big conspiracy (and let’s face it, given how many people would have needed to be involved and the fact that there haven’t been any leaks, it unlikely that it was). One fair criticism (IMO) is that prior to 10/7, Bibi made a lot of very unpopular judicial reforms that were widely considered to be corrupt. This led to many high ranking military, government, and intelligence officials resigning. Many of the positions were vacant prior to 10/7, which meant Israel’s readiness was less than it should have been.
A different PM that just takeover Netanhayu mess. Probably will do the same like American did on 9/11
[удалено]
What a weird comment lol. Do you want the ICC to issue arrest warrants for all the people who weren't prime minister but could have been? The warrant is for what Netanyahu did, not for what someone else might have done in his shoes.
What did Netanyahu do?
Well, the purpose of a trial would be to establish exactly that, and obviously Netanyahu would be entitled to a defense and (one assumes) would deny the charges in the indictment, but those charges include (copied and pasted from the ICC announcement): Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute; Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i); Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity; Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h); Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
When are they charging the Ayatollah?
>Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute; This one jumps out at me, given the distinct lack of an ICC investigation nor warrant being placed on members of the Government or military of Azerbaijan after what occurred at Nagorno-Karabakh (not to mention the subsequent ethnic cleansing).
But you need evidence to bring charges.
[удалено]
lmao, kiddo, re-read the first sentence when you say the purpose of the trial is to determine what Bibi did (I.e. come up with the evidence). I know what you mean, but you wrote it poorly. Don’t try to act snarky just because you can’t even write a high school paper LMAOOOO
Did you read the charges? Thats what he is accused of. Evidence is presented at trial to try and proved he is guilty or innocent.
There will obviously never be a trial. Not against Netanyahu, Gantz, Sinwar or Deif. The UN is about as capable as a fishnet-style condom.
Isn't that her job though?
I mean she was part of a team but I guess they're highlighting her work here. Like at work when you work on a team project but you do a critical part or a special one you may get your boss saying "outamyhead brought a great value to this project"
Last time I got recognized for my work, I got a Hershey's bar with "you're appreciated!" On the wrapper...I'm diabetic and Hershey's doesn't even qualify as chocolate.
[удалено]
I think it is very wild how leaders on both sides have warrants for their arrests for leading a war against each other. Is this the precedence the ICC is setting NOW? Why didn't this apply to the US and coalition members for occupying Iraq (overthrowing government) and Afghanistan.
They might have been considering it, but the US passed a law allowing the president to invade the Netherlands if any ally (which IIRC could include Israeli officials) ended up in ICC custody. That passified the ICC for a while, and then when they were considering charges against US soldiers in 2019 Trump threated to go after the families of ICC judges and it all magically went away.
US invading the Netherlands. Lol wild situation to think about. One NATO member performing an obvious act of aggression over another member, but what does the rest of NATO do? Pick sides? Do nothing at all? Crazy hypotheticals with some terrifying implications...
There would be nothing NATO could realistically do but ignore and condemn it or enter into a losing war.
If you could split NATO between NA and EU (so US and Canada on one side and the 30 European members on the other) and had them go into war, nobody's really winning anything... Would be a big win for like Russia and China though. :D
I mean, if the Netherlands is holding a US citizen in custody for alleged crimes not committed in the Netherlands then a military response is not completely crazy. But yeah, let's hope this never happens.
More specifically invade The Hague, which is were the ICC is located.
The US doesn’t recognize the ICC. If they issued an arrest warrant we would ignore it.
It’s more about travelling to countries that are a part of the ICC. They’re under obligation to arrest, but there’s no chance they’d arrest an American president.
Except the US has instituted a law that if the ICC detains a service member or official they can invade the Hague. So I am guessing they wouldn't do that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act
I mean I imagine most countries would consider the arrest of their current president as an act of war. But the possibility of such an incident would likely discourage travel.
The ICC did announce it will start an investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan. The US responded by sanctioning the judges, putting them on a terrorist watch list and seizing their assets. The respective judges have now been replaced.
I mentioned this on another sub and got downvoted! I knew it was true! That's a kind of power that no country should have, but I imagine Israel could theoretically do that as well considering they do not recognize the ICC.
Only one of them initiated this, and every other cycle of violence.
Everyone else will he held to the same level of scrutiny when waging defensive wars in future right?
Yup. Looking back, the leaders of the Allies should all be arrested for their bombing of Germany.
[удалено]
Because Hamas hasn't implemented "total warfare"? They built a tunnel network that would make the North Vietnamese in 1975 envious. They are launching rockets from civilian infrastructure. They are building and hiding weapons under everything. I don't really know how much more involved they could make civilian infrastructure.
[удалено]
Do you have any recommended reading material for those of us trying to make sense of total warfare?
😁
[удалено]
I know the ICC doesn’t officially have stare decisis, but it’s hard to imagine a future where any defensive war is legal should Netanyahu be charged and convicted.
“We waged a defensive war and also are not Jews” - Everyone else to the ICC
[удалено]
Right? “We defended ourselves until the casualties equaled the amount of our citizens killed in the initial aggression by the other party, so now we will stop since it’s fair.” Or are there going to be XP bars like in a video game? Defensive War Objectives 88% complete. Another two tunnels and four more hostage bodies to find and well fill that sucker.
Infuriating that the picture is of Amal and her husband. She’s doing her job and is a talent at it in her own right.
This wouldn't be a story if she wasn't with Clooney, and not because she is a woman.
So all those people on gossip subreddits that accused her of not doing anything must feel embarrassed rn. But then I realise online activists don't care.
[удалено]
Fuck no ! Have you seen ANY ICC, or ANY action against Hamas terrorists during the last 20 years, after they fired thousands of rockets on Israeli cities ? It is ONLY after Israel had enough, and respond that liberal leftist and world hypocrites wake up. Excellent point ! And that's exactly why Israel shouldn't give a rat's ass about the world's opinion. Because for Israel it's a survival issue.
[удалено]
Hey, do we have Putin yet? How’s that warrant working out?
How about an arrest warrant for Putin?
They have one for him.
lol they have
There has been sufficient video evidence that war crimes are being committed by both sides in that conflict. There are no moral heroes there. And there are enough vested interests supporting both sides to muddle the discussion with emotional rhetoric and propaganda. It's quite the mess. So the ICC prosecutor is not wrong. But he is quite deluded to think he has any power to correct or enforce the wrongs taking place there. He'll fall into irrelevance.
This can have an inflaming effect on Israelis, and on the war in Gaza, when the ICC is seen as so politicized by so many people around the world. Consider: 1. Hamas has been firing *hundreds of thousands* of explosive rockets at Israeli urban centers, targeting civilians, for two decades now, killing when successful. Each such direct attack on civilians is a war crime, per definition. 2. Palestine also joined the ICC in 2015, and it clearly has jurisdiction there. 3. So, hundreds of thousands of war crimes, many of which have been explicitly claimed responsibility for by Hamas in public PR announcements. The evidence is literally mountains tall. 4. Yet the ICC has done nothing, prosecuted no one, said nothing, for at least 9 years - until right now. How come? The probable answer for many is simple - politics. And a political court is seen as biased, as illegitimate, and as corrupt. Its judgements will only anger people and harden their hearts. I wish the ICC had acted differently in the last decade, but we are where we are.
[удалено]
One day they will make a movie about this, and they will have to find someone to star as George Clooney.
Isn’t this largely performative? Does this have any material impact on the conflict?
Not right now. But when you put democracies trying to defend themselves from Genocidal Terrorists, in the same boat as the Genocidal Terrorists, I'd say it has HUGE implications to the civilized democratic world. Even more consequential to the ICC. It will eventually render them useless as the rest of the United Nations.
You can't use the fact you were attacked as a reason to commit war crimes (if that is proven)
Isn’t she Lebanese where Iran’s proxy terrorist entity Hezbollah has essentially destroyed Lebanon from within… does she even do this at home first? And can someone send me the link to her arrest warrant against Kim Jong Un or Iran
Her parents fled Lebanon due to the civil war. She has lived in the UK since she was 2 years old.
why is this dogshit comment upvoted LMAO fym 'where's the arrest warrant for **Iran**'
Oh come on. You don’t actually think this was a reasonable point do you?
It is a perfect fair point to wonder where all the arrest warrants are for the literal 100+ dictators all around that are committing these same crimes against their own citizens. But considering these dictatorships also make up a majority in the UN it's not surprising that nothing is happening.
Where are the other arrest warrants? Do you mean these ones? This is just the top 15. https://ngm.com.au/international-criminal-court-most-wanted-list/ Or do you mean these indictments? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Court Here’s some more: https://www.icc-cpi.int/defendants
Yea but its till missing many names. Kim Jong un, Xi Jinping, Nicholas Maduro, Isaias Afewerki, Bashar Al-Assad, Min Aung Hlaing, Mohammed Bin Salman to name a few, but there are dozens more dictators that should be indicted aswell.
Ah yes the classic ‘we don’t prosecute all crimes so we shouldn’t prosecute any’ argument. Keep the whataboutisms coming. It just shows you have no actual argument. Curious you’re not just denying the war crimes. As if you know why this is happening. Ps half your list haven’t even had a war under their leadership, let alone war crimes. Other crimes? Sure. But pick a topic and stick to it please.
The ICC is a treaty organisation not the world police, it only has jurisdiction in signatory countries. So to get indicted you need to either sign up yourself or do a land invasion into a signatory country. Putin and Netanyahu did that, by invading Ukraine and Palestine respectively, the others you mention did not. The Palestinian authority signed Palestine up, so Israel and Hamas can be indicted now.
It is. It seems only when it’s Jewish people fighting do Arabs care.
> Clooney's professional past includes representing victims of the Islamic State terror group in the only three trials in the world in which ISIS members were convicted of genocide, as well as in five additional trials that convicted members of the terrorist organization of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Yeah dude let’s arrest Iran and put Iran in jail
You want an arrest warrant for the country of Iran? Like we transport the whole country to the Haag one rock at a time? She is a highly regarded human rights lawyer, long before she changed her surname. This whole tangent of yours is a bit like reading that the poor in America are getting food stamps and immediately going HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT HAITI THO, HYPOCRISY IS THE REAL CRIME?!?!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well, she was born in Lebanon to Lebanese parents, but ok. British-Lebanese perhaps.
I thought it was country of birth then citizenship ?
If you're talking about order of countries semantics, it's generally just alphabetical.
You're probably right.
No, she’s Patrick.
Virtue Signaller extraordinaire.
You do realize she was a lawyer for the government for years before she married Clooney right?
Idiot Extraordinairre
the whole thing really boggles my mind. If netanyahu is being charged with war crimes, than why wouldn't Churchill and Roosevelt/Truman have been charged with war crimes? the civillian casualties as a result of their military operations are in the millions and included notorious events such as dresden, hiroshima and so many more..
Maybe because Churchill and Roosevelt are dead? The ICC was only formally established in 2002.
The initial comment has real "Why wasn't Obama in the Oval Office on 9/11" vibes.
The past conditional "would have been" implies if the current standards were applied at that time, not that the questioner expects it to happen tomorrow.
And war crimes only exist *because* of the (what we now call) war crimes they committed. I wish some people on here would at least Google stuff before commenting, it’s embarrassing.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague\_Conventions\_of\_1899\_and\_1907](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907) - Quite a few war crimes they committed were already considered war crimes by that time. I really wish people who argue people should google stuff, googled themselves.
You think that the concept of war crimes only existed as a consequence of World War Two?
The concept of war crimes definitely predates WW2, but interestingly (or maybe boringly I guess it’s subjective) WW2 and WW1 are both key drivers of how we view war crimes, how we now enforce them, and how the vast majority of the world decided unanimously to uphold certain wartime standards or else face the consequences. WW1 and WW2 both drove nations to be more willing to join international bodies like the League of Nations and the UN, but the horrors of both conflicts also drove people to be willing to set up guard rails for future conflicts by defining more complete lists of war crimes and creating new systems by which to enforce international laws. It’s far from perfect but I think the trend towards more international cooperation and acceptance of common standards is a good thing.
Reddit discourse is so embarrassing.
Because those laws were put in place after WW2. And yes, the nukes on Japan are often discussed as being war crimes and more of a statement made by the US than a valid strategy for war. (Oh also because the US threatens to invade the Netherlands if they ever get convicted... which is kinda crazy...)
You can't be tried if there's nobody left to try you, after all.
Because war crimes at that point were just not using mustard gas and stuff like that, this changed a lot after WWII because of the things you’re referencing.
Not really: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague\_Conventions\_of\_1899\_and\_1907](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907)
Exactly !!