“These attacks violate the human right to life, absent any indication that the victims posed an imminent lethal threat to anyone else at the time.”
“These attacks violate the human right to life, absent any indication that the victims posed an imminent lethal threat to anyone else at the time.”
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.
Interesting.
It’s internationally illegal to booby trap by any means civilian objects in a non combat area filled with non coms.
No there’s the hague, this one Israel actually signed.
Israel (like the USA) has withdrawn from the Rome Statute and no longer accepts jurisdiction of the ICC.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.
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.
Not accepting it any longer does not negate the prior agreement nor does it mean they aren’t breaking international law. It list means they’ll cry and play the downtrodden when they’re finally dragged picking and screaming to trial.
More, it means no safe zone can be held as safe. They’ve done it very specifically so no cease fire will ever be accepted.
Nope, there’s clauses that allow most of those bodies to act directly against them now without reprocussion.
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.
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 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.
There’s been an investigation into Israels actions for quite some time, like 95’ or so iirc. Israelis refusing acceptance doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
Also: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-submits-challenges-icc-gaza-arrest-warrant-requests-2024-09-20/
Not at all the same boss, there is no accepted international ruling on hurting Russias feelings, there are however several about maiming civilians and booby trapping everyday items.
Yeah that’s why they have open warrants, it essentially excludes them from several countries and prevents their attendance at several conferences.
Haven’t been dragged in… Yet. Yet being the keyword.
There are, most of those clauses say you are only protected by them if you sign them and if you refuse whatever you refuse to sign for can be used against you. We already went over this and notably last time it was you explaining it though you seemingly did not connect the dots.
I’m well aware, it’s why countries and adversarial parties use specific weapons against us troops. They absolutely can, we just went over sovereign discretion.
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
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.
Sure, just ignore Israel removedng about it 7 hours ago.
20 may, the application is what matters, not the issuance. Similarly it doesn’t matter if they are arrested, just that they could be and actively run from it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/20/no-10-fears-icc-ask-uk-sign-benjamin-netanyahu-arrest-warrant
And yet the issuance and application prevent them from entering like 80+ countries and notably almost all of those with the highest gdp.
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”.