1/ Applying for arrest warrants by the ICC Prosecutor against Israeli officials is a positive step, but here are some thoughts:
2/ Timeline and Context:
According to the ICC prosecutor, crimes in the OPT did not start until October 7th. This overlooks the history of settler colonialism and apartheid over 76 years, occupation for 56 years, and siege for 17 years that preceded that day.
According to the ICC prosecutor, crimes in the OPT did not start until October 7th. This overlooks the history of settler colonialism and apartheid over 76 years, occupation for 56 years, and siege for 17 years that preceded that day.
3/ Omission of Occupation:
The Prosecutor deliberately omitted the element of occupation in at least three instances.
a. Again, by starting the timeline on October 7th.
The Prosecutor deliberately omitted the element of occupation in at least three instances.
a. Again, by starting the timeline on October 7th.
b. Failing to distinguish between Hamas' actions as a resistance movement and the alleged crimes they committed that day. This conflates all actions of that day as criminal acts.
c. Characterizing the conflict between Hamas and Israel as a non-international conflict. This is despite its connection to the occupation, which should classify conflicts related to it under international law (GC IV/GC PROTOCOL 1).
4/ Charges and Comparisons:
a. Three Palestinians have been charged compared to two Israelis, facing relatively similar criminal charges for actions that significantly differ in motives, scale, nature, and levels of violence, results, number of victims, and duration.
a. Three Palestinians have been charged compared to two Israelis, facing relatively similar criminal charges for actions that significantly differ in motives, scale, nature, and levels of violence, results, number of victims, and duration.
b. Treating one day as equal to an ongoing genocide for 227 days is questionable.
c. Hamas leaders were charged with more crimes against humanity than war crimes, whereas Israelis are accused of more war crimes than crimes against humanity.
d. A crime against humanity requires the act to be part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population, unlike a war crime, which can be an isolated act.
5/ Extermination Charges:
a. Both Hamas and Israelis face charges of Extermination as a crime against humanity. The Prosecutor decisively charges Hamas leaders directly, while he remains ambiguous regarding the Israelis.
a. Both Hamas and Israelis face charges of Extermination as a crime against humanity. The Prosecutor decisively charges Hamas leaders directly, while he remains ambiguous regarding the Israelis.
b. For Israelis, the charge is framed as “Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a).”
6/ Justifications for Israeli Actions and Genocide:
a. The prosecutor provided three justifications for Israeli actions in Gaza: 1) Eliminating Hamas, 2) Securing the return of hostages, and 3) Imposing collective punishment on Gaza's civilian population.
a. The prosecutor provided three justifications for Israeli actions in Gaza: 1) Eliminating Hamas, 2) Securing the return of hostages, and 3) Imposing collective punishment on Gaza's civilian population.
b. Providing these justifications is problematic, especially considering the lack of similar causation for Hamas' actions on October 7th.
c. The first two reasons align with certain Israeli statements, while entirely ignoring other statements deemed genocidal.
d. By limiting the reasons for Israeli crimes to these three factors, the special intent required for genocide (dolus specialis) is potentially excluded, reducing the likelihood of Israeli officials being charged with genocide later on before the ICC.
e. This exclusion could influence future proceedings at the ICJ.
7/ Disregard for Substantiated Crimes by Israelis:
a. accusing Hamas based on unsubstantiated claims, such as rape, while neglecting charges against Israelis for well-documented crimes:forced displacement, enforced disappearance, extensive destruction, & unlawful confinement.
a. accusing Hamas based on unsubstantiated claims, such as rape, while neglecting charges against Israelis for well-documented crimes:forced displacement, enforced disappearance, extensive destruction, & unlawful confinement.
b. Israelis are not facing torture charges, despite it being firmly established, while Hamas leaders do.
8/ The Obvious Positives:
Holding Israeli Officials Accountable:
The request includes issuing an arrest warrant against the Prime Minister himself, marking a critical step towards accountability and breaking the longstanding impunity that Israeli officials have enjoyed.
Holding Israeli Officials Accountable:
The request includes issuing an arrest warrant against the Prime Minister himself, marking a critical step towards accountability and breaking the longstanding impunity that Israeli officials have enjoyed.
9/ IHL Somehow Still Relevant:
a. Some charges against Israelis concern not only civilians but also other protected groups, namely members of the armed forces who have laid down their arms or are hors de combat due to sickness, wounds, detention, or other causes.
a. Some charges against Israelis concern not only civilians but also other protected groups, namely members of the armed forces who have laid down their arms or are hors de combat due to sickness, wounds, detention, or other causes.
b. This includes charges of Murder as a war crime (article 8(2)(c)(i)) and cruel treatment as a war crime (article 8(2)(c)(i)).
10. In conclusion, while this request represents progress toward accountability, a more balanced & historically contextualized approach is essential for comprehensive justice.More indictments &warrants must follow to account for the full scale of Israeli crimes.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
