Current WAR CRIMES Israel - Hamas - Hezbollah - Houthis

[Kurve]

The ICC has also issued a warrant for Hamas leader Mohammed Deif, who Israel says they have killed.

According to the ICC, the chamber “found reasonable grounds to believe” that Deif was “responsible for the crimes against humanity of murder; extermination; torture; and rape and other form of sexual violence; as well as the war crimes of murder, cruel treatment, torture; taking hostages; outrages upon personal dignity; and rape and other form of sexual violence”.

It also said there were reasonable grounds to believe the crimes against humanity were “part of a widespread and systematic attack directed by Hamas and other armed groups against the civilian population of Israel”.

For Netanyahu and Gallant, who was replaced as defence minister earlier this month, the chamber “found reasonable grounds to believe” that they “each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts”.

It also found reasonable grounds to believe that “each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population”.

 

[jason_recliner]

If they ICC aren't claiming there's reasonable grounds that the rape he is responsible for was in some way systematic, why would it be included in war crimes charges against him? You don't get charged for the war crime of rape for being in the leadership of a military or terrorist organisation where sporadic rapes occurred but were not tolerated and perpetrators were punished. I don't think there is any other way to read that but that the ICC have reasonable grounds to believe it was at least systemic if not outright systematic. But they do explicitly say systematic.

That's not a logical progression of statements.

 

[Jazny]

That's not a logical progression of statements.

I reread it and it makes sense in my mind. What part are you not understanding and I will try and make my point clearer?

 

[faible]

If they ICC aren't claiming there's reasonable grounds that the rape he is responsible for was in some way systematic, why would it be included in war crimes charges against him? You don't get charged for the war crime of rape for being in the leadership of a military or terrorist organisation where sporadic rapes occurred but were not tolerated and perpetrators were punished. I don't think there is any other way to read that but that the ICC have reasonable grounds to believe it was at least systemic if not outright systematic. But they do explicitly say systematic.

I would read the charges differently to this.

The only reference to 'systematic' or 'systemic' is the below section:

The Chamber also found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the crimes against humanity were part of a widespread and systematic attack directed by Hamas and other armed groups against the civilian population of Israel.

I would read this as there was a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Israel on October 7th.

Crimes against humanity were part of that attack on the civilian population, since war crimes also occurred, where the crimes against humanity are made up of a number of things:

crimes against humanity of murder; extermination; torture; and rape and other form of sexual violence

My read of this would be that the use of the word systematic in this setting is in regard to the nature of the attack on October 7th being deliberately directed against the civilian population of Israel, not in relation to any one specific crime against humanity.

Once again, since I know people will pretend otherwise:

Note for those who will deliberately misinterpret or misrepresent my comment; I make no claim that there wasn't widespread or systematic sexual violence or rape.

As I said, they can all rot in a cell together. Netanyahu and Gallant are no less responsible or reprehensible than the Hamas leaders.

 

[jason_recliner]

That's not a logical progression of statements.

The ICC aren't explicitly claiming that the systematic war crimes committed included systematic sexual / gender-based crimes.

 

[Jazny]

I would read the charges differently to this.

The only reference to 'systematic' or 'systemic' is the below section:



I would read this as there was a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Israel on October 7th.

Crimes against humanity were part of that attack on the civilian population, since war crimes also occurred, where the crimes against humanity are made up of a number of things:



My read of this would be that the use of the word systematic in this setting is in regard to the nature of the attack on October 7th being deliberately directed against the civilian population of Israel, not in relation to any one specific crime against humanity.

Once again, since I know people will pretend otherwise:



As I said, they can all rot in a cell together. Netanyahu and Gallant are no less responsible or reprehensible than the Hamas leaders.

Read the wording of elements 3.



There is no other good explanation for why he is being charged with this and they are using that specific wording. He is not being charged with committing the act of rape itself. He is being held accountable for those acts under his command that he didn't act to prevent, repress, or report. This means the ICC have reasonable grounds for believing elements applies to Hamas's conduct with regards to rape under his leadership and they hold him responsible for. Pay attention to element 3 in particular.

For the rape to qualify as a crime against humanity, it requires all 4 elements. He is being held responsible for these actions being conducted by his forces.

That's how I am reading it, I don't see any other way to read it that makes any sense whatsoever.

 

[treeebeard]

Read the wording of elements 3.

View attachment 2172908

There is no other good explanation for why he is being charged with this and they are using that specific wording. He is not being charged with committing the act of rape itself. He is being held accountable for those acts under his command that he didn't act to prevent, repress, or report. This means the ICC have reasonable grounds for believing element 3 in particular applies to Hamas's conduct with regards to rape under his leadership and they hold him responsible for.

That's how I am reading it, I don't see any other way to read it that makes any sense whatsoever.

Pretty much confirms what faible was saying, rape was likely "part of a widespread or systematic attack" not that the rape was systematic in and of itself.

 

[faible]

Read the wording of elements 3.

View attachment 2172908

There is no other good explanation for why he is being charged with this and they are using that specific wording. He is not being charged with committing the act of rape itself. He is being held accountable for those acts under his command that he didn't act to prevent, repress, or report. This means the ICC have reasonable grounds for believing element 3 in particular applies to Hamas's conduct with regards to rape under his leadership and they hold him responsible for.

That's how I am reading it, I don't see any other way to read it that makes any sense whatsoever.

The definition itself agrees with my reading of the use of 'systemic' IMO.

The planned and deliberate attack directed against the civilian population is the part being referred to as 'widespread and systemic'.

For example they say:

In light of the coordinated killings of members of civilians at several separate locations

Various crimes against humanity, and war crimes, made up that attack. Which is exactly what they say;

crimes against humanity were part of a widespread and systematic attack directed by Hamas and other armed groups against the civilian population of Israel.

'Widespread and systemic' is used to describe the nature of the attacks in their entirely on the civilian population on October 7th.

They use the exact same wording to describe the conduct of Israel against the civilian population of Gaza:

The Chamber also found that the alleged crimes against humanity were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza.

 

[Jazny]

The definition itself agrees with my reading of the use of 'systemic' IMO.

I see what you're saying now, I think. You're saying that the rapes themselves were not necessarily systematically carried out, but meet the elements of the crimes against humanity because it occurred during the widespread attack that was directed at civilians? Is this what you mean?

 

[JayJ20]

Lock these criminals up. And of course the first thing Netanyahu says is "ANTISEMITISM" the dumb idiot. As if being an evil genocidal terrorist is not the reason why the arrest warrants were issued.

It shouldn't stop there either. All the accessories to the war crimes need to be held to account.

The pathway for Israelis becoming a Pariah state is accelerating because of Netanyahu and his actions over the last 12 months.

 

[Zidane98]

No. That was not what they found.

Incorrect.


ICC found out of all the evidence provided to it by the prosecution it found that there were two instances of attacks directly against civilians in the timeframe specified out of all the attacks committed by Israel in Gaza.

These are the only two incidents of this nature that are being prosecuted between 8th of Oct 2023 and 20th May 2024. There is no further charges.


Nowhere did the ICC say only a sample of attacks was looked at (you made this up). In any case what a ridiculous claim to make. Any prosecution worth its while gathers all the evidence it can to ensure as many charges as possible can be laid. ICC has enough resources to prosecute war crimes to the highest degree possible from evidence gathered.

Given the volume of the attacks made upon Gaza, I'd be pretty certain that not every single incident in the period 8/10/23 - 20/5/24 was provided to the ICC. They'd have provided a sample of the incidents, along with relevant documentation that would enable finding Netanyahu and/or Gallant responsible.

By no means does it mean the IDF haven't intentionally targeted civilians on other occasions in that time frame.

Correct. The ICC has determined that Israel targeted civilians twice in attacks between 8th October 2023 and 20th May 2024 and charged Netanyahu / Gallant accordingly. "Prosecution only allowed it to make findings on two incidents that qualified as attacks that were intentionally directed against civilian"

 

[faible]

I see what you're saying now, I think. You're saying that the rapes themselves were not necessarily systematically carried out, but meet the elements of the crimes against humanity because it occurred during the widespread attack that was directed at civilians? Is this what you mean?

Yep, that's my reading of how they use widespread and systematic.

You can infer backwards that the various crimes against humanity might have been widespread and/or systematic, but I think from the reading of the elements of crimes document any single incident of (for example) rape or sexual violence committed during a widespread attack on a civilian population constitutes a crime against humanity.

 

[faible]

Incorrect.


ICC found out of all the evidence provided to it by the prosecution it found that there were two instances of attacks directly against civilians in the timeframe specified out of all the attacks committed by Israel in Gaza.

These are the only two incidents of this nature that are being prosecuted between 8th of Oct 2023 and 20th May 2024. There is no further charges.


Nowhere did the ICC say only a sample of attacks was looked at (you made this up). In any case what a ridiculous claim to make. Any prosecution worth its while gathers all the evidence it can to ensure as many charges as possible can be laid. ICC has enough resources to prosecute war crimes to the highest degree possible from evidence gathered.


Correct. The ICC has determined that Israel targeted civilians twice in attacks between 8th October 2023 and 20th May 2024 and charged Netanyahu / Gallant accordingly. "Prosecution only allowed it to make findings on two incidents that qualified as attacks that were intentionally directed against civilian"

No Zidane. You're incorrect. You're reading the text incorrectly and making very, very incorrect conclusions because of it.

I've already pointed out exactly where they say what they looked at.

They also only refer to incidents that can be charged against Netanyahu and/or Gallant.

If there were attacks directed at civilians that they were asked to review that Netanyahu and/or Gallant weren't considered responsible for, or that based on the material provided by the Prosecution they couldn't be considered responsible for, then they won't be noted. Even if they occurred.

Meanwhile, you're also completely ignoring these bits:

The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity

the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that no clear military need or other justification under international humanitarian law could be identified for the restrictions placed on access for humanitarian relief operations.

the Chamber considered the prolonged period of deprivation and Mr Netanyahu’s statement connecting the halt in the essential goods and humanitarian aid with the goals of war.

The Chamber found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, and specific medical supplies, created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, which resulted in the death of civilians, including children due to malnutrition and dehydration

intentionally limiting or preventing medical supplies and medicine from getting into Gaza, in particular anaesthetics and anaesthesia machines, the two individuals are also responsible for inflicting great suffering by means of inhumane acts on persons in need of treatment.

The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that the abovementioned conduct deprived a significant portion of the civilian population in Gaza of their fundamental rights, including the rights to life and health, and that the population was targeted based on political and/or national grounds.

It is impossible to claim Netanyahu and/or Gallant didn't deliberately target the civilian population and use the IDF to do so. They've targeted them en masse via 'the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.'

This is literally the stuff people have been going on, and on, and on, about for months. This is only the up until May 20th 2024, and only the stuff the prosecution provided material for. Given the volume and scale of attacks upon Gaza, there's no doubt in my mind whatsoever that not every incident was documented and provided to the ICC, and there's no doubt that since May 20th 2024 there's been more, and that they're ongoing today.

 

[Zidane98]

No Zidane. You're incorrect. You're reading the text incorrectly and making very, very incorrect conclusions because of it.

I've already pointed out exactly where they say what they looked at.

They also only refer to incidents that can be charged against Netanyahu and/or Gallant.

If there were attacks directed at civilians that they were asked to review that Netanyahu and/or Gallant weren't considered responsible for, or that based on the material provided by the Prosecution they couldn't be considered responsible for, then they won't be noted. Even if they occurred.

Meanwhile, you're also completely ignoring these bits:













It is impossible to claim Netanyahu and/or Gallant didn't deliberately target the civilian population and use the IDF to do so. They've targeted them en masse via 'the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.'

This is literally the stuff people have been going on, and on, and on, about for months. This is only the up until May 20th 2024, and only the stuff the prosecution provided material for. Given the volume and scale of attacks upon Gaza, there's no doubt in my mind whatsoever that not every incident was documented and provided to the ICC, and there's no doubt that since May 20th 2024 there's been more, and that they're ongoing today.

You know that I was talking about military attacks on Gaza only, not the other things you've quoited. This is what you always do and are known for. Bullshit strawman arguments. You're the biggest expert in this thread.


Your reading of the text is utterly incorrect and deliberately deceptive faible. Your cognitive dissonance never ceases to amaze. Just like you claiming the ICC haven't charged Deif / Hamas with systemic use of sexual violence as a war crime.


The ICC found evidence of only two instances of military action that qualified as a direct attack on civilians from evidence presented by the prosecution. These two instances are being charged by the ICC, they allege Netanyahu & Gallant to be ultimately responsible. This is an indisputable fact.

To suggest that the prosecution didn't gather all evidence available for attacks that qualify as directly against civilians is idiotic. Pretty disrespectful to ICC prosecutors too who would be some of the finest money can pay for and would have the resources to gather unlimited amounts of evidence. We know why you are going down this path because you're one of the biggest proponents of the lie that Israel had been attempting to murder Gazan civilians through the entire war and not targeting an enemy that invaded & committed genocidal acts against the Israeli population murdering nearly 1000 civilians in a single day at the office.


I believe Netanyahu & Gallant will be found guilty of a disproportionate response to war and will be found guilty of not protecting Gazan civilians during the war they are waging against Hamas. I hope they are jailed and never govern Israel again.

 

[faible]

You know that I was talking about military attacks on Gaza only, not the other things you've quoited. This is what you always do and are known for. Bullshit strawman arguments. You're the biggest expert in this thread.


Your reading of the text is utterly incorrect and deliberately deceptive faible. Your cognitive dissonance never ceases to amaze. Just like you claiming the ICC haven't charged Deif / Hamas with systemic use of sexual violence as a war crime.


The ICC found evidence of only two instances of military action that qualified as a direct attack on civilians from evidence presented by the prosecution. These two instances are being charged by the ICC, they allege Netanyahu & Gallant to be ultimately responsible. This is an indisputable fact.

To suggest that the prosecution didn't gather all evidence available for attacks that qualify as directly against civilians is idiotic. Pretty disrespectful to ICC prosecutors too who would be some of the finest money can pay for and would have the resources to gather unlimited amounts of evidence. We know why you are going down this path because you're one of the biggest proponents of the lie that Israel had been attempting to murder Gazan civilians through the entire war and not targeting an enemy that invaded & committed genocidal acts against the Israeli population murdering nearly 1000 civilians in a single day at the office.


I believe Netanyahu & Gallant will be found guilty of a disproportionate response to war and will be found guilty of not protecting Gazan civilians during the war they are waging against Hamas. I hope they are jailed and never govern Israel again.

There's only so much I can do for you Zidane, if you're unwilling or unable to read the words written, I can't do any more.

You can even follow the back and forth I had with my regular sparring partner Jazny to see what the discussion looks like when we're trying to understand how legal terminology is being used in the ICC releases. It was all rather civil; we reached an amicable resolution whereby we understand what each other is reading from the text.

the ICC haven't charged Deif / Hamas with systemic use of sexual violence as a war crime.

taps sign

Note for those who will deliberately misinterpret or misrepresent my comment; I make no claim that there wasn't widespread or systematic sexual violence or rape.

You're usually the person I put these disclaimers in for. Since you'll try to do the exact thing you just tried to do.

you're one of the biggest proponents of the lie that Israel had been attempting to murder Gazan civilians through the entire war

The ICC doesn't think it's a lie:

the alleged crimes against humanity were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza.

The Chamber therefore found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.

the Chamber did find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the crime against humanity of murder was committed

 

[Jazny]

Yep, that's my reading of how they use widespread and systematic.

You can infer backwards that the various crimes against humanity might have been widespread and/or systematic, but I think from the reading of the elements of crimes document any single incident of (for example) rape or sexual violence committed during a widespread attack on a civilian population constitutes a crime against humanity.

Correct I think. The charge does not imply that particular rapes were necessarily systematic, but there had to have been a systemic culture within Hamas under his leadership for the charge to apply (the second part is my wording, it's not a legal term but it's almost impossible to disagree with, I think you agree, right? I originally thought you disagreed with this part).

If it was just individual rapes that occurred and those members were punished, then the charge wouldn't apply. It would seem they have reasonable grounds to believe that at least some Hamas members committed rape with the intention of it being part of a systematic attack against civilians, and that Hamas leadership at the very least did nothing about it. Particularly considering the original charges were also against Sinwar and Haniyeh, but I guess the ICC sees them as more dead than Dief who is only mostly dead (only GOATs get this reference).

I agree that this doesn't mean the rapes were not systematic also, that's possible, but it's not necessarily the case based on the charge.

 

[faible]

Correct I think. The charge does not imply that particular rapes were necessarily systematic, but there had to have been a systemic culture within Hamas under his leadership for the charge to apply (the second part is my inference, but it's almost impossible to disagree with, I think you agree, right? I originally thought you disagreed with this part).

If it was just individual rapes that occurred and those members were punished, then the charge wouldn't apply. It would seem they have reasonable grounds to believe that at least some Hamas members committed rape with the intention of it being part of a systematic attack against civilians, and that Hamas leadership at the very least did nothing about it. Particularly considering the original charges were also against Sinwar and Haniyeh, but I guess the ICC sees them as more dead than Dief who is only mostly dead (only GOATs get this reference).

I agree that this doesn't mean the rapes were not systematic also, that's possible, but it's not necessarily the case.

My read is that the attack on civilians is what the 'widespread and systematic' part refers to; they deliberately attacked multiple locations where they knew there would be civilian populations with an intent to cause harm, and in the course of those attacks a number of crimes against humanity and war crimes were committed.

The reference to sexual violence and rape appears to be for the hostages held in Gaza, not the October 7th attack. In that setting I don't see how Hamas leadership could have been unaware given they're noted as being in control of all of the hostages and intended to conduct negotiations with them, so I'd assume they'd want to know the state of them.

The Chamber further found that, while they were held captive in Gaza, some hostages, predominantly women, were subjected to sexual and gender based violence, including forced penetration, forced nudity, and humiliating and degrading treatment. On the basis of the material presented, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that the crimes of torture as a crime against humanity and war crime, rape and other forms of sexual violence as crimes against humanity and war crimes, cruel treatment as a war crime, and outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime were committed against these persons during the relevant period.

The Chamber found that Hamas was in control of the hostages as of the start of their detention in Gaza, irrespective of the group affiliation of the individuals initially seizing the hostages. The Chamber also found that hostage taking in the context of the 7 October Operation was conducted with the aim to negotiate their release in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israel.

They do mention they were waiting for confirmation of his death, seems like they requested the warrant basically just in case he wasn't:

On 15 November 2024, the Prosecution, referring to information from both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities, notified the Chamber that it is not in a position to determine whether Mr Deif has been killed or remains alive. Therefore, the Chamber issues the present warrant of arrest.

I read this bit as not only directed at Dief, but at anyone else they can find evidence worth applying for a warrant against that's still alive:

The Prosecution also noted that it continues to investigate the crimes in the ongoing conflict and envisions that further applications for warrants of arrest will be submitted.

It mostly appears to be based on the events of October 7th but the section referring to hostages held in Gaza must be for things afterwards, so I'm assuming up to 20th May as per the Netanyahu warrant.

 

[Jazny]

The reference to sexual violence and rape appears to be for the hostages held in Gaza, not the October 7th attack. In that setting I don't see how Hamas leadership could have been unaware given they're noted as being in control of all of the hostages and intended to conduct negotiations with them, so I'd assume they'd want to know the state of them.

It's possible, the rapes against hostages would be the easiest to prove and link knowledge to leadership. I would have thought that sexual assault that occurs after October 7th would more likely fall under war crimes rather than crime against humanity, but I don't know for sure. If it's opportunistic in the context of an armed conflict, that's a war crime. If it's part of the systematic attack on civilians then it's a crime against humanity. It's possible that some of the hostages were also sexually assaulted on October 7th and that's where the crime against humanity comes in, but it's pure speculation. Hard to prejudge what information they base it all on.

None of this is likely to ever even go to trial unfortunately including the Netanyahu case..