Israel Gaza war: ICC prosecutor seeks arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Hamas leaders

[SerendipityJane]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3ggpe3qj6wo

What's heartless about it? you're the one suggesting more war.

You said his religion caused unconscious bias, and basicly that because of this, he is unable to do his job and apply the law fairly. To me that's discriminatory because the same wouldn't be said about a person of another faith. At this point though it's been removed, an apology probably should have followed. I think it was more accidental Islamaphobia than hate speech, not that I am justifying it, but none of us are perfect.

Of course not, I said enter not invade... I'd never support the invasion of Israel. I do support justice for victims of war crimes though. If he's innocent he can prove it... he should just hand himself in...

More war? You don't seem to care about the people already in war?, from what you have written. So why would you care about preventing more war?

No one is suggesting more war but you by the way. War criminals should face justice and that is all I said, not invade a country. Enter, arrest him, leave, just that.

If a foreign army was to enter a country without the permission of its government in order to arrest its elected leader, that would be an invasion. It would be an act of war from the still unspecified-by-you country that the army belonged to. The IDF would fight back, people would die.

Of course not, I said enter not invade...

A foreign army entering another jurisdiction would be viewed as an invasion and declaration of war whether it was meant to be or not. You only need to see how countries get in a flap when a foreign Navy ship enters their waters.
If an arrest warrant is issued for Netanyahu he can only be arrested if he leaves Israel and goes to another member state. They can't go into Israel and arrest him.

What have I written exactly that means I don't care about people who are already at war?

You are suggesting more war. I don't know how you can actually think a foreign country can enter a country, go all thr way to its capital arrest its leader and leave again just like that.

Of course it can, it won't but it can. He will only be put on trial, if he's innocent he will walk out again what's the issue?

You said I don't know what is happening in the Palestinians fantasy, like they aren't really suffering and it's all lies? It suggests you don't care about then or their plight despite them being innocent civilians.

No I didn't. I didn't say anything about "the Palestinian fantasy", I don't even know what that means.

Um how? How can a foreign army enter a country without it being an act of war?

They could be invited? By the people of Israel? Who abide by democracy and the rule of law? No Israel citizen would want to stop justice being served would they? If he's guilty or innocent would it not be better to go there and be judged as innocent? Proven innocent if that is what he is?

If it were the leader of my country I would not get in the way of them justice being served. I would allow any army of any country to March in take them and then March right back out. If they are innocent it will be proven legally and they will be exonerated.

You don’t need a country to send an army into Israel to arrest Nethanyu and Gallant. If the ICC issues arrest warrants, then INTERPOL will issue a red notice. A red notice is an international arrest warrant and countries police forces that recognise the warrant can arrest using that warrant if the criminal is in their country.

INTERPOL are international police. They are not an army. It would not be an invasion. Their agents could go there and arrest them or Israel’s police can arrest them- if the government of Israel allows it.

INTERPOL law enforcement agents can follow them all around the world and arrest them almost anywhere.
https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/Red-Notices/View-Red-Notices/

I think they are untouchable while still in government/power though, as they can simply instruct Israeli police to ignore the red notice and the border forces to not let in any Interpol agents.

Also, if the US wants to hide them in the US, then INTERPOL probably won’t find them.

Wrong person Maybe? Sorry if it was I'd go back and check but there are many many pages by now.

This isn't you? No?

What's the point in these vitally important laws if they cannot be enforced, when they were made they were made in good faith that countries would honour their moral duty to do the right thing.

That is not happening. What is happening in this situation and other situations is that people are learning that, these laws are not enforcable or that there is no appetite by some to enforce them. When war lands on our own shores, we will become victims of the same crimes and no one will be held accountable for that or even care because we didn't when it was someone else's country.

I completely agree with you.

The point of the laws is to selectively enforce them in a way that furthers the geopolitical aims of the five permanent members of the UN. The issue is one of inequality between nations and double standards. The five permanent members are above the law (along with their closest allies) while the rest of the world must follow the law.

This is going to come to a head soon as the rest of the world has been forming large cooperative blocs to counter this geopolitical hegemony.

“When war lands on our own shores, we will become victims of the same crimes and no one will be held accountable..”
Yes that is a risk- complete collapse of the entire system.

Yes that's me, not saying what you accused me of saying.

But you are presumably not the leader of a country. If a foreign army were to invade Israel that would be an act of war and they would respond. And people would die. But that's what you want.

"If it were the leader of my country I would not get in the way of them justice being served. I would allow any army of any country to March in take them and then March right back out. If they are innocent it will be proven legally and they will be exonerated"

@Mummy2024 I am not quite sure where to start with your recent posts. They show either a huge amount of naïveté, or a lack of understanding of political realities. In this last one, I'm not even sure who you are - a member of the public? And "any army" of "any country"?!

Who exactly are you referring to, which army, which country, which leader? And who is "allowing" this marching back in and marching right back out - the general public?

Can you think of any specific instances at all in history so we can see what you're envisaging?

Any.... I don't care what you think, I'm well aware of the limits of democracy thankyou and the sheer double standards involved.... if i were an Israeli citizen I can tell you categorically I would want Netanyahu to hand himself in or be apprehended

Really you said you will have to ask the Palestinians what's happening in their little fantasy? So what else could that mean?

I am a member of the public by the way... not that it matters if I was anyone of importance believe me I wouldn't be sat here posting this just on mums net and if I was a bot, I'd have much better grammar! Sadly I'm neither. Just someone who cares and can see past taking sides.

If any country is going to land on our shores in anger, you can be sure that it was never international laws which could have stopped them!!

International laws don't prevent breaches through 'someone' enforcing them against states who break them. How could that work? These are sovereign states with their own armies.

Allegiances like NATO might, since each member has committed to going to the defence of any other NATO state at their request if they're invaded. And everyone knows that to be the case, so are discouraged from attacking.

Our nuclear deterrent might help too.

But not international laws!

They were created after WW2 finished, as a way for countries to codify the best practice they would all like to live by. And to give support to countries to abide by them/aspire towards them. And diplomatic means for discussion and negotiations where there's conflict between states - with clarity about what had been agreed 'in principle' - which could hopefully make wars less likely. That's really all.