Cocksuckers are 100% pro-Israel, no matter what Netanyahu does. Because if you care, you are pro-Hamas. But one can be anti-Putin and anti-Bibi at the same time. That’s now the case with the ICC, a court unrecognized by the United States.

Today, on 21 November 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (‘Court’), in its composition for the Situation in the State of Palestine, unanimously issued two decisions rejecting challenges by the State of Israel (‘Israel’) brought under articles 18 and 19 of the Rome Statute (the ‘Statute’). It also issued warrants of arrest for Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant.

…

Warrants of arrest

The Chamber issued warrants of arrest for two individuals, Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant, for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least 8 October 2023 until at least 20 May 2024, the day the Prosecution filed the applications for warrants of arrest.

The arrest warrants are classified as ‘secret’, in order to protect witnesses and to safeguard the conduct of the investigations. However, the Chamber decided to release the information below since conduct similar to that addressed in the warrant of arrest appears to be ongoing. Moreover, the Chamber considers it to be in the interest of victims and their families that they are made aware of the warrants’ existence.

At the outset, the Chamber considered that the alleged conduct of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant falls within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Chamber recalled that, in a previous composition, it already decided that the Court’s jurisdiction in the situation extended to Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Furthermore, the Chamber declined to use its discretionary proprio motu powers to determine the admissibility of the two cases at this stage. This is without prejudice to any determination as to the jurisdiction and admissibility of the cases at a later stage.

With regard to the crimes, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu, born on 21 October 1949, Prime Minister of Israel at the time of the relevant conduct, and Mr Gallant, born on 8 November 1958, Minister of Defence of Israel at the time of the alleged conduct, 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.

The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.

Alleged crimes

The Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that during the relevant time, international humanitarian law related to international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine applied. This is because they are two High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and because Israel occupies at least parts of Palestine. The Chamber also found that the law related to non-international armed conflict applied to the fighting between Israel and Hamas. The Chamber found that the alleged conduct of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant concerned the activities of Israeli government bodies and the armed forces against the civilian population in Palestine, more specifically civilians in Gaza. It therefore concerned the relationship between two parties to an international armed conflict, as well as the relationship between an occupying power and the population in occupied territory. For these reasons, with regards to war crimes, the Chamber found it appropriate to issue the arrest warrants pursuant to the law of international armed conflict. The Chamber also found that the alleged crimes against humanity were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza.

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, from at least 8 October 2023 to 20 May 2024. This finding is based on the role of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant in impeding humanitarian aid in violation of international humanitarian law and their failure to facilitate relief by all means at its disposal. The Chamber found that their conduct led to the disruption of the ability of humanitarian organisations to provide food and other essential goods to the population in need in Gaza. The aforementioned restrictions together with cutting off electricity and reducing fuel supply also had a severe impact on the availability of water in Gaza and the ability of hospitals to provide medical care.

The Chamber also noted that decisions allowing or increasing humanitarian assistance into Gaza were often conditional. They were not made to fulfil Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law or to ensure that the civilian population in Gaza would be adequately supplied with goods in need. In fact, they were a response to the pressure of the international community or requests by the United States of America. In any event, the increases in humanitarian assistance were not sufficient to improve the population’s access to essential goods.

Furthermore, 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. Despite warnings and appeals made by, inter alia, the UN Security Council, UN Secretary General, States, and governmental and civil society organisations about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, only minimal humanitarian assistance was authorised. In this regard, 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 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 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. On the basis of material presented by the Prosecution covering the period until 20 May 2024, the Chamber could not determine that all elements of the crime against humanity of extermination were met. However, the Chamber did find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the crime against humanity of murder was committed in relation to these victims.

In addition, by 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. Doctors were forced to operate on wounded persons and carry out amputations, including on children, without anaesthetics, and/or were forced to use inadequate and unsafe means to sedate patients, causing these persons extreme pain and suffering. This amounts to the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts.

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 therefore found that the crime against humanity of persecution was committed.

Finally, the Chamber assessed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza. In this regard, the Chamber found that the material provided by the Prosecution only allowed it to make findings on two incidents that qualified as attacks that were intentionally directed against civilians. Reasonable grounds to believe exist that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant, despite having measures available to them to prevent or repress the commission of crimes or ensure the submittal of the matter to the competent authorities, failed to do so.

Today, on 21 November 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (‘Court’), in its composition for the Situation in the State of Palestine, unanimously issued a warrant of arrest for Mr Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, commonly known as ‘Deif’, for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on the territory of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine from at least 7 October 2023.

The Prosecution had initially filed applications for warrants of arrest for two other senior leaders of Hamas, namely Mr Ismail Haniyeh and Mr Yahya Sinwar. Following confirmation of their deaths, the Chamber granted the withdrawal of the applications on 9 August 2024 and 25 October 2024, respectively. With respect to Mr Deif, the Prosecution indicated that it would continue to gather information with respect to his reported death. 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. 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.

The warrant of arrest for Mr Deif is classified as ‘secret’ in order to protect witnesses and to safeguard the conduct of investigations. However, the Chamber decided to release the information below since conduct similar to that addressed in the warrant of arrest appears to be ongoing, in particular the holding of a number of hostages captive. The Chamber considers it is also in the interest of victims and their families to be aware of the warrant’s existence.

The Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that MrDeif, born in 1965, the highest commander of the military wing of Hamas (known as the al-Qassam Brigades) at the time of the alleged conduct, is 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.

The Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Deif bears criminal responsibility for the aforementioned crimes for (i) having committed the acts jointly and through others and (ii) having ordered or induced the commission of the crimes, and (iii) for his failure to exercise proper control over forces under his effective command and control.

The Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that during the relevant time, international humanitarian law related to international armed conflict (between Israel and Palestine) and non-international armed conflict (between Israel and Hamas) applied. 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.

Alleged crimes

With regard to the crimes, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that on 7 October 2023, shortly after a large number of rockets triggered the ‘Tzeva Adom’ alarm in several communities in Israel around 6:20-6:30 am, armed men entered these communities, as well as the site of the Supernova festival, a music event with a few thousand participants (‘7 October Operation’). Members of Hamas, notably fighters of the al-Qassam Brigades, carried out mass killings at and/or around the communities of Kfar Aza, Holit, Nir Oz, Be’eri, and Nahal Oz, as well as at the Supernova festival. The attackers, for example, fired at people while they were seeking shelter and throw grenades at them. Hamas fighters followed similar patterns in other locations and killed further persons. These killings qualify as the crime against humanity and the war crime of murder.

The Chamber also found that in some locations, namely at the site of the Supernova festival and in the vicinity thereof, attackers fired at people with semi-automatic weapons and/or rocket-propelled grenades. In light of this, the Chamber concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against civilians was committed.

In light of the coordinated killings of members of civilians at several separate locations, the Chamber also found that the conduct took place as part of a mass killing of members of the civilian population, and it therefore concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the crime against humanity of extermination was committed.

Furthermore, in the context of 7 October Operation, the Chamber found that a large number of persons were seized from various locations in Israel, including Kfar Aza, Holit, Nir Oz, Be’eri, Nahal Oz, and the Supernova festival. The victims were civilians, including children and elderly people, as well as members of the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces). After being taken to Gaza, most of them were detained in secret locations, including apartments and underground tunnels. A number of groups participated in seizing and detaining these persons: the al-Qassam Brigades, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad al-Quds, and other Palestinian armed groups. 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. In light of the above, the Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the war crime of hostage taking was committed.

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.

With respect to Mr Deif’s individual criminal responsibility, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that senior leaders of Hamas, comprising of at least Mr Deif, Mr Sinwar, and Mr Haniyeh, agreed to jointly carry out the 7 October 2023 Operation. The plan included targeting military and civilian objects in Israel and other acts of violence against Israeli persons. The material presented by the Prosecution indicated that several senior members of Palestinian Islamic Jihad al-Quds joined the plan in the morning of 7 October 2023 at the latest, and that other Palestinians armed groups participated in the Operation.

Mr Deif, in his role as the commander of the al-Qassam Brigades, and through his actions prior to, during and after the 7 October Operation, is responsible for the commission of these crimes. In addition, the Chamber considered that Mr Deif ordered or induced the crimes or is responsible as a military commander for the criminal conduct of his subordinates. 

This is the same court that issued a similar warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, with regard to war crimes in Ukraine.

In reply, last month a Moscow court ordered the arrest in absentia of International Criminal Court’s Vice-President Reine Alapini-Gansou. Tit for tat.

Note that…

The US has previously welcomed ICC war crimes warrants against Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials for atrocities committed in Ukraine, while denouncing the court’s pursuit of Netanyahu and Gallant, a mixed stance which has exposed the Biden administration to accusations of double standards from many UN members, particularly from the global south.

The problem with the US’s hypocrisy is that the US itself does not recognize ICC’s jurisdiction!

The US signed the Rome Statute in 2000 under President Bill Clinton, but did not submit it for ratification. In 2002, President George W. Bush’s administration formally “unsigned” the treaty, signaling a rejection of ICC jurisdiction over US nationals.

Moreover, the American Service-Members’ Protection Act of 2001, also known as the “Hague Invasion Act,” has such provisions (full text):

(A) prohibits the International Criminal Court from seeking to exercise jurisdiction over the following persons with respect to actions undertaken by them in any capacity:
(i) covered United States persons;
(ii) covered allied persons; and
(iii) individuals who were covered United States persons or covered allied persons; and
(B) ensures that no person described in subparagraph (A) will be arrested, detained, prosecuted, or imprisoned by or on behalf of the International Criminal Court.

…

(b) Prohibition on Responding to Requests for Cooperation.–Notwithstanding section 1782 of title 28, United States Code, or any other provision of law, no United States Court, and no agency or entity of any State or local government, including any court, may cooperate with the International Criminal Court in response to a request for cooperation submitted by the International Criminal Court pursuant to the Rome Statute.
…
(d) Prohibition on Provision of Support to the International Criminal Court.–Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no agency or entity of the United States Government or of any State or local government, including any court, may provide support to the International Criminal Court.
…
(f) Restriction on Assistance Pursuant to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties.–The United States shall exercise its rights to limit the use of assistance provided under all treaties and executive agreements for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, multilateral conventions with legal assistance provisions, and extradition treaties, to which the United States is a party, and in connection with the execution or issuance of any letter rogatory, to prevent the transfer to, or other use by, the International Criminal Court of any assistance provided by the United States under such treaties and letters rogatory.

…

(a) Policy.–Effective beginning on the date on which the Rome Statute enters into force pursuant to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, the President should use the voice and vote of the United States in the United Nations Security Council to ensure that each resolution of the Security Council authorizing any peacekeeping operation under chapter VI of the charter of the United Nations or peace enforcement operation under chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations permanently exempts, at a minimum, covered United States persons participating in such operation from criminal prosecution or other assertion of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court for actions undertaken by such personnel in connection with the operation.

…

(a) Authority.–The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.
(b) Persons Authorized To Be Freed.–The authority of subsection (a) shall extend to the following persons:
(1) Covered United States persons.
(2) Covered allied persons.
(3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government.

Yeah. Atta wonderful example of international co-operation.  And then we talk about Germany’s withdrawal from the League of Nations in October 1933.

Still, what happened today is the proof that one can condemn both the crimes perpetrated by Russia in Ukraine, and the crimes perpetrated by Israel in Palestine.