Resoles YES if the ICC issues the warrant and it is considered active before the end of 2024.
/strutheo/will-the-international-criminal-cou-777d9a6875ce
/strutheo/will-the-international-criminal-cou-2197ccca6c2d
Related questions
I'm curious what "no" holders think might happen here. To my knowledge:
The ICC has never so far failed to issue a warrant/summons that was requested (I only checked 12 warrant requests though);
It not yet taken longer than 106 days to issue a warrant once requested (the Georgia situation);
All the diplomatic pressure, manoeuvring, etc was readily apparent to the prosecution prior to requesting the warrant and yet they proceeded despite that
The "complementarity" principle is already accounted for (the ICC reached out to Israel to ask if they were prosecuting these alleged crimes and Israel said no)
What path to "no" is most likely?
@draaglom my impression on your last bulletpoint is the opposite of what I’ve heard so for. Do you have a source here?
@CraigTalbert See https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/icc-prosecutor-says-no-evidence-israeli-courts-are-probing-gaza-crimes/
>“Despite significant efforts by the prosecutor’s office, he did not receive information from Israel that proves genuine legal processes are taking place to check or investigate the stated crimes,” his office tells the TV station.
It is of course possible that Israel could reactively begin a prosecution of Netenyahu and Gallant over the alleged crimes, but there's no indication that that is either occurring or likely to occur, and indeed I believe there'd be quite a high bar to pass were it to occur for it to be sufficiently convincing; e.g. there's a body of evidence that alleged crimes by settlers in the west bank have a low (3%) conviction rate.
See https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2024/05/20/amanpour-icc-karim-khan-arrest-warrants-hamas-netanyahu.cnn at 20:11 for some of the reports that Karim Khan cites w.r.t. this wider point.
@draaglom This also mentions that the ICC prosecutor cancelled a scheduled trip to Israel, similar to what Lindsey Graham said here: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4674354-graham-rips-outrageous-icc-prosecutor-request-for-israel-arrest-warrants/amp/?nxs-test=amp
I’m more left with the impression that Israeli courts are trying to cooperate and this came as a surprise to them—they were planning to continue meeting with the ICC.
@draaglom from the outside view, they've never failed to issue a warrant but have also never been asked for one this transparently bullshit.
Otoh, I still think the "no" here is overrated.
@CraigTalbert I think the circle can be squared and several seemingly contradictory things can be true simultaneously:
Khan et al were attempting to make an objective determination of whether the alleged crimes would be effectively and independently prosecuted;
There were people on the Israeli judicial side cooperating w/ICC;
Khan et al did in fact cut off the ongoing conversations on that front;
The Israeli side perceive the decision to cancel meetings as Khan et al unfairly 'leaving the table';
Khan et al perceive the same decision as having reached confidence that a sufficiently independent prosecution will not occur (despite ongoing conversations and attempted cooperation)
I think this narrative is parsimonious and supported by:
that it's possible for all parties mentioned above to be broadly speaking communicating honestly about their actions and intentions
relatively consensus support for @ShakedKoplewitz 's view on the substance of the alleged crimes within Israel and key allies;
the negative space in what was claimed w.r.t the cancelled meeting. If there were more progress towards an independent investigation or prosecution then that would be mentioned over and above a more generic 'meeting' (you'd lead with "Khan ignores that committee so-and-so has convened")
the points I cite above re: Khan's view about the independence of Israel's judiciary in general
@draaglom You may be entirely correct about Khan’s perceptions. My feeling is that as much as Israel may be comfortable with pariah status, they don’t want an Israeli PM on the same list as Joseph Kony and will organize a trial along then lines of the ICC allegations if that’s what it takes.
While this doesn’t necessarily help my position, I’m not entirely certain the ICC case is a nothing burger, though it probably is overhyped. My intuition would be they could argue as an occupying power they were reckless or negligent in providing aid.
Avi has been doing fantastic work tracking calories on to Gaza, while overall the picture I believe is very favorable to Israel, I think a case could be made that the first 50 days or so were lacking. https://x.com/avibittmd/status/1793182485234278592?s=46
Ryan McBeth and Preston Stewart and have been offering some constructive criticism of Israel’s aid distribution efforts. One example https://youtu.be/BNwG5bNP6ok
But at the end of the day, I think as this PR threat materializes, Israel is smart enough not to needlessly open another vector for themselves to defamed internationally.
