First, no concrete evidence was ever presented that anyone was raped or babies burned. Even Israel admitted no babies were burned. These were lies to dehumanize Palestinians and justify the atrocities committed against them.
Second, history didn't start on October 7th. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed before Oct 7, including hundreds at a peace protest just a few years before. And Israel had 5000 hostages of their own on Oct 6th. The year before October 7th was one of the most deadly for Palestinians in history.
> First, no concrete evidence was ever presented that anyone was raped
The international criminal court has found there is sufficient evidenve to issue a warrant for the crime against humanity of rape for Hamas leadership.
Obviously Its not the same as a guilty verdict, there has been no trial, but i would still consider that pretty compelling.
Do you also abide by the ICC's finding that there is a case for Israel committing genocide and the arrest warrant for Netanyahu? Or do you pick and choose?
> Do you also abide by the ICC's finding that there is a case for Israel committing genocide
That's a false statement. ICC has found no such thing.
Aditionally ICC is a criminal court and only prosecuted individuals not states. It would not be in their power to make such a finding against the state of Israel. They lack juridsiction for that. They can prosecute individual leaders, they can't prosecute the country itself.
> the arrest warrant for Netanyahu?
In my ideal world, Gallant and Netanyahu would self-surrender and argue their case in court. (Unfortunately i don't hold much hope for that actually happening). I support the ICC and there is some serious allegations of misconduct against them. However to be clear, criminal genocide is not one of them.
I do think there is a bit more room to argue in the case against the israeli officials. "Rape" has a pretty solid definition, but the war crime of starvation has essentially no case law, so there are a lot more ambiguities for a good lawyer to sink their teeth into.
The ICC has juridsiction over genocide. If they wanted to charge someone with that, presumably they would have done that instead of charging them with lesser crimes.
Yes, many crimes overlap somewhat, the definitions of genocide (i use plural since there are 5 types of genocide at the ICC) generally involve something that is already a different crime plus additional things to make it more serious. Sort of like how in domestic law manslaughter and first degree murder are different crimes but the physical act involved is very similar.
In any case the fact remains that the ICC prosecuter has not sought a warrant for genocide against any Israeli national.
Given that the pre-trial chamber rejected the extermination charge, it seems unlikely they would approve a genocide charge.
How do you say the court only presides over individuals in one comment, then say it presides over genocides in the next? Genocide is not a crime of the individual.
That is incorrect. Criminal genocide is an act individuals can commit and be punished for. The ICC has juridsiction over it.
For example, the ICC is currently trying to arrest Omar Al-Bashir, the former president of Sudan, on (among other things) three charges of genocide.
As another example, Ratko Mladić is currently serving a life sentence for (among other charges) genocide. (He was charged at the ICTY not the ICC)
You might be confused because there is also the concept of "state responsibility" for genocide, which is something that countries can be liable for instead of induviduals. The ICC does not preside over state responsibility for genocide. That is the ICJ's area of responsibility. State responsibility for genocide is what the south africa vs Israel case is about. ICJ is kind of like civil court where countries can sue each other vs ICC which is a criminal court that holds individuals accountable. The two concepts are very linked but they are separate, and have differing procedures and standards of evidence. Its possible for the state of Israel to be responsible for genocide without any of its leaders being guilty of comitting criminal genocide, and its also possible for the reverse to be true.
Second, history didn't start on October 7th. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed before Oct 7, including hundreds at a peace protest just a few years before. And Israel had 5000 hostages of their own on Oct 6th. The year before October 7th was one of the most deadly for Palestinians in history.