“These attacks violate the human right to life, absent any indication that the victims posed an imminent lethal threat to anyone else at the time.”
Not accepting it any longer does not negate the prior agreement nor does it mean they aren’t breaking international law. It list means they’ll cry and play the downtrodden when they’re finally dragged picking and screaming to trial.
More, it means no safe zone can be held as safe. They’ve done it very specifically so no cease fire will ever be accepted.
Nope, there’s clauses that allow most of those bodies to act directly against them now without reprocussion.
does not negate the prior agreement
If you check the link, you’ll see that the treaty specifies Israel’s obligations after leaving. Namely, they are obligated to cooperate with active investigations commencing prior to withdrawal.
They left in 2002. There are no remaining investigations that were active prior to withdrawal.
it mean they aren’t breaking international law
They are “breaking international law” in the sense that I am “breaking Russian law” when I protest their invasion of Ukraine.
Russian law is meaningless to me unless I am in Russia. And the ICC is meaningless unless someone is in a state that accepts ICC jurisdiction.
There are plenty of people with ICC arrest warrants who have not been dragged to the Hague. Including Putin. They avoid going to the Hague simply by never setting foot in countries under ICC jurisdiction.
there’s clauses that allow most of those bodies to act directly against them now without reprocussion
There are no such clauses.
Keep in mind that the USA also withdrew from the ICC. China never signed at all. Nevertheless, international bodies cannot act against the USA or China “without repercussion”. The same is true of Israel.
There’s been an investigation into Israels actions for quite some time, like 95’ or so iirc. Israelis refusing acceptance doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
Not at all the same boss, there is no accepted international ruling on hurting Russias feelings, there are however several about maiming civilians and booby trapping everyday items.
Yeah that’s why they have open warrants, it essentially excludes them from several countries and prevents their attendance at several conferences.
Haven’t been dragged in… Yet. Yet being the keyword.
There are, most of those clauses say you are only protected by them if you sign them and if you refuse whatever you refuse to sign for can be used against you. We already went over this and notably last time it was you explaining it though you seemingly did not connect the dots.
I’m well aware, it’s why countries and adversarial parties use specific weapons against us troops. They absolutely can, we just went over sovereign discretion.
they have open warrants
No, there are no open warrants against Israel.
ICC prosecutors have requested arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant based on war crimes in Palestine (which is an ICC member). But ICC courts haven’t issued warrants yet, and it may never happen. If it did, it would not restrict Israelis in general. It would just mean that Netanyahu and Gallant could not visit ICC states.
At no point has the ICC ever entered a non-ICC country to drag anyone in, in fact they are explicitly forbidden from doing so. Some other country could take it upon themselves to declare war on Israel and try to capture and extradite him. Spoiler alert: that’s never going to happen, because it isn’t worth it. Whether you like it or not, countries prioritize respect for sovereignty over prosecuting war crimes.
The only people who can drag in Netanyahu are Israelis themselves. That’s why when anyone asks
what are we actually going to do about it this time
the answer is always “we are going to do nothing”.
Just ask Joseph Kony, who is still free despite an ICC warrant issued in 2006. Or Ahmed Haroun. Or Omar al-Bashir. All are wanted for war crimes, yet nobody can be bothered to bring them in.