Biden calls arrest warrant applications against Israeli leaders "outrageous"

[brooklynite]

Source: CNN

US President Joe Biden has strongly denounced the decision by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to seek arrest warrants against Israeli leaders, calling it “outrageous.”

“Let me be clear: whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas,” the president wrote. “We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.”

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-05-20-24/h_59b6e82518f42993de759f5494648245

[brooklynite]

1. Blinken says US "fundamentally rejects" ICC prosecutor's announcement

CNN

The US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US “fundamentally rejects” today’s announcement by the ICC prosecutor Karim Khan that he is applying for arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials “together with” Hamas leaders, saying that it “could jeopardize” ongoing efforts to reach a ceasefire and hostage release agreement between Israel and Hamas.

“We reject the prosecutor’s equivalence of Israel with Hamas. It is shameful. Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization that carried out the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and is still holding dozens of innocent people hostage, including Americans,” Blinken said in a statement.

“Fundamentally, this decision does nothing to help, and could jeopardize, ongoing efforts to reach a ceasefire agreement that would get hostages out and surge humanitarian assistance in, which are the goals the United States continues to pursue relentlessly,” Blinken added.

[JohnSJ]

2. Russia, China, India, United States, Israel, Qatar, and others do not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC and do not

belong to the ICC.

The argument is the ICC has no jurisdiction, legitimacy, and authority with its claim of universal jurisdiction over citizens of every country, which violates principles of justice, fairness, and due process.

[Ping Tung]

3. Therre are 124 countries that are with the ICC. Any of them can enforce the warrants

and detain the accused perps until they are extradited for trial.

[JohnSJ]

5. You think so? The US doesn't belong to the ICC because the view is it violates the US Constitution, and interferes with

a countries sovereignty.

Trials and investigations at the ICC take place behind closed doors, and the public has little access to information about active cases. Due to this lack of openness, the ICC comes under criticism for bias and unfairness which lead to suspicions and mistrust regarding the activity of the institution as a whole.

Can you provide examples of any ICC countries that have brought accused before the court, and how effective that has been?

I would like to see them try that with Russia,China, US, etc.

[Ping Tung]

7. Neither do Russia, China, and a few others.

But, 124 do belong and can arrest the accused and hold them for extradition and trial.

United States policy concerning the ICC has varied widely. The Clinton administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The George W. Bush administration, the U.S. administration at the time of the ICC's founding, stated that it would not join the ICC. The Obama administration subsequently re-established a working relationship with the Court as an observer.[3]

I think that the USA should join the ICC and help it bring criminals to trial.

[JohnSJ]

9. Can you give me some examples? And how would that work out if they tried that

to Russia and China, let alone the U.S. I don’t think they would get very far.

Also, I think having a world court supper a U.S. citizen would present some Constitutional issues

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

15. Wouldn't get very far with US military personnel or elected officials

There is still a law on the books, the American Service-Members' Protection Act of 2002, that prohibits all levels of government and agencies from cooperating with the ICC, prohibits extradition of any person in the US to the ICC, prohibits the transfer of information to the ICC, and prohibits ICC personnel from conducting investigations within the US. It also authorizes the President to use any and all means to force the release of any US or allied persons being held by the ICC or held by countries on behalf of the ICC. It further prohibits military aid to countries that are party to the Rome Statute, but make exceptions to countries that agree to not hand over US citizens to the ICC.

It was nicknamed the "Invade the Hague" act due to the law essentially authorizing the President to use the military to free US personnel from ICC custody.

There was an attempt to repeal the law in 2022, but it failed.

[Ping Tung]

8. Here's a list of ICC warrants and indictments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Court

[JohnSJ]

10. Thanks. It also looks like it isn't very successful

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. It stopped Putin visiting South Africa; those indicted can't pretend they are internationally accepted

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/19/vladimir-putin-to-miss-south-africa-summit-amid-row-over-possible-arrest

If the prosecutor's request is granted, Netanyahu wouldn't be able to visit the EU, UK, Brazil, Japan, Canada, Australia ...

[FBaggins]

14. Well.... No. Not really

Israel is around the cusp of the ten most powerful countries in the world... and almost all of the ones higher on the list are either their allies or not members of the ICC.

So few of those 124 are likely to try to arrest/detain the Israeli head of state.

[Gaugamela]

4. Israel is our de facto 51st state, and as such enjoys a kind of youngest child status, basking in

the light of America’s Exceptionalism:

There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect

[JohnSJ]

6. No it isn't. That innuendo is pushed by anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish propagandists.

[Gaugamela]

11. No it isn't. It's my observation.

[myohmy2]

12. Israeli exceptionalism...

...okay...

[FBaggins]

17. Not really...

... but when the comparison is Hamas and Iran? They might as well be angels.

[prodigitalson]

13. I respectfully disagree with president Biden in this regard

I don't consider Israel and Hamas to be moral equivalents. But I do think it is possible for Hamas leaders and Bibi fucking Netenyahu to be war criminals at the same time. It is very easy to hold that opinion.

[Prairie Gates]

16. Biden (and some here) are misreading the dynamic

And that's all I have to say about that.

[GB_RN]

19. Agreed.

The ICC isn’t comparing Hamas to Israel. It’s looking to make arrests for officials on both sides for their alleged involvement in the perpetration of war crimes. That’s it.

[elleng]

18. Watching PBS NewsHour coverage (my usual resources not available.)

NewsHour's seems to be pretty thorough.

[malthaussen]

21. No, it's not.

And shame on you, Joe, equating a condemnation of Israel's government to a condemnation of Israel.

Nobody is claiming that Hamas and the Government of Israel are equally bad. That doesn't mean that the Government of Israel is absolved from being bad itself.

-- Mal