ICC was (and is) wrong to charge the leaders of Israel

[myata]

From the outset I'm not arguing that Israel has to be exonerated for anything it does by the very fact of its existence as some of its ideologists want to imply. To me at least it certainly looks like some directions and elements of Israeli policy transgress the lines of the international law, such as for example spreading and encroaching settlements. These arguments apply specifically the events that followed the attack on Israel by Hamas in October 2023. They are as follows:

1. The primary and absolute responsibility of a democratic government is safety and security of its citizens. This responsibility is absolute and unconditional.

2. The obligation of proportional response is not formal and/or superficial. It is relative to the factual and real level of threat posed to the safety of a democratic state and its citizens.

It follows that in situations where aggressors, terrorists, fascists have made the entire state and its citizens their hostage and use it/them to execute their criminal agendas, the entire state, or any of its subsystems can be rightfully considered an instrument of the aggression, and a legitimate target for the defensive response.

No one can "order" democratic state to ignore some some threats or limit its defensive response against legitimate targets. Bombing Nazi Germany and Japan in WWII was not wrong. Such arguments and norms don't exist and cannot be defended.

3. Violations of the international, humanitarian, conduct of war and other laws committed during the defensive action can be prosecuted as necessary. But in no way can they imply or allege any formal or superficial limitations on the right of a democratic state to defend itself, by all means necessary against an existential threat.

Edited September 6 by myata

[myata]

ICC should turn to Israel's settlement expansion agenda and policies and make a responsible, grounded determination on it from the perspective of international law. That makes sense. This tangent is a dead end though, and undefendable. One cannot order a victim of the attack to tie her hands. Bombing the Axis to stop the aggression was not wrong.

Edited September 6 by myata

[slady61]

On 9/6/2024 at 1:04 PM, myata said:

From the outset I'm not arguing that Israel has to be exonerated for anything it does by the very fact of its existence as some of its ideologists want to imply. To me at least it certainly looks like some directions and elements of Israeli policy transgress the lines of the international law, such as for example spreading and encroaching settlements. These arguments apply specifically the events that followed the attack on Israel by Hamas in October 2023. They are as follows:

1. The primary and absolute responsibility of a democratic government is safety and security of its citizens. This responsibility is absolute and unconditional.

2. The obligation of proportional response is not formal and/or superficial. It is relative to the factual and real level of threat posed to the safety of a democratic state and its citizens.

It follows that in situations where aggressors, terrorists, fascists have made the entire state and its citizens their hostage and use it/them to execute their criminal agendas, the entire state, or any of its subsystems can be rightfully considered an instrument of the aggression, and a legitimate target for the defensive response.

No one can "order" democratic state to ignore some some threats or limit its defensive response against legitimate targets. Bombing Nazi Germany and Japan in WWII was not wrong. Such arguments and norms don't exist and cannot be defended.

3. Violations of the international, humanitarian, conduct of war and other laws committed during the defensive action can be prosecuted as necessary. But in no way can they imply or allege any formal or superficial limitations on the right of a democratic state to defend itself, by all means necessary against an existential threat.

I get your rationale in responding to the right of democratic states in defending themselves against threats to their existence. I guess it is not very easy, especially when one has to weigh nationalism against legalism in the conduct of the enterprise. The circumstances of each case count a lot and although the right to defend yourself is quite clear, how this is done and what implications this may have for international law also require a lot of attention.

[User]

Wow... Actually agree with most everything you said here. 

[myata]

Well, I'm only trying to agree with the objective reality and reason.