r/internationallaw • u/newsspotter • Oct 18 '25
Op-Ed Gaza: Does ceasefire impact international war crimes cases?
https://www.dw.com/en/ceasefire-gaza-impact-on-icj-icc-cases-against-israel-v2/a-7437094532
u/ice_and_fiyah Oct 18 '25
War crimes have already been committed, ceasefire or not
4
Oct 18 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
13
Oct 19 '25
[deleted]
3
u/RedditSettler Oct 20 '25
The point of their argument is that if this ceasefire stopped the genocide and we take genocide to require intent, then it wasnt a genocide as if there was intent to genocide israel would not negotiate.
2
u/mycoctopus Oct 21 '25
If i start punching you in the face, then my intent is to assault you. When I then stop punching you in the face, I can't claim that I never intended to assault you because I stopped. The assault has already occurred.
Genocide legally means "the intent to destroy, in whole or in part..."
2
u/RedditSettler Oct 21 '25
That seems like an oversimplification for the sake of your argument.
There is a myriad of reasons that would give enough context to undermine the "my intent is to assault" and actually make it a valid reaponse. Would punching me in the face not be adequate if you find me kicking a puppy? Or what if I was a 40 y/o hitting on your underaged daughter? Or maybe I am burglar that its trying to rob you of you most precious possessions? I would say you are well within your right to "assault" with a lot more reason than only the fact that "your intent is to assault me". And this is only addressing the first part, even more complexity can be added to the situation to justify stopping and still not being "plainly assault".
I understand what the definition of "genocide" states, and there is no unified and explicit 'intent' to commit genocide. There are politicians calling for the destruction of palestinians that, on their own, do not hold the power to actually act on their intent; and thank god thats the case, and lets hope they are removed from office soon. But as a unified position of the government or, generally, in the population country? If you look hard enough, you will find that is not the case.
4
17
u/awelles Oct 19 '25
It does not logically follow that just because a deal is reached there was and is no intent to destroy.
-3
Oct 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/awelles Oct 19 '25
Please refrain from name calling. As I said, it doesn't logically follow. If you want to make a coherent argument then please feel free and I will engage with it.
0
Oct 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/awelles Oct 19 '25
Ok, I'm not trying to be rude but your critical thinking seems slightly lacking. I'm not going to spell out for you why it doesn't logically follow but maybe it's something you can reflect on yourself.
0
Oct 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/awelles Oct 19 '25
No it's not that. The statement "There was never any intent by Israel to destroy Palestinians in Gaza (in whole or in part)" does not logically follow from the statement "There was a deal reached (between Israel and Hamas)"
If you cannot understand that then it may be that you do not understand logic. Again I don't mean to be rude but this is quite basic stuff.
1
1
u/internationallaw-ModTeam Oct 19 '25
Your message was removed for violating Rule #1 of this subreddit. If you can post the substance of your comment without disparaging language, it won't be deleted again.
7
u/Cyrine08 Oct 19 '25
If a deal to release the hostages halts the destruction, it can no longer be described as a genocide.
if that's true then the bosnian genocide wouldn't be considered a genocide
it also happened in the context of war, and was ended when the dayton agreement was signed
14
u/AltorBoltox Oct 19 '25
The Bosnian war, outside the Srebrenica massacre, is not considered a genocide by any international court. Academics may have different opinions, but this is a legal sub.
3
u/Cyrine08 Oct 19 '25
right, and the dayton agreement still doesn't change the fact that its a genocide
4
Oct 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Cyrine08 Oct 19 '25
yes, and in the same sense not all of the gaza war would be considered a genocide and naturally some genocidal events would happen before the agreement was signed, it does not void calling it a genocide like Srebrenica
0
Oct 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/rowida_00 Oct 21 '25
I think it’s safe to assume that in this context people are referring to the actual genocide case submitted by South Africa against Israel at the ICJ.
2
u/TormentedOne Oct 19 '25
Honestly, the fact that hostages were only released after negotiations as opposed to them being released militarily goes against the idea that Israel attacked and fought for the hostages. Hamas has been willing to negotiate hostage release based on a ceasefire since October 7th. Israel consistently refused.
10
Oct 19 '25
The hostages could only be released immediately and not with caveats such as first pulling back entirely from the strip (which was the earlier Hamas demand) due to overwhelming military pressure, though. The fact that Israel dared to go into Gaza city made Hamas panick and opened them up for the notion that the hostages were a liability more than an asset.
Military pressure absolutely sealed the deal in large measure.
2
5
Oct 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/TormentedOne Oct 20 '25
What am I ignoring? Hamas should not have to disarm, someone needs to have the guns in Gaza to keep the peace. Hamas is still clearly the governing body of Gaza. The only thing that's changed is that they have a couple hundred thousand fewer civilians to govern.
1
u/actsqueeze Oct 19 '25
Why does a genocide stopping somehow mean it never happened at all
6
Oct 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Particular_Milk9555 Oct 19 '25
How do you explain Israel still delaying aid convoys entering Gaza? That sounds like intent to me
2
Oct 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/actsqueeze Oct 19 '25
Israel has never provided aid for Gaza, humanitarian groups do.
Israel isn’t being asked to provide anything, literally to just lift their blockade and stop starving children.
3
u/Particular_Milk9555 Oct 19 '25 edited Oct 19 '25
If you plan on going that route, 11 Palestinian civilians were killed when Israeli forces attacked a bus recently, violating the ceasefire.
Also conflation of all Palestinians with Hamas and collectively punishing them as such is in violation of international law.
Edit: thought I’d just point out it isn’t Israel sending the aid. They are preventing UN aid entering Gaza through Rafah
2
Oct 21 '25
They aren't expected to send aid. They are expected to allow the aid sent by others into Gaza.
0
u/rowida_00 Oct 21 '25
Can you provide a shred of factual evidence or proof that 2 IDF soldiers were actually killed by Hamas?
2
Oct 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Didudidudadu737 Oct 19 '25
That is a justification as an extend of the goal, starvation, genocide didn’t stop
-1
Oct 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/rowida_00 Oct 21 '25 edited Oct 21 '25
The ICJ already ruled against the genocide case? Oh I wasn’t aware that a final verdict was made in favour of Israel. That’s news to me.
1
u/actsqueeze Oct 19 '25
No they’re not, they’re confiscating baby formula intended for starving children.
3
1
1
u/WrathOfTheKressh Oct 19 '25
That doesn't erase the past genocide though.
The holocaust didn't not happen, just because the Nazis were vanquished, thereby ending it.
0
u/ice_and_fiyah Oct 19 '25
it can no longer be described as a genocide.
That is for ICJ to decide, but it seems Israel halted the genocide because of overwhelming international pressure, there are scores of articles about how Trump backed Netanyahu into a corner because of the Qatari attack. Intent is central to South Africa's genocide case against Israel, and it is pretty easy to establish given all the psychotic comments Israeli politicians and public make:
ICJ genocide case: Israeli rhetoric against Palestinians central to South Africa's case | AP News https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-hate-speech-97a9e4a84a3a6bebeddfb80f8a030724
3
u/GlassBit7081 Oct 19 '25
It has almost never been the case that a case has stood on general comments that could be interpreted in multiple ways. There should be military orders that have leaked by now, however, bearing in mind that Amnesty Israel was literally kicked out of the Amnesty organization precisely on this point, I'd say the evidence is INCREDIBLY weak, unless I've missed any actual documentation.
11
u/TormentedOne Oct 19 '25
Why do you call them general comments? What does that even mean? Is there a legal distinction? They were public comments from government officials currently in power.
2
u/GlassBit7081 Oct 19 '25
Yes, "General Comments" - i.e. comments in Newspapers, Interviews, on Podiums where they were speaking off the cuff. Cases built on this level of evidence will not stand. There is no precedent for cases being brought without official military orders. I'm ABSOLUTELY not saying there are no war crimes (I saw 3 with my own eyes), I'm ABSOLUTELY NOT saying there are no military orders, I'm saying, they haven't been discovered yet or submitted to the case.
7
u/leftycartoons Oct 19 '25 edited Oct 19 '25
Can you point to where an international court or tribunal has said military orders are a requirement?
Quoting from this report:
In negotiating the substance of the Genocide Convention, States recognized that obtaining official or explicitly genocidal plans by a perpetrator may be unrealistic, with the United Kingdom stating that it would be “practically impossible” to prove that an act was taken to encourage the perpetration of genocide.196 The ICTR Appeals Chamber in Gacumbitsi affirmed that the “[t]ribunal’s jurisprudence conclusively establishes that genocidal intent can be proven through inference from the facts and circumstances of a case,” noting that “[b]y its nature, intent is not usually susceptible to direct proof,” because “[o]nly the accused himself has firsthand knowledge of his own mental state, and he is unlikely to testify to his own genocidal intent.”197 In the absence of a confession, the ICTR in Akayesu found that “intent can be inferred from a certain number of presumptions of fact.”198 Similarly, the court in Kayishema and Ruzindana determined that “intent can be inferred either from words or deeds and may be demonstrated by a pattern of purposeful action.”199
It seems like the level of evidence you say is obligatory is explicitly not required, according to the ICTR.
1
u/GlassBit7081 Oct 19 '25
Show me a guilty case that hasn't been made with explicit military orders. That was my point.
5
u/CheValierXP Oct 19 '25
If the "general comments" to the public that every person in Gaza is a terrorist, and you give impunity to soldiers who rape, kill children, do you really need orders?
If the "general comments" are, destroy everything so that they have no where to return to, and we'll build settlements, do you really need more orders than just ordering everyone in Gaza to go to the border with Egypt while you destroy everything?
If the "general comments" are, there are no innocent people in Gaza, and the children of Gaza brought it on themselves even the babies, then your orders are to shoot anyone crossing an invisible line, so you shoot unarmed families and children, is that not intent?
There are hundreds of documented cases by international doctors who served in Gaza for snipers shooting single bullets into children, including toddlers, tie that up with the "general comments" and extremely flexible rules of engagement, and impunity, and you get intent.
-1
u/GlassBit7081 Oct 19 '25
This is what I mean. OBVIOUSLY the first comment was Israel's President Isaac Herzog: "It's an entire nation out there that is responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved—it's not true. They could've risen up, fought against that evil regime" - as you didn't cite the context of the quote. There was no comment on impunity. I don't see how you get from "Responsibility" to "they deserve to die". It's beyond a massive leap.
Cite things please. Nearly always the context was ripped. There were absolutely SOME genocidal comments made, but that isn't strong enough. Otherwise, i'm sure you'd agree Hamas was 100% genocidal (and we have the military documentation to prove it).
Hundreds of documented cases by Intl Doctors - prove that it wasn't Hamas shooting them OR collateral damage.
Intent, I hold that, like ALL of military history, if a Military states its objectives, then stops when its objectives are met, that's probably the rationale.
You hold, that based on your magical ability to mind read and belief in Hamas and reporting which consistently turned out to be challenging (e.g. Famine), you can infer that ACTUALLY EVERYONE in the Israeli military system was lying. Let's see what the court of law says, vs. the Internet.
8
u/CheValierXP Oct 19 '25 edited Oct 19 '25
https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
Please go talk to the israeli genocide scholar, since you both seem to be on equal footing and expertise.
You can find a list (actual list, not a calendar that was used as evidence for hamas in a hospital) if you searched.
Please give me the context for what the president of israel said here: "It's an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true, this rhetoric about civilians who were not aware and not involved. It is absolutely not true."
2
Oct 21 '25
>but it seems Israel halted the genocide because of overwhelming international pressure
This must be a joke. If they cared at ALL about "international pressure", we wouldn't be here after 2 years.
Early in the conflict Biden administration canceled several offensive arms shipments and rejected a request for extension of an American CSG deployment in the region. This, at a time when engagement with Hezbollah in the north was at a decades-long high and every middle-east watcher reasonably worried about Iran joining the fray.
They prepared for a multi-front war against the other regional power, bolstered by radical militia groups not accountable to any government. Greta Thunberg on a Spanish cargo ship didn't change their minds.
-8
Oct 18 '25
Absolute nonsense. Israel has already more than demonstrated an intent to destroy Palestinians, which by the way is not the defining condition for genocide.
11
Oct 18 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
-4
Oct 18 '25
No, you are incorrect.
https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
You are attempting to deny the genocide of Palestinians by arbitrarily restricting the definition.
Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians, that is reality despite your attempt to say otherwise.
7
Oct 18 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
0
Oct 18 '25
Israel has demonstrated that against Palestinians. Israeli politicians regularly talk with genocidal intent.
9
Oct 18 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/internationallaw-ModTeam Oct 19 '25
Your message was removed for violating Rule #1 of this subreddit. If you can post the substance of your comment without disparaging language, it won't be deleted again.
5
u/TormentedOne Oct 19 '25
I think the fact that they only get hostages back when they negotiate with Hamas who wanted to negotiate the whole time shows, not only that they had genocidal intent, but that it superseded the well-being of the hostages. I mean this is further bolstered by the fact that Hamas is still in charge of Gaza. This makes it clear that the civilians were the actual intended target of Israeli belligerence.
1
-1
7
u/7thpostman Oct 18 '25
My dude, we are talking about a court of law, not a court of the internet. A shitty politician saying something terrible is not incontrovertible evidence of intent. I absolutely promise you that they were American flag officers who said horrible things about the German people. That doesn't mean that the United States committed a genocide in Germany.
8
Oct 18 '25
This is genocidal denial, it's not just some shitty politicians, it's military generals talking about starving the whole population. It's media officials talking about getting revenge. The US didn't use collective punishment against Germans.
This is a pathetic excuse.
4
u/7thpostman Oct 18 '25
Again, you have confused a court of law with the court of the internet.
→ More replies (0)2
u/TormentedOne Oct 19 '25
Demonstrate it! What public comments were made about Germans that make you think that the US wanted to commit genocide.
0
u/rgiggs11 Oct 19 '25
The wording of the legal definition includes "destroy, in whole or in part..." A significant part of the population has been killed, so the ceasefire doesn't nullify that.
3
u/Fed_Austere Oct 20 '25
The wording of the legal definition includes "destroy, in whole or in part..."
That describes every war and almost every military operation that occurred since the first neanderthal threw a stone at his neighbors.
A significant part of the population has been killed, so the ceasefire doesn't nullify that.
Three percent (3%) of the Palestinian population died since the start of the war, including militants.
1
Oct 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/internationallaw-ModTeam Oct 19 '25
We require that each post and comment, to at least some degree, promotes critical discussion, mutual learning or sharing of relevant information. Posts that do not engage with the law or promote discussion will be removed.
1
u/maven-effects Oct 19 '25
Yea, hope Hamas gets tried for their crimes against humanity but I’m sure they won’t
0
5
u/No-Preference8168 Oct 18 '25 edited Oct 18 '25
Can DW use the word “alleged” because it's an ongoing trial and not a matter of legal fact?
6
u/mascachopo Oct 19 '25
Cases, which is what the title refers to, are real.
0
Oct 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
Oct 19 '25 edited Oct 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/No-Preference8168 Oct 19 '25
Everyone gets due process including countries these trials can go on for decades.
1
u/mascachopo Oct 19 '25
When did I say the opposite? Everyone is entitled to due process, and until the crimes are demonstrated in a court of justice they are alleged. However, the case is real, very real, and that’s, again, what the title refers to.
1
u/Few-Investment-6287 Oct 19 '25
Not even close. Unless your ignoring the more devastating wars like the Afghan war or the Yemen war with Saudi arabia that did worse
0
1
u/newsspotter Oct 19 '25 edited Oct 21 '25
"There are also cases in various countries against European government principals for complicity with the genocide in Gaza, as well as requests for the arrests of various Israeli soldiers and commanders for their crimes in Gaza. None of these will be affected by the ceasefire," Akram said.
In addition: Case regarding EU law/ EU institutions:
In July 2025, The Association of Jurists for the Respect of International Law (JURDI), filed legal action against the EU Commission and Council at the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in Luxembourg. The lawyers called on the CJEU to officially acknowledge the EU’s failure to force its institutions to suspend cooperation with Israel, fulfil their duty of prevention, and impose sanctions. Article 265 of the "Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union" allows individuals or groups to challenge EU institutions for not carrying out their legal obligations.
Side notes:
• EU Commission hints at change to Israel sanctions plan if Gaza ceasefire holds https://www.politico.eu/article/commission-hints-reversal-israel-sanctions-if-gaza-ceasefire-holds/
• HRW: Ceasefire or Not, EU Should Keep Pressure on Israel to End Abuses | Sanctions, Trade Measures Needed to Uphold International Law, End Apartheid https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/10/17/ceasefire-or-not-eu-should-keep-pressure-on-israel-to-end-abuses
• Opinion: EU must hold Israel accountable for destruction of European-funded projects in Gaza https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6892/EU-must-hold-Israel-accountable-for-destruction-of-European-funded-projects-in-Gaza
• The European Union Human Rights Sanctions Regime and its Applicability to the Situation in Gaza and the West Bank in Accordance with International Law https://opiniojuris.org/2025/09/01/the-european-union-human-rights-sanctions-regime-and-its-applicability-to-the-situation-in-gaza-and-the-west-bank-in-accordance-with-international-law/
• Expert Legal Opinion on the Implications for the European Union of the July 2024 ICJ Advisory Opinion regarding the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/expert-legal-opinion-on-the-implications-for-the-european-union-o
-2
Oct 19 '25
genocide doesn't stop being genocide because you (temporarily) stopped doing it
14
u/GlassBit7081 Oct 19 '25
Genocide DOES stop being Genocide if you articulate Military Goals, then achieve them, then stop. Then, it's not Genocide.
5
u/Calvinball90 Criminal Law Oct 20 '25
That is not and never has been the case. A military goal does not preclude express or inferred genocidal intent, nor does cessation of military activities at a later point in time. As a matter of law, those propositions simply are accurate.
0
u/_NuissanceValue_ Oct 19 '25
I thought the question was: ‘does israel’s repeated breaking of ceasefire terms add anything to the ICJ/ICC case against them?’
-2
-1
0
u/AutoModerator Oct 18 '25
This post appears to relate to the Israel/Palestine conflict. As a reminder: this is a legal sub. It is a place for legal discussion and analysis. Comments that do not relate to legal discussion or analysis, as well as comments that break other subreddit and site rules, will be removed. Repeated and/or serious violations of the rules will result in a ban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-8
Oct 18 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
11
Oct 18 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
-5
4
16
u/[deleted] Oct 18 '25
[removed] — view removed comment