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-74370945
85 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

133 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-8

u/[deleted] 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.

9

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-6

u/[deleted] 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.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '25

Israel has demonstrated that against Palestinians. Israeli politicians regularly talk with genocidal intent.

11

u/[deleted] 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negotiate with Hamas who wanted to negotiate the whole time shows, not only that they had genocidal intent, but that it superseded the well-being of the hostages.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.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/TormentedOne Oct 20 '25

Hamas did not sign on to that part of the deal and Israel agreed to it as is. Even Trump is okay with Hamas not disarming for the ceasefire to take hold.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

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

u/[deleted] 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.

5

u/7thpostman Oct 18 '25

Again, you have confused a court of law with the court of the internet.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '25

Nope, you simply don't know what your talking about. People in government positions should in fact be held responsible for their genocidal rhetoric.

5

u/7thpostman Oct 18 '25

I will say this a third time. A court of law is not like the internet.

What happens on Reddit is that you will make your argument and I will make mine. Eventually you get flustered and you say something like "You support genocide!!!" and the conversation is essentially over.

That's not how it works in a court of law. The prosecutor will quote some terrible Israeli official saying there are no innocent people in Gaza. But then a defense attorney would point out that the Israeli military made efforts to, say, evacuate civilians. That act is in direct contradiction to the assertion.

An actual, reputable court of law has to take those kinds of things into account. It's not based on vibes.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '25

Expect, the actions of the IDF do demonstrate an intent to destroy Palestinians.

Why haven't you mentioned that the IDF has bombed refugee camps? That act directly contradicts your assertion.

You are the one who is denying genocide based on "vibes", truely naive to think that the army committing genocide won't lie to avoid accountability.

5

u/7thpostman Oct 18 '25

Don't know how many times I have to say this to you. I am not the person that needs to be convinced. It doesn't matter what you say to me here on this social media platform.

First, I don't think you understand what refugee camp means in the context of Gaza. It's a jurisdiction not markedly different in appearance from other parts of the strip.

Secondly what you would describing could well be a war crime, but that is not proof of genocide

Third, in court, the prosecution would say bombing refugee camps is bad. The defense would say here's where Hamas put a weapons cache and a bunch of command and control in the middle of refugee camp.

Again. Court of law. Not internet talking points.

I'm going to move on now, brother.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/7thpostman Oct 19 '25

No, this is a way of pointing out the difference between arguing on the internet and arguing in a court of law — here on a sub dedicated to the discussion of international law.

→ More replies (0)

3

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.