Hacker News Reader

There is no overarching system of international law, appearances to the contrary. The signatories to the Rome statute agree to assist the ICC in investigating and prosecuting cases, which may or may not involve citizens of Rome signatory countries. The ICC isn't magic. Most of the world's population resides in non-member countries. Unlike an ordinary domestic court, the ICC cannot compel testimony; it can't even host an adversarial hearing in situations (like this one) where both parties don't agree to the premise of the ICC's legitimacy.

We could get more specific about the limitations and legitimacy of the ICC, if you wanted to.

The jurisdictional argument you're alluding to is based on this bit of the Rome Statute:

> the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute ... (a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred ...

The alleged crimes occurred in Gaza, so the ICC considers itself to have jurisdiction if the associated state is a signatory. The argument goes that the PLO signed the Rome Statue on behalf of the "State of Palestine", which claims Gaza as part of its territory.

The questionable part to me is that in reality, Hamas is the government of Gaza. The international community can declare another entity it prefers as the de jure government, but it's fairly meaningless when that other entity has never controlled or governed Gaza.

Even if we accept the idea that the ICC has jurisdiction under its own rules, that means nothing to a country like Israel which never accepted those rules, and also can't really expect a fair trial.

> The questionable part to me is that in reality, Hamas is the government of Gaza.

As far as I remember Hamas welcomed the ICC indictments against the Israeli officials (but opposed the now dropped indictments against the Hamas leaders). But also how is this different from the Russian de facto governance over Donbas and other Russian occupied regions in Ukraine, where the alleged crimes occurred? Or am I mistaken in believing that the indictments over Putin are less controversial?

With the ICC's indictment of Putin, my understanding is that at the time Ukraine hadn't formally ratified the Rome Statue yet (so the clause I quoted wouldn't apply), but they had accepted the ICC's jurisdiction in a more limited capacity which gave the ICC a slightly different way of asserting jurisdiction.

As far as I know, Hamas is not a party to the Rome Statue and also has not accepted ICC jurisdiction the way Ukraine did; Hamas welcoming a particular case doesn't really help with the ICC's jurisdictional claim.

(I'm also not sure the ICC would allow Hamas to become a party or accept jurisdiction, since they're operating in a sort of alternate reality where a different entity is the government of Gaza, but that's another matter.)

I’ve heard the story before that the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank applied to the ICC as a way to get back at Hamas, in the hope that the ICC would investigate Hamas. However reading the material here (primarily for the sibling thread) I’m starting to wonder if that narrative is true. It seems like from the get-go Israel—not Hamas—has been the primary target of investigation. The investigations I have looked at seem to primarily be focused on settler policy (including settler violence) in the West Bank, and Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza. Meanwhile there isn’t much investigation into Hamas. Even the 2024 indictments against Hamas members seem to not be based on internal investigations by the court, but rather by accusations in what smells like both-side-ism from afar. In fact that seems to be a pattern. The court finds war crimes committed by Israel, and then tags on crimes which Israel claims Hamas is doing (stuff like using human shields, etc.).

So what is interesting here, and perhaps runs counter to your guesses, is that I can‘t actually find Hamas disputing jurisdiction. Last November they disputed the impartiality of the court (i.e. what I call both-side-ism) but not jurisdiction. Israel has however disputed jurisdiction from the beginning, but not on the grounds you guessed above, rather their argument is based on the fact that Palestine is not a sovereign nation, so they cannot apply to become a member of the court. This was settled in 2021. Other member states had already recognized Palestine as a sovereign enough state to be a legitimate member in 2014, and a formal investigation into crimes committed in all Palestine territories began in 2015. This included Gaza (governed by Hamas) and East Jerusalem (governed by Israel). Meanwhile USA’s primary dispute seems to be that Israel prosecutes war crimes committed in the Palestinian Territories, so that the court should only have jurisdiction over crimes committed by Hamas in Gaza, not Israel’s crimes in the same territory. Although back in 2019, it argued with Israel that Palestine was not a sovereign enough state.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-icc-palestinians-israel/i...

So in summary, from my reading, I found nowhere where anybody disputed the court’s jurisdiction in Gaza and East Jerusalem, while recognizing jurisdiction in the West Bank.

I wouldn't necessarily say that the State of Palestine is not a real state, but it just isn't a state whose territory includes Gaza under any reasonable interpretation, despite what some international lawyers say. It's unprecedented to say "we deem the actual (sort of) elected government illegitimate, and deem this other entity as the rightful government" when that other entity has never controlled, administered, or been popularly supported in the territory in question.

I'm not sure what you mean about the ICC relying on Israeli claims about Hamas? If the ICC wanted to go after Hamas leaders, aside from the questionable jurisdictional argument, is seems like the easiest case. There's no question that Hamas leaders were involved in taking hostages, for example, which is just one of many war crimes the ICC could prosecute.

> I think there is an exception if the Israeli (or Russia in the case of Putin) justice system would prosecute the crimes fairly, then the ICC passes on jurisdiction, but as we clearly see, there is no indication that that will happen.

Right now the Israeli court system is prosecuting the individual assaults from Sde Teiman (the rape claim). During the evidence stage it turns out that the allegations seem to be very overblown, there was an assault. Not rape. The problem is that it's very hart to have a properly functioning justice system when people from the extreme right are blaming you of "working with the enemy". External action and social media are causing a problem instead of focusing on specific wrongdoings.

This is deeply problematic and doesn't help.

> > The people who literally go out and demonstrate against Netanyahu and his government every day.

> That is fine and dandy, but completely irrelevant while he is not being charged for war crimes by the Israeli justice system. If he goes to prison for corruption that isn’t exactly justice for the war crimes he has ordered committed.

Because there is literally no evidence of that. The only evidence ICC brought forth is declaratory intent. Members of the government said some pretty horrible things. That is indeed awful, but not a war crime, genocide or even ethnic cleansing.

After the last ceasefire, Palestinians returned to their homes disproving a large part of the ethnic cleansing allegations. By modern definitions of war in an urban area this was relatively clean.

Like all western democracies Israel has separation of branches. The army is separate and even if a minister wants to perform a war crime, he can't just command it. There is a chain of command and the legitimacy of the orders is evaluated along the command chain.

That means war crimes do happen, like they do in every war. Due to social media and the nature of this specific war they are far more visible (and often faked). Should they be prosecuted, sure. But focusing on that alone is problematic as it again, incentivizes the worst players and escalates the conflict.

This is a political problem, not a legal problem.

Like I said, I‘m not an expert on international law, but I have a feeling you might simply be wrong here. This is HN so I went and looked at the relevant documents[1][2], and from my reading I gathered that:

a) The jurisdiction was established way back in 2021[1], and

b) The court doesn’t deal with evidence directly when issuing indictments, but rather reasonable grounds[2], or as the news of the warrants stated:

> With regard to the crimes, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu, born on 21 October 1949, Prime Minister of Israel at the time of the relevant conduct, and Mr Gallant, born on 8 November 1958, Minister of Defence of Israel at the time of the alleged conduct, each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.

> The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.

The alleged crimes are summarized in [2] (I’m not quoting them here because it is basically 2/3 of the whole article, so go read it your self if you care). But I have to agree with the court there is reasonable grounds here. Other courts (like the ICJ) and human rights organizations, like the Human Rights Watch[3][4] and Amnesty International[5][6] have provided plenty of evidence to support the claim of reasonable grounds.

> But focusing on that [prosecution of war crimes] alone is problematic as it again, incentivizes the worst players and escalates the conflict.

> This is a political problem, not a legal problem.

I disagree. This is moral problem, and is fundamental to the rule of law. If Israel gets away with these crimes, it threatens the very foundation of the rule of law, and the whole international system is in peril. You can argue that was also the case with the Iraq war, and I would agree with you. But Israel’s crimes are so grave, and so obvious, that if we let that slide because of some vague—and honestly suspiciously convenient—notion of politics, there is nothing stopping bad actors from creating a political crisis to start the next set of atrocities.

1: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/090...

2: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p...

3: https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/05/15/gaza-latest-israeli-plan...

4: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-exterminat...

5: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter...

6: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/05/israel-opt-tw...

> a) The jurisdiction was established way back in 2021, and

The ICC decided it has jurisdiction, since Israel isn't a member that is pretty problematic.

> b) The court doesn’t deal with evidence directly when issuing indictments, but rather reasonable grounds[2], or as the news of the warrants stated:

Sure. Again another reason why this is just insane. People accepted this when the court was dealing with a rouge dictator or warlord but it's an insane law to apply towards a western democracy. Imagine them issuing an arrest warrant for GW Bush or Tony Blair... Or Churchill for that matter.

I'm not comparing the a*hole Netanyahu to any of them. But the concept is the same. Israel is upheld to a standard that no other country on earth has ever been upheld to.

> the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare;

I agree this is awful. But that ignores the robbery and hoarding of food by Hamas. Israel lets in trucks with supplies which get robbed the moment they cross over. Hamas hoards supplies in the tunnels and lets the civilians starve as a tactic.

I agree that Israel should still let the trucks through despite that. However, blaming Israel alone essentially gives Hamas the incentive to keep stealing the supplies which they are doing.

Worse, Netanyahu points at that and blames the antisemites who blame Israel unjustly. So he's back at it again. That didn't help and made things worse.

> and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.

That's just general nonsense. This is a war that was started by an inhuman genocidal attack by a body whose own goal is the destruction of Israel (not freedom). Hamas is still holding hostages as of now and was still firing missiles not too long ago (as it has been for the past ±20 years. Before that it was blowing up busses and restaurants.

> The alleged crimes are summarized in [2] (I’m not quoting them here because it is basically 2/3 of the whole article, so go read it your self if you care).

This is all in relation to the deprivation of food/electricity/gas and water. I generally agree this is awful.

But that's exactly what the extreme right and Hamas are trying to do and the ICC has made things worse.

> But I have to agree with the court there is reasonable grounds here.

Reasonable grounds doesn't justify an arrest warrant. The only thing that worked was pressure from Biden. This should never have gone to trial which has made things far worse for everyone who is moderate on both sides.

> Other courts (like the ICJ) and human rights organizations, like the Human Rights Watch[3][4] and Amnesty International[5][6] have provided plenty of evidence to support the claim of reasonable grounds.

Most of the "evidence" is based from Gaza and is in-effect tainted. These organizations are deeply biased e.g. the article was literally from Beirut.

I get what you're saying, but blaming Israel for war crimes when the other side is a terrorist nation that is still holding hostage civilians... That's pretty insane.

>> > This is a political problem, not a legal problem.

> I disagree. This is moral problem, and is fundamental to the rule of law.

That's exactly the mistake.

First off, which law?

Sharia law like they have in Gaza where a gay person is buried alive using a spoon by his brother (real story)... The ICC law doesn't apply. Hell, even the Palestinian authority who joined the ICC hasn't been in control of Gaza since 2005.

But most importantly, who enforces the law? Who returns the hostages? Who disarms Hamas?

It's super easy to sit in a western country and pass judgement. Hold people to a standard that you will never live to. Where is the justice for the people in the tunnels?

Hamas can stop this at any moment in time by releasing the hostages. They want this conflict to continue. Netanyahu wants it to continue as well. These people give it fuel instead of chocking out the conflict.

> But Israel’s crimes are so grave, and so obvious,

You were too far from the Iraq war to actually know what really went down there. Also, notice that America lost Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc. It isn't because they don't have the best weapons. They do. It's because they don't fight to win. Here's why America is losing wars: https://www.amazon.com/If-Takes-Thousand-Years-Jihadists/dp/...

Israel just can't afford to lose here. Despite what Hamas fantasizes about, Israelis won't go back to Europe. Most Israelis were born in Israel and over half were chased out of Muslim countries.

I 100% agree that Israel should find a way to take care of the Palestinian civilians. To its credit it tried to do just that by going around Hamas to one of the local powerful families. Hamas assassinated the head of the family as a warning to the other families.

> that if we let that slide because of some vague—and honestly suspiciously convenient—notion of politics, there is nothing stopping bad actors from creating a political crisis to start the next set of atrocities.

The ICC trial didn't work and to my recollection never worked in stopping bad actors. Only in punishing them after the fact. I agree that the current Israeli government is a bad actor, but so is Hamas and I would argue much worse. Unlike Israel, Hamas is willing to sacrifice its own people and children for its ideology. Its ideology is the destruction of Israel. When you're dealing with an enemy like that it's very hard to stay within the lines.

Wars are terrible and the only way to stop them is to bring people to the table. That can only be accomplished with politics. That notion of justice you have... I wish I was able to still believe there was such a thing in the world. It is a rare thing even within the boarders of countries and not on the international stage.

First lets address this fundamental misunderstanding:

> Reasonable grounds doesn't justify an arrest warrant.

As I understand it Reasonable Grounds is a technical term used by prosecutors precisely to justify arrest warrants. It is literally the definition of Reasonable Grounds. The court argued that it had reasonable grounds to make this decision.

https://legalclarity.org/what-are-reasonable-grounds-for-mak...

> People accepted this when the court was dealing with a rouge dictator or warlord but it's an insane law to apply towards a western democracy.

I don’t share your worldview of western supremacy or western exceptionalism. Western countries are just as capable of committing atrocities as anyone else.

> Israel is upheld to a standard that no other country on earth has ever been upheld to.

This is a strong claim which should be easy for you to back up with solid arguments if true. I’ve seen this stated a lot before, and it is most often just stated as true without question. But I doubt it is. If you compare to the USA, you might be right. USA is allowed to get away with a bunch of crimes against humanity, and is held to a very lax standard. I would hope Israel would be held to a higher standard than that. But if you compare to say Iran, or Russia, the argument falls apart. Israel is allowed to hold a nuclear arsenal, while Iran is meat with a whole loads of sanctions for developing a nuclear energy program used for civil power delivery. Israel is allowed to keep an occupation in the West Bank, annex the Golan heights, and blockade the Gaza strip, while Russia is correctly sanctioned for annexing Crimea and invading and occupying other parts of Ukraine. If Israel was held to a tougher standard we would see consequences for their Nuclear program and decades long occupation.

The rest of your post I only skimmed over. I saw a lot of excuses for Israel’s conduct, some of which have very flimsy evidence, and some have been flat out debunked over and over. I have no interest in arguing Israeli propaganda points with you, as you obviously believe them deeply, and I—as well as several of the worlds Governments (including Western Democracies[1]), human rights organizations, etc.—do not. Feel free to argue with them on the matter.

1: https://www.stjornarradid.is/library/02-Rit--skyrslur-og-skr...