One of the most disgusting legal arguments Netanyahu and Gallant have offered in response to arrest warrants being issued by the International Criminal Court is that there is “no moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas”. This pathetic argument was shamefully repeated by the White House in the following statement:
It was also repeated by Downing Street:
Where to begin with this one…
Aside from anything else, Netanyahu and Gallant are not Israel, they are two politicians from Israel. Is the implication that Israelis should be above international law? That sounds awfully like the type of argument supremacists in charge of an apartheid state would use, doesn’t it? Good luck trying to use that argument in court.
It should go without saying, the moral equivalence line is irrelevant. If one person commits a horrible crime and then another person also commits a horrible crime, the court doesn’t decide which crime was worse and only convict one criminal. They look at each case individually and decide if crimes have been committed. Prosecuting both criminals is not a statement of moral equivalence, it’s the application of the law.
The fact that you as a defendant see your crime as less than the other person’s and see yourself as morally superior is irrelevant. The only relevant question is have you broken the law? Perhaps the biggest irony is that if a court accepted the “no moral equivalence” argument, Israel, as the illegal occupier committing genocide, would be considered the bigger criminal!
One of Israel’s other stupid arguments is that it doesn’t consider Palestine to be a state, therefore the ICC has no jurisdiction. The ICC has already thrown this argument out, but even if it was accepted, it would mean the ICC has no jurisdiction over Hamas either. There are many outstanding Zionist lawyers and yet they could not come up with better arguments because there are none. They know they are facing irrefutable evidence of genocide and war crimes.
Note how Netanyahu and Gallant have offered no denial of their crimes, they have simply suggested Hamas committed worse crimes. This shows you they have no defence, they are simply relying on emotional manipulation. They are fully aware such manipulation will not work in court, meaning you the public are their target. They are trying to manipulate the way you think and garner your sympathy.
The strategy is to hope that enough of the public turn against the International Criminal Court and see the judges as extremists and anti-Semites in collusion with Hamas. Netanyahu called the ICC the “enemy of humanity” and Israeli president Isaac Herzog went further, saying:
“The decision [to issue warrants] chose the side of terrorism and evil over democracy and freedom and turned the international justice system itself into a human shield for Hamas' crimes against humanity.”
Israeli Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said:
“The International Criminal Court in The Hague shows once again that it is anti-Semitic through and through.”
One of the ICC judges that Israelis are smearing as an anti-Semite is a 94-year-old holocaust survivor called Theodor Meron. He has previously presided over the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. You see how everyone who stands up to Zionist war criminals is an anti-Semite and a Hamas supporter?
You can’t criticise Israelis without being smeared because smearing is one of the few weapons Zionists have, the others being bribery and blackmail. Trump’s allies are already suggesting the US will sanction anyone who complies with the warrants and arrests Netanyahu. Their hope is that if enough of you turn against the ICC, and world leaders buckle under pressure, they can collapse international law and abolish the ICC, replacing it with something where Israel and the US are above international law. This is really how these people think the world should operate.
Former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott even suggested his country should withdraw from the ICC, unless it rethinks the warrants. The only court that is valid in the eyes of Israel’s allies is a court of western supremacy, but why would the rest of the world accept such a double standard?
The ICC was founded in part because of what the Nazis did to the Jews. The point was that no one, not even our leaders or the leaders of our allies, is above international law. It was supposed to be a mechanism to ensure that nothing like the holocaust can happen again, and if it does, the guilty will be held to account. However, our leaders have decided that “never again” was not for everyone, and Zionists, in particular, can do as they please.
A German government spokesperson openly admitted his country is unlikely to comply with the warrants because of Germany’s Nazi past. I guess this is the “no moral equivalence” thing again: our crimes were terrible so you must be let off the hook for yours. There is something deeply sick about helping one genocide to alleviate your guilt about another.
For many of Israel’s allies, it’s not even about guilt though. I doubt it’s even about Israel so much as a pathological love for the war machine. Dinosaurs like Biden have built their careers around the war machine and have known only impunity. Genocide was the natural conclusion of this impunity.
Humanity is now at a crossroads. We can finally hold the US and Israel to account and bring down the war machine or we can accept a world in which genocide becomes the norm. Take your pick.The last working-class hero in England.
Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
Re: "No moral equivalence" has no legal relevance in international law
The is no moral equivalence, Hamas is the only democratically-elected government in the middle east and the zionist antisemites are racist, fascist, antisemite and genocidal criminals against humanity.The last working-class hero in England.
Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
Re: "No moral equivalence" has no legal relevance in international law
Good to see Trump wants sanctions against anyone/thing that facilitates the cases against nutbag and not-gallant. That "maybe he won't be so pro-Israel" thing really didn't last long, but much longer than it should have....no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
Re: "No moral equivalence" has no legal relevance in international law
Also, that WaPo editorial that has a capture in the posted article is incredible: "The ICC is needed to resolve war crimes in Russia, Sudan, Myanmar. Targetting Israel makes that harder"
WTF? Essentially saying that the only use for it is against official enemies and not trying to disguise it. Fucks sake. The world is upside down....no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
Re: "No moral equivalence" has no legal relevance in international law
There was no question of Trump being better on Palestine. His idea is to tell Israel to get it over with fast so they can free up the real estate. Here’s his pick for directory of counterterrorism:
I actualyl had to check although I had temporarily forgotten he'd picked Gorka (again) which is actually almost as bad....no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
on November 25, 2024, 9:45 pm