Resolves YES if at any point in time in 2024, the coalition led by Netanyahu loses its majority in the Knesset. Not for passing a specific law, but the majority they need to keep things running.
This will almost certainly force early elections, but those will likely happen months later. In the meantime, Netanyahu would stay as prime minster.
Related questions
@nathanwei unclear - my understanding is that there's a few ways to have a no confidence vote but the most likely ones actually require a five vote majority, which would require nine total defections
@nathanwei Israel not having allies is a threat to its security. Keeping Netanyahu in power in that situation would be a diplomatic disaster.
@RemNi The problem is that the ICC isn't targeting Bibi over something specific he did, it's targeting Bibi because it opposes Israel's right to self defense. So ICC attacking Bibi bolsters his position.
@ShakedKoplewitz There's currently a discord thread about this if you're interested https://discord.com/channels/915138780216823849/1247977671061798972
@RemNi yeah, I'm sure the thread titled "Israeli propaganda" is a good place to get accurate, unbiased information about this and not a bunch of crazy antisemitic crap.
@ShakedKoplewitz pretty sure there wasn't any antisemitism in that thread, but feel free to call any out
@ShakedKoplewitz at this point I'm done caring about whether the people saying things are saying the "and Jews are bad part" or just repeating insane antisemitic propaganda as if it's facts. I did see "Israel blocks aid and water and doesn't try to avoid civilian casualties", which are blatantly, ridiculously false - Israel supplies massive amounts of aid (the only people to have blocked aid at all are Egypt), has worked to fix Gaza's water infrastructure, and has taken such unprecedented steps to avoid civilian casualties that this has been just about the lowest civilian casualty ratio in urban warfare history despite fighting an enemy actively trying to maximize them.
But these facts have been around and easily available for a while, so I doubt anyone there would be open to hearing them - it's just a lot more fun to listen to antisemitic propaganda and dismiss all evidence to the contrary as "Israeli propaganda" for some people.
@ShakedKoplewitz no one here is saying the "Jews are bad" or "repeating insane antisemitic propaganda". The original reference to propaganda was with regards to your statement that "the ICC isn't targeting Bibi over something specific he did, it's targeting Bibi because it opposes Israel's right to self defense" -- it is clear to everyone that this is nonsense
@ShakedKoplewitz The main question was what kind of media do you consume that has led you to this conclusion?
@RemNi see this is what I mean. You don't say the "Jews bad" part. You just assume the most anti-israel claims in any media are true and anyone arguing to the contrary is lying. In practice this isn't really different, you still end up enabling Hamas propaganda and making the war worse for everyone because they won't agree to stop so long as they think they're winning public opinion by causing this destruction.
@RemNi jeez I'd never have guessed the guy who hates Israel, thinks it does war crimes, and titles his discussion on it "Israeli propaganda" doesn't like Israel.
@ShakedKoplewitz I do think Israel has committed war crimes. I also think that Israel has the right to self defence.
@ShakedKoplewitz I was mostly curious about what the nature of your echo chamber was, and was trying to ask you questions about that
@RemNi Israel doesn't, in fact, commit war crimes. The white phosphorus thing turned out to be bunk (and has quietly been dropped by media outlets that never quite apologized for getting it wrong). The "Israel bombed a hospital" story turned out to be a Hamas rocket falling in a hospital parking lot. After a few cases like this you start noticing that no specific allegations stick - it's purely vibes based.
@RemNi The international court is a political body, with the normal UN opposition to Israel. It's not exactly a source of impartial justice. As can be seen by even making this suite - they don't have jurisdiction over Israel, which isn't a signatory (they claim jurisdiction over "crimes in Palestinian territories", which is a weird workaround especially since the Palestinian signatory is the PA, which doesn't include Gaza). It doesn't have jurisdiction in countries with independent court systems capable of trying their own leaders (which Israel demonstrably has). I doubt it has any real actual evidence. The appointed prosecutor refused to even talk to the Israeli government during the investigation. He's also a Pakistani Muslim, and while I'm sure there exist Pakistani Muslims who could be impartial the prior is pretty biased and this guy hasn't done anything to make himself seem like he cares about being or even looking impartial.
So no, the ICC isn't impartial. They're a typical corrupt UN body. They filed their charges the same week that Israel found bodies of its hostages in UNRWA compounds, which says a lot about how trustworthy UN agencies are in this conflict.
@ShakedKoplewitz it'd be nice to have some kind of fair, balanced and impartial international court system. The ICC isn't that and doesn't even especially try to come off that way.
@ShakedKoplewitz Just to be clear, the ICC is not a part of the UN. It is an independent international organization established by the Rome Statute.
The fact that the Palestinian Authority (PA) signed the Rome Statute does not exclude Gaza from the ICC's jurisdiction. The ICC's jurisdiction extends to the entire territory recognized as part of Palestine, which includes both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as East Jerusalem.
The ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber I explicitly stated in its February 2021 decision that the Court's jurisdiction extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. This decision affirmed that Gaza is covered by the ICC's jurisdiction.
@RemNi so it's an independent body involving neither of the governing bodies involved in this conflict who claim jurisdiction based on the rules they themselves wrote. How is that different from me writing down a document about how I have authority to arrest ICC members on a piece of paper and deciding to lock them up in my basement based on that? I could even say I'm fair and impartial and require a high standard of evidence while I was doing it.
@ShakedKoplewitz the ICC operates under a well-defined legal framework established by the Rome Statute, which has been ratified by 123 countries. This isn't merely a self-imposed authority but a system created through international cooperation and legal agreements.
The Rome Statute is an international treaty that countries voluntarily join. By ratifying the treaty, these countries agree to adhere to its rules and grant the ICC jurisdiction over certain crimes.
@RemNi these countries involve neither Israel nor Gaza. Chinese law is also ratified by over a billion people, but I'd be pretty upset if the CCP decided to put me on trial for something they claim I did outside of China, and I wouldn't trust them to be fair about it.
@ShakedKoplewitz While Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, Palestine, which includes Gaza, is recognized as a state party. This recognition allows the ICC to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed in Palestinian territories, including Gaza.
The ICC was established by a multilateral treaty, the Rome Statute, which has been ratified by 123 countries. This broad international support and participation provide the Court with legitimacy that a single nation's legal system, like that of the CCP, lacks in an international context.
The ICC's jurisdiction is based on the consent of its member states. Palestine, including Gaza, has acceded to the Rome Statute and accepted the ICC’s jurisdiction. This consent-based framework is fundamentally different from a single nation's attempt to impose its laws internationally.
Courts draw legitimacy from the consent of the governed. And that relies on them being trusted to be impartial and fair. And it's telling that no Israeli government (including left wing ones) has signed onto the Rome statue, because they do not trust the ICC to be fair and impartial. Neither has the united states or, as you point out, nearly a hundred other countries. Legitimacy is something courts need to work hard prove. The ICC hasn't, and doesn't even seem to be trying very hard.
@RemNi again, this is fundamentally no different than the CCP claiming to arrest me based on their domestic law. If some province of china claimed my house as its territory despite having no de facto control over it, they could claim that as a legal basis. But the fact remains that it's not a court perceived as legitimate by the participants in this conflict.
@ShakedKoplewitz While it’s true that some countries, including Israel and the United States, have not joined the Rome Statute, many others have, reflecting a significant portion of the international community’s support. The absence of certain countries doesn’t invalidate the Court’s legitimacy.
The ICC is a relatively young institution compared to national judicial systems. It has made strides in prosecuting serious international crimes, but it also has room to grow and improve. The ICC provides a platform for addressing crimes that might otherwise go unpunished due to national limitations or conflicts of interest. Its existence reflects a global commitment to justice and accountability that transcends individual national interests.
Palestine, which includes Gaza, has voluntarily acceded to the Rome Statute, consenting to the ICC's jurisdiction. This consent is crucial and is not analogous to an external entity like the CCP claiming jurisdiction without any agreement from the affected parties. The ICC operates under a clear mandate to prosecute the most serious international crimes, and its actions are overseen by the member states of the Rome Statute. This collective oversight ensures a level of accountability and legitimacy that a unilateral action by the CCP would lack.
@RemNi so to clarify re the Palestine point, there is no (de facto) unified "state of palestine" that includes Gaza and the west bank. It is a legal fiction that some countries have decided to accept for various reasons, but in practice the PA (to the degree that it is an independent government) and Gaza are separate entities. This is similar to how many countries accept Taiwan and China as one country with a division of government - I still believe, despite this legal fiction, that it would be wrong to hand over a taiwanese citizen to the CCP for something they did in Taiwan, even if most countries technically accept them as the same country. I would not trust the CCP's legal system.
In this particular case, to be blunt, of course the Palestinians would accept the ICC and Israel wouldn't - the ICC's bias (like the UN's, which it resembles in structure even if they are technically distinct organizations) is strongly anti Israel, and both sides know it.
You keep claiming the ICC deserves to have some authority here because many uninvolved countries have signed onto it. But that's not obvious, needs to be proven, and the ICC's conduct in this case strongly undermines their claim to be impartial or just, whatever they claim their standards are.
@RemNi it feels like your main argument here is "you should trust the ICC, elots of other people seem to". It doesn't actually address the reasons I don't trust the ICC, and doesn't really stand on its own merits (sure many people seem to trust the ICC, but many, including western democracies, don't - despite the obvious signal boost that embracing it would give. So there's no special reason to assume it's worthy of trust.
@ShakedKoplewitz the recognition of Palestine, including Gaza and the West Bank, as a state by the ICC and many countries is not merely a legal fiction. It is a result of international diplomatic consensus and the recognition of the Palestinian Authority's efforts to represent the Palestinian people. While the practical governance of Gaza and the West Bank is indeed split between different entities, the accession of Palestine to the Rome Statute is a reflection of the broader interntional community's recognition of Palestinian statehood and its right to seek justice through international mechanisms.
Your analogy with Taiwan and China is interesting, but there is a fundamental difference. The ICC's jurisdiction is based on the consent of the states that have joined the Rome Statute. Palestine's accession to the Rome Statute and acceptance of the ICC’s jurisdiction is a voluntary act, unlike a hypothetical scenario where Taiwan would be subject to CCP jurisdction without its consent. This consent is crucial and forms the basis of the ICC's mandate to investigate and prosecute crimes.
Regarding the trust in the ICC, it is true that the ICC, like any judicial body, must continually work to maintain and build its legitimacy and trust. It is worth noting that many contries with strong judicial systems and democratic governance have joined the ICC, indicating a broad base of support.
@ShakedKoplewitz the ICC has the legal authority to investigate and prosecute crimes committed within Palestinian territories, including those potentially involving Israeli government members. The trust or distrust of the Israeli government or its citizens in the ICC does not alter the Court's jurisdiction in this context.
The principle underpinning international justice is that accountability for serious crimes, such as war crimes and crimes against humanity, should not be contingent on the approval or consent of the accused state. This ensures that justice can be pursued even in complex and contentious situations where national interests might otherwise obstruct accountability.
@RemNi there's nothing here that wouldn't apply equally well to the CCP arresting taiwanese citizens for crimes committed in Taiwan. I'm sure the CCP would also claim it was acting fairly and the Taiwanese's crimes were really horrible and the Taiwanese government was just trying to disrupt accountability.
@ShakedKoplewitz does it help if I say I actually hate Bibi and would love to see him go to jail? But for the actual crimes he's on trial for by the (Israeli) court that actually has jurisdiction and rule of law, not the ICC's kangaroo court.
@ShakedKoplewitz the ICC’s role is not to impose its authority arbitrarily but to step in when national judicial systems are either unwilling or unable to prosecute serious crimes. In the case of Palestine, the ICC's involvement stems from Palestine’s recognition as a state party to the Rome Statute and its explicit invitation for the ICC to investigate crimes within its territories. This is a voluntary engagement with an international judicial body that aims to uphold justice where national jurisdictions fall short. In contrast, the CCP’s claim over Taiwan is a unilateral assertion of power that is not supported by international law or consensus and involves political motives rather than a commitment to impartial justice. The ICC’s mandate is to ensure accountability on a global scale, transcending national interests, whereas the CCP’s actions are primarily driven by national policy and territorial claims.
@RemNi okay I give up, this is like talking to gpt 3 here.
(No, the people of Gaza are in fact like the people of Taiwan, in that they reject the governamce of the pa much like the people of Taiwan reject the governamce of the CCP).
@ShakedKoplewitz I mean, you raised some interesting points. I was just responding to what you were saying.
@ShakedKoplewitz I think Netanyahu should be prosecuted in an international court. He clearly has undermined the independence of Israel's judiciary during his term, which makes it much harder to expect a fair outcome from a national court. That being said, my bias is towards multilateral institutions, so you can take that with a grain of salt.
@RemNi I would like there to be a multilateral institution. One that could be trusted to be fair and impartial enough that an Israeli government not under netanyahu would sign onto it. The ICC is not that institution.
@ShakedKoplewitz fair enough, you are absolutely entitled to that opinion. In my view it should be part of the ICC's core objectives to convince you of its fairness and legitimacy.