Impeding relief supplies to Gaza’s population may constitute a crime under the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) jurisdiction, the court’s top prosecutor told a news conference in Egypt on Sunday.
Karim Khan also said Israel must make “discernable efforts, without further delay to make sure civilians receive basic foods, medicine”.
Israel, which is not a member of the ICC, has previously rejected the court’s jurisdiction and does not formally engage with its investigations.
what does that mean in this context though? got curious so I looked it up:
is the UN going to force open the border and then guard the convoy? no - the UN is basically powerless here. Arab majority countries in the area that really hate Israel (Iran, some members of the Arab League, etc) might get pressured into doing something, but I rather suspect they wont stick their necks out for a tiny bit of land on the wrong side of the Israeli border - the amount of risk involved isnt really worth it.
no, even if the ICC did rule against Israel, it really wouldnt change anything. this feels more like some nobody prosecutor trying to make a name for himself. it’s cheap and easy PR.
Removed by mod
Western nations, many of whom have their own dark history of settler colonialism, would rather abandon the ICC than acknowledge Israeli war crimes. Mark my words.
Which then makes it easier for people to argue that we aren’t the good guys, rhetoric useful for possibly changing our foreign policies. It’s not ideal, but it’s something.
Removed by mod
This is how international law has always worked. The fact that you can’t always enforce it doesn’t prevent making rulings. Domestic law will sometimes work the same way in some cases
Isn’t it the same as issuing arrest warrants against Putin?
Not quite, because that warrant actually does prevent Putin from going to a lot of countries, and it has made the coward afraid of even going to countries which have openly stated that they won’t enforce the warrant (like South Africa).