AP: War crimes prosecutor seeks arrest of Israeli and Hamas leaders, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
The world’s top war-crimes court has issued arrest warrants for the leaders of Israel and Hamas, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
THE HAGUE (AP) — The world’s top war-crimes court issued arrest warrants Thursday for the leaders of Israel and Hamas, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, accusing them of crimes against humanity in connection with their war that began more than a year ago.
The warrants against Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant focus on allegations Israel has used food as a weapon in its campaign against Hamas in Gaza, a charge Israeli officials deny. Experts have warned that hunger has become widespread across Gaza and may have reached famine levels in the north of the territory, which is under siege by Israeli troops.
The action by the International Criminal Court came as the death toll from Israel’s campaign in Gaza passed 44,000 people, according to local health authorities, who say more than half of those killed were women and children. Their count does not differentiate between civilians and combatants.
Netanyahu condemned the arrest warrant against him, saying Israel “rejects with disgust the absurd and false actions” by the court. In a statement released by his office, he said: “There is nothing more just than the war that Israel has been waging in Gaza.”
The decision turns Netanyahu and the others into internationally wanted suspects and could further isolate them, as well as complicate efforts to negotiate a cease-fire. But its practical implications could be limited since Israel and its major ally, the United States, are not members of the court.
Israeli leaders, politicians and officials across the spectrum denounced the warrants and the ICC. The new defense minister, Israel Katz, who replaced Gallant earlier this month, said Thursday’s decision is “a moral disgrace, entirely tainted by antisemitism, and drags the international judicial system to an unprecedented low.”
The ICC’s 124 member states have signed on to the Rome Statute. Dozens of countries didn’t sign and don’t accept the court’s jurisdiction over war crimes, genocide and other crimes. They include Israel, the United States, Russia and China.
The ICC becomes involved when nations are unable or unwilling to prosecute crimes on their territory. Israel argues that it has a functioning court system, and disputes over a nation’s ability or willingness to prosecute have fueled past disputes between the court and individual countries.
In 2020, then U.S. President Donald Trump authorized economic and travel sanctions on the ICC prosecutor and another senior prosecution office staffer. The ICC staff were looking into U.S. and allies’ troops and intelligence officials for possible war crimes in Afghanistan.
U.S. President Joe Biden, whose administration has provided crucial military and political support for the Gaza offensive, lifted the sanctions in 2021.
The U.N. General Assembly raised the Palestinians’ status in 2012 from a U.N. observer to a nonmember observer state. That opened the door for the Palestinian territories to join international organizations, including the ICC.
The ICC accepted “The State of Palestine” as a member in 2015, a year after the Palestinians accepted the court’s jurisdiction.
The court’s chief prosecutor at the time announced in 2021 that she was opening an investigation into possible crimes on Palestinian territory. Israel often levies accusations of bias at U.N. and international bodies, and Netanyahu condemned the decision as hypocritical and antisemitic.
I am now stumbling into the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the stated merger of human and AI, and the state of Israel.
I’m in way over my head as to how this comes together.
Somewhere in the New World Order Jewish Rabbi videos, (scroll back in the vault) and the Day Tapes New World Order and the Day Tapes staged nukes Operation, a hazy outline is forming.
He said something about "this negotiated peace would be very convincing", as kind of in a framework or in a context that the whole thing was rehearsed but nobody would know it. People hearing about it would be convinced that it was a genuine negotiation between hostile enemies who finally had come to the realization that peace was better than war.
👇
Full quote:
I want to now describe what I heard from a speaker in 1969 which in several weeks will now be 20 years ago. The speaker did not speak in terms of retrospect, but rather predicting changes that would be brought about in the future. The speaker was not looking from the outside in, thinking that he saw conspiracy, rather, he was on the inside, admitting that, indeed, there was an organized power, force, group of men, who wielded enough influence to determine major events involving countries around the world. And he predicted, or rather expounded on, changes that were planned for the remainder of this century.
As you listen, if you can recall the situation, at least in the United States in 1969 and the few years there after, and then recall the kinds of changes which have occurred between then and now, almost 20 years later, I believe you will be impressed with the degree to which the things that were planned to be brought about have already been accomplished. Some of the things that were discussed were not intended to be accomplished yet by 1988. [Note: the year of this recording] but are intended to be accomplished before the end of this century. There is a timetable; and it was during this session that some of the elements of the timetable were brought out.
"EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE AND NOBODY CAN STOP US NOW..."
He said, as we listened to what he was about to present, he said, "Some of you will think I'm talking about Communism. Well, what I'm talking about is much bigger than Communism!" At that time he indicated that there is much more cooperation between East and West than most people realize. In his introductory remarks he commented that he was free to speak at this time. He would not have been able to say what he was about to say, even a few years earlier. But he was free to speak at this time because now, and I'm quoting here, "everything is in place and nobody can stop us now." That's the end of that quotation.
He went on to say that most people don't understand how governments operate and even people in high positions in governments, including our own, don't really understand how and where decisions are made. He went on to say that .. he went on to say that people who really influence decisions are names that for the most part would be familiar to most of us, but he would not use individuals' names or names of any specific organization. But. That, if he did, most of the people would be names that were recognized by most of his audience. He went on to say that they were not primarily people in public office, but people of prominence who were primarily known in their private occupations or private positions.
The speaker was a doctor of medicine, a former professor at a large Eastern university, and he was addressing a group of doctors of medicine, about 80 in number. His name would not be widely recognized by anybody likely to hear this, and so there is no point in giving his name. The only purpose in recording this is that it may give a perspective to those who hear it regarding the changes which have already been accomplished in the past 20 years or so, and a bit of a preview to what at least some people are planning for the remainder of this century ... so that we, or they, would enter the 21st Century with a flying start. Some of us may not enter that Century.
His purpose in telling our group about these changes that were to be brought about was to make it easier for us to adapt to these changes. Indeed, as he quite accurately said, "they would be changes that would be very surprising, and in some ways difficult for people to accept," and he hoped that we, as sort of his friends, would make the adaptation more easily if we knew somewhat beforehand what to expect.
FALSIFIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Somewhere in this connection, then, was the statement admitting that some scientific research data could be - and indeed has been - falsified in order to bring about desired results. And here was said, "People don't ask the right questions. Some people are too trusting."
Now this was an interesting statement because the speaker and the audience all being doctors of medicine and supposedly very objectively, dispassionately scientific and science being the be all and end-all ... well to falsify scientific research data in that setting is like blasphemy in the church ... you just don't do that.
Anyhow, out of all of this was to come the New International Governing Body, probably to come through the U.N . and with a World Court, but not necessarily through those structures. It could be brought about in other ways. Acceptance of the U.N . at that time was seen as not being as wide as was hoped. Efforts would continue to give the United Nations increasing importance. People would be more and more used to the idea of relinquishing some national sovereignty.
Economic interdependence would foster this goal from a peaceful standpoint. Avoidance of war would foster it from the standpoint of worrying about hostilities. It was recognized that doing it peaceably was better than doing it by war.
It was stated at this point that war was "obsolete." I thought that was an interesting phrase because obsolete means something that once was seen as useful is no longer useful. But war is obsolete ... this being because of the nuclear bombs war is no longer controllable. Formerly wars could be controlled, but if nuclear weapons would fall into the wrong hands there could be an unintended nuclear disaster. It was not stated who the "wrong hands" are. We were free to infer that maybe this meant terrorists, but in more recent years I'm wondering whether the wrong hands might also include people that we've assumed that they've had nuclear weapons all along ... maybe they don't have them.
Just as it was stated that industry would be preserved in the United States - a little bit just in case the world wide plans didn't work out; just in case some country or some other powerful person decided to bolt from the pack and go his own way, one wonders whether this might also be true with nuclear weapons. When you hear that ... he said they might fall into the wrong hands, there was some statement that the possession of nuclear weapons had been tightly controlled, sort of implying that anybody who had nuclear weapons was intended to have them. That would necessarily have included the Soviet Union, if indeed they have them.
But I recall wondering at the time, "Are you telling us, or are you implying that this country willingly gave weapons to the Soviets?." At that time that seemed like a terribly unthinkable thing to do, much less to admit. The leaders of the Soviet Union seem to be so dependent on the West though, one wonders whether there may have been some fear that they would try to assert independence if they indeed had these weapons.
So, I don't know. It's something to speculate about perhaps ... Who did he mean when he said, "If these weapons fall into the wrong hands"? Maybe just terrorists. Anyhow, the new system would be brought in, if not by peaceful cooperation - everybody willingly yielding national sovereignty - then by bringing the nation to the brink of nuclear war. And everybody would be so fearful as hysteria is created by the possibility of nuclear war that there would be a strong public outcry to negotiate a public peace and people would willingly give up national sovereignty in order to achieve peace, and thereby this would bring in the New International Political System.
This was stated and very impressive thing to hear then ... "If there were too many people in the right places who resisted this, there might be a need to use one or two - possibly more - nuclear weapons. As it was put this would be possibly needed to convince people that "We mean business." That was followed by the statement that, "By the time one or two of those went off then everybody - even the most reluctant - would yield."
He said something about "this negotiated peace would be very convincing", as kind of in a framework or in a context that the whole thing was rehearsed but nobody would know it. People hearing about it would be convinced that it was a genuine negotiation between hostile enemies who finally had come to the realization that peace was better than war. In this context discussing war, and war is obsolete, a statement was made that there were some good things about war ... one, you're going to die anyway, and people sometimes in war get a chance to display great courage and heroism and if they die they've died well and if they survive they get recognition. So that in any case, the hardships of war on soldiers are worth it because that's the reward they get out of their warring.
I’m a rube when it comes to geopolitics.
As I try to learn more and more, it keeps occurring to me that selected leaders, and they are thus, are selected on their fealty to go along and sell various agendas.
Joe Biden, for example, was helpful in getting Clarence Thomas anointed to the Supreme Court by shutting down the Anita Hill sexual harassment case.
Joe Biden is on a video that I used to link for NYT Shitlibs stating that we needed a “fence” to keep out the Mexican Drug Dealers.
Joe Biden was a tool of bankers many headquartered in his home state of Deleware.
Somewhere along the way, Joe Biden ran back in the pro wrestling dressing room and returned as a Commie.
The Corporate War Hawk was suddenly a Commie lefty.
Barack Obama ran on ending the bloodthirsty Bush-Cheney “neo-con” wars.
Bobby Kennedy, Jr. was anointed as some kind of Anti-Vax Hero, and has gone radio silent on the 17m dead and cancer-stricken since joining Donald Trump’s team.
The Selected Appointees all double-speak all the time about everything.
I will keep digging and trying to understand.
You may be a rube but sometimes it takes a rube to get through the Goldberg of geopolitics and full spectrum attack underway.
So suddenly, the globalist court going after someone is evidence of something bad?
If anything, it proves he is good.