Remix clone Hacker News

	▲	yieldcrv 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		okay, but they are victims to it either way and its disingenuous to aim to invalidate and discredit that Hamas won an election by mere plurality in 2006, against an incompetent Fatah Which means not even a majority of the voting population voted for them Over 50% of Gaza is children The last vote was 18 years ago so over 50% of Gaza has never seen an election and had no say in Hamas rule of the remaining 50%, even if 100% of that population voted, less than 50% of them voted for Hamas so in the best case scenario, 20% of Gaza voted for Hamas. but of course its way less than that because not 100% of adults voted they are all victims of an autocratic regime where going against Hamas is death going too close to the walls during even peacetime is death by the Israelis and we’re supposed to smugly justify collective punishment on the idea that the current population has a real choice in the matter? that lacks emotional intelligence

▲

tzs 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Israel has not applied to be a member of the ICC so anything Israel does or does not do is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the ICC should admit or have admitted anyone else.

PS: I don't understand why this is controversial (which I infer that it is watching its points rapidly fluctuate).

The ICC exists to enforce certain international criminal law.

Someone suggested that intending to abide by those laws should be a requirement for admissions to the ICC. This seems like a pretty common sense approach. They also pointed out that the leaders in Gaza do not abide by those laws, and that this would have been a good reason for the ICC to not accept their application for admission.

Several people then pointed out that Israel also does not abide by those laws. My point is that this is a reason to reject Israel if they ever apply to join the ICC. When anyone applies to join the ICC it should be what they do that matters, not what others do.

▲

insane_dreamer 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

And Israel has proven it doesn't either. Not sure what the point is here?

	▲	tzs 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		You asked, referring to Palestine's admission to the ICC: > good for them; is there some reason they shouldn't have? Their point is that the ICC should only be admitting those who intend to abide by the rules that ICC exists to enforce. Since it was Palestine's admission you asked about their answer referred to Palestine leaders' intentions with regard to those rules. That Israel also doesn't abide by those rules is not relevant to the question you asked. It would be relevant if the question was whether or not Israel should be admitted to the ICC (and Palestinian lack of abiding by those rules would be irrelevant to that question).