Sounds more like a global politcal statement, as the ICC has no standing in Isreal as they are not members. And good luck finding Hamas, as Isreal’s been trying.
I don’t think anything will come of it.
From your link:
While Netanyahu and his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, do not face imminent arrest, the announcement by the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor was a symbolic blow that deepened Israel’s isolation over the war in Gaza.
< snip >
Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders condemned the move as disgraceful and antisemitic. U.S. President Joe Biden also lambasted the prosecutor and supported Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas.
A panel of three judges will decide whether to issue the arrest warrants and allow a case to proceed. The judges typically take two months to make such decisions.
I’m sorry, but being against the actions of the government of Israel is not anti-Semitic. If someone hits me who happens to be Jewish, having them arrested for assault is not an anti-Semitic hate crime.
I applaud this move, even it it is symbolic. Israel is making it tougher and tougher to have sympathy for them, although I still place the blame on Hamas.
Is mentioning Hamas in this at all both-sides-ism?
Probably not, but I see a nonzero number of Palestine supporters say so. Not sure if they’re the same ones who consider Hamas freedom fighters, but I’d guess that they’d agree regardless.
Accusing someone of both-sides-ism is a mechanism for enforcing faction purity, it’s not a fallacy or anything.
To be sure, there are cases where someone simply doesn’t want to know the truth and, for examples, cares more about being friends with everyone (the Ostrich Effect) so they practice “both-sider-ism” as needs be, to keep in good graces with everyone. There’s probably some other examples of trying to practice both-sider-ism that’s equally fallacious. But there’s any millions of examples in the world of two different people being good at the same time, in different ways; two people being bad in different ways; and of having an even mixture.
We might all live in an apartment building that’s being infested with rats. If George thinks we should burn the building down and Anne thinks we should flood the building and electrocute every inch of it; those are both wrong. Saying that you have to choose one of the two options and stay faithful to it is the false dilemma. It’s quite possible that there’s some third, better solution and internal politics have gotten in the way of getting to that.
Thinking that both sides have some points or that neither one does are both perfectly reasonable and, I’d venture to guess, the most common state of reality. Usually, each side is trying to do what they think is best in the world, and they’ll have at least some grains of a reason for that. On occasion, they might even both have a lot of backing. For most problems in life, there’s more than one solution and often there’s just a bundle of merits and demerits that go along.
Whether to vaccinate chickens or pasteurize eggs is relatively irrelevant, to take one example. They’re different and have pluses and minuses. Getting all hard core about one versus the other is mostly a waste of emotional energy.
Interesting report:
I support this. Both Netanyahu and Sinwar deserve to face consequences.
I support Palestine. I support freeing them from the oppression of Hamas, among other things.
The leaders of both sides in this war are part of the problem. If we could actually arrest both of them, that’d be great. Not that I have any real hope of that happening.
QFT.
I just don’t get criticizing specific Israeli government policies as being “bad” is the same as supporting the Israeli “right to exist.” YMMV
If you see no value to war, then this will always be your stance.
Is there ever a justified reason for war?
What? No, of course not. For a very obvious comparison, in Ukraine, Putin is a part of the problem, but Zelinskyy isn’t.
Should Zelinsky not attack Russia within their own borders where innocent Russian civilians could be killed?
Of course he should, because that’s what has the best chance of ending the war quickly. Not attacking within Russian borders will lead to many more innocent civilians being killed.
To make sure we’re on the same page: Starting a war is bad. Ending a war is good.
Do you not see Isreal as attempting to end the war with Hamas?