Nuremberg trials for Israel politicians, IDF and settlers.
WHEN WILL THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OPEN THEIR
EYES TO ISRAELI LIES?
1) International Criminal Court (ICC) — charges against individuals.
The ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber issued arrest warrants on November 21, 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant, as well as Hamas military chief Mohammed Deif, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the Gaza war. ICC States Parties are obligated to arrest a wanted person on their territory, though enforcement depends on national authorities. These warrants exist regardless of Israel not being an ICC member because the Court has jurisdiction in Palestine (a State Party) and over crimes committed there.
2) International Court of Justice (ICJ) — state responsibility for genocide (not a criminal trial).
South Africa’s case against Israel is ongoing; the ICJ has issued repeated provisional-measures orders (including on May 24, 2024 concerning Rafah) to reduce the risk of genocidal acts while the merits are litigated. The ICJ can decide whether a state breached the Genocide Convention, but it does not convict individuals. A final merits judgment will take years.
3) Universal jurisdiction in national courts — possible cases against foreign officials (and, in rare circumstances, others).
Some countries allow their courts to prosecute grave international crimes regardless of where they occurred. You’re already seeing filings: for example, Argentine lawyers petitioned to arrest Netanyahu if he enters Argentina. More broadly, NGOs report a sharp rise in universal-jurisdiction cases worldwide, showing this avenue is active—though outcomes depend on each country’s laws, evidence, and politics.
4) Could settlers, foreign leaders, or “complicit” journalists face charges?
• Settlers / West Bank policy-makers: The ICC’s Palestine situation also covers the West Bank; transfer of an occupier’s population into occupied territory is a Rome Statute war crime, and legal analysis notes settlements are within potential ICC scope. Whether charges issue depends on evidence and prosecutorial choices.
• Officials of other states: Individuals can be liable for aiding and abetting if they knowingly and substantially contribute to crimes (e.g., providing operational support). Rights groups argue some third-country personnel could face exposure, but actual prosecutions are uncertain and politically fraught.
• Journalists: International law very narrowly criminalizes direct and public incitement to commit genocide (an inchoate offense)—not ordinary advocacy or biased reporting. The famous “Media Case” at the Rwanda Tribunal shows the bar: explicit, public calls that spur genocide. Without that level of direct incitement, speech is not an international crime.
5) A true “Nuremberg-style” tribunal?
Those were ad hoc courts created after WWII by victorious powers. Today, something similar would likely require a UN Security Council resolution (veto-prone) or a multistate treaty with territorial consent. Given geopolitical alignments, the ICC, the ICJ case, and scattered universal-jurisdiction prosecutions are the realistic venues, not a brand-new global tribunal.
Bottom line: There’s already a live criminal track (ICC warrants) and a live state-responsibility track (ICJ). Universal-jurisdiction filings are proliferating. But large, public “Nuremberg-style” trials for Israeli leaders, IDF members, settlers, foreign officials—or journalists—would depend on arrest leverage, airtight evidence meeting strict legal elements (especially intent), and cooperation by states that control borders and custody.
Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 Aug 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
Comments
Post a Comment