Why Israel’s push into southern Gaza could be a ‘real hell of a fight’

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, placnx said:

Maybe it takes someone to appeal a judgement for the Israeli Supreme Court to act. The military invetigating itself does not lead to a verdict in the case of military bad actors. Concerning the murder of Shireen Abu Akleh, there is abundant evidence for it, i.e. prima facie. It's a prime example of IDF impunity.

 

Now you divert to captive Palestinians. Those under administrative detention, now 1300 people, can be held up to 20 years without knowing why the are held, with no means of challenging their detention in court. So no way to appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court.

 

As for your claim about ICC, it has indicted Vladimir Putin. It did not need Russia's permission to do so. The occupied territories are covered by the Rome Statute since 1 January 2015. I don't know whether prior war crimes, etc, could be prosecuted, but many activities are ongoing, so acts previous to 2015, such as the settlements, would nonetheless be covered IMO.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/icc-has-jurisdiction-over-palestinian-territories/2135545

 

The US in particular has been very active in attempting to undermine the ICC regarding Israel: https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/the-international-criminal-courts-failure-to-hold-israel-accountable/

 

 

 

 

 

Of course someone needs to appeal, courts do not initiate legal proceedings. I think that's standard. In the case of the reporter, I think that there are, in fact, some standing appeals etc. vs. the IDF and the Israeli government. Haven't followed that for some time now, so not 100% sure where it stands. The other thing to remember with regard to current events is that the Israeli Supreme court is currently under 'attack' from Netanyahu loyalists and coalition partners - so there's a domestic political angle to this now as well.

 

As far as I'm aware there cannot be legal action taken on past deeds, as you mentioned. Further, I think this even applies to the date a country joins up, so not all of history of wrong can be brought before the court - other than ongoing issues (for example, the occupation itself could, but say unlawful killing of Palestinian prior to the PA signing up, would not). With regard to Putin - other than a declarative value what effect did this have? It all comes down to whether countries (especially powerful ones) cooperate and accept the court's authority.

 

Let me point out something mentioned on previous topics: The issues between Israel and the Palestinians will not be decided by the ICC, or by any other legal proceedings. This misguided notion often manifests itself in these 'discussions' when posters (aligned with either side) come up with some 'a-ha!' legal (or a moral/ideological/whatever) argument supposedly making their point. In reality, sides tend to disregard this, the relevant regional and international players tend to ignore this and pretty much everything goes on and on, back and forth. Things will be sorted either by extreme violence (an option which actually seems less likely than times past), or by an unhappy agreement. This 'magic solution' thinking - that if the right argument is found and proven correct, or that if one side just does this thing or the other - that ain't going nowhere.

[placnx]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Of course someone needs to appeal, courts do not initiate legal proceedings. I think that's standard. In the case of the reporter, I think that there are, in fact, some standing appeals etc. vs. the IDF and the Israeli government. Haven't followed that for some time now, so not 100% sure where it stands. The other thing to remember with regard to current events is that the Israeli Supreme court is currently under 'attack' from Netanyahu loyalists and coalition partners - so there's a domestic political angle to this now as well.

 

As far as I'm aware there cannot be legal action taken on past deeds, as you mentioned. Further, I think this even applies to the date a country joins up, so not all of history of wrong can be brought before the court - other than ongoing issues (for example, the occupation itself could, but say unlawful killing of Palestinian prior to the PA signing up, would not). With regard to Putin - other than a declarative value what effect did this have? It all comes down to whether countries (especially powerful ones) cooperate and accept the court's authority.

 

Let me point out something mentioned on previous topics: The issues between Israel and the Palestinians will not be decided by the ICC, or by any other legal proceedings. This misguided notion often manifests itself in these 'discussions' when posters (aligned with either side) come up with some 'a-ha!' legal (or a moral/ideological/whatever) argument supposedly making their point. In reality, sides tend to disregard this, the relevant regional and international players tend to ignore this and pretty much everything goes on and on, back and forth. Things will be sorted either by extreme violence (an option which actually seems less likely than times past), or by an unhappy agreement. This 'magic solution' thinking - that if the right argument is found and proven correct, or that if one side just does this thing or the other - that ain't going nowhere.

In these administrative detentions by the IDF, there is no proceeding with an accusation and presentation of evidence, so there's no avenue for appeal. It's of course regarded as illegal under international law, but Israel acts with impunity.

 

As for ICC, I cited the Putin case to show that what you said is incorrect. As regards Israel in the occupied territories, it's permission is not required for its bad actors, including Netanyahu, to be indicted by the ICC. The cases against Israel will move forward when international opprobrium reaches a point where the ICC prosecutor risks becoming an anathema to the UN system.  Action by the ICC would add to the momentum for a just peace, where the sovereignty of a Palestinian state would remove the root factors which led to the birth of Hamas and the continuing relevance of its ideology (whether or not Hamas continues to exist as a formal entity). 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, placnx said:

In these administrative detentions by the IDF, there is no proceeding with an accusation and presentation of evidence, so there's no avenue for appeal. It's of course regarded as illegal under international law, but Israel acts with impunity.

 

As for ICC, I cited the Putin case to show that what you said is incorrect. As regards Israel in the occupied territories, it's permission is not required for its bad actors, including Netanyahu, to be indicted by the ICC. The cases against Israel will move forward when international opprobrium reaches a point where the ICC prosecutor risks becoming an anathema to the UN system.  Action by the ICC would add to the momentum for a just peace, where the sovereignty of a Palestinian state would remove the root factors which led to the birth of Hamas and the continuing relevance of its ideology (whether or not Hamas continues to exist as a formal entity). 

 

As far as I'm aware, administrative detentions do need to be approved by a judge (plus re-approved periodically), and there is a possibility to appeal to the Supreme Court. What you refer to, I  think, is the initial process and detention. IMO the issue is with the practice itself, rather than how it's implemented.

 

With regard to the ICC you can cite whatever you like - I don't see Putin avoiding international travel, or ICC squads trying to bring him to justice. As for you predictions - again, sounds like wishful thinking rather than something based on reality. The bit about the Palestinian State especially gives a distinct sense that you are not very informed on things Palestinian - but again, engage in wishful thinking.

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, placnx said:

In these administrative detentions by the IDF, there is no proceeding with an accusation and presentation of evidence, so there's no avenue for appeal. It's of course regarded as illegal under international law, but Israel acts with impunity.

That's not quite how it is though. There are around 1,300 Palestinians held via administrative detention but only 23 of those are children/minors (19 or under). The current prisoner releases have been mainly children so its doubtful many of them would have been on that form of detention although many could well have been released having already been charged of offenses but not yet attended court. Of course then some had been convicted including for attempted murder. Most however were detained for offenses such as supporting terrorism, trespassing, belonging to an illegal organization, throwing incendiary devices and stones and carrying, possessing and manufacturing weapons, among others.

 

1 hour ago, placnx said:

As for ICC, I cited the Putin case to show that what you said is incorrect. As regards Israel in the occupied territories, it's permission is not required for its bad actors, including Netanyahu, to be indicted by the ICC. The cases against Israel will move forward when international opprobrium reaches a point where the ICC prosecutor risks becoming an anathema to the UN system.  Action by the ICC would add to the momentum for a just peace, where the sovereignty of a Palestinian state would remove the root factors which led to the birth of Hamas and the continuing relevance of its ideology (whether or not Hamas continues to exist as a formal entity). 

The ICC prosecutor Karim Khan visited Israel a couple of days ago actually, at the request of the families of those Israeli victims of the 7th Oct. After his visit to Israel he then travelled to the West Bank to meet senior Palestinian officials.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

That's not quite how it is though. There are around 1,300 Palestinians held via administrative detention but only 23 of those are children/minors (19 or under). The current prisoner releases have been mainly children so its doubtful many of them would have been on that form of detention although many could well have been released having already been charged of offenses but not yet attended court. Of course then some had been convicted including for attempted murder. Most however were detained for offenses such as supporting terrorism, trespassing, belonging to an illegal organization, throwing incendiary devices and stones and carrying, possessing and manufacturing weapons, among others.

 

The ICC prosecutor Karim Khan visited Israel a couple of days ago actually, at the request of the families of those Israeli victims of the 7th Oct. After his visit to Israel he then travelled to the West Bank to meet senior Palestinian officials.

 

 

Karim Khan sounds more balanced than some of his predecessors - not inasmuch as he's into giving Israel a free pass on anything (he won't), but in that he seems to accept and believe Hamas actions constitute clear transgressions. Also, he's less confrontational, and more of a pragmatic when it comes to the ICC's 'diplomatic' work (hence the problematic visit to Israel). The issues might arise from the guy chosen to actually investigate things - Andreas Laursen, who's hardly a 'fan' of Israel. I wonder if this appointment was intended to counter future claims of Khan being soft on Israel, but no way to know until things start rolling.

[placeholder]

 

On 11/29/2023 at 10:21 AM, Morch said:

 

More of your opinion than a 'given'. And given that your opinions are on public display on these topics, unsurprising.

 

The disregard you allege is not anywhere near as what you describe or claim, and regardless, Israel could not pursue such a strategy with the USA (and to a lesser degree, the West in general) opposing it. As for Netanyahu's coalition and government - if elections were held now, they'd be routed. In terms of legitimacy, they depends on the ongoing emergency participation of a major opposition party in government. If this support is withdrawn - and it may come to this if Netanyahu's policies would stray too much from Israel's national security tenets (such as risking a rift with the USA).

 

By and large, anti-government protests during the last months previous to the war demonstrated that the IAF was largely pro-opposition (to clarify, the IAF relies heavily on reserve duty pilots and aircrews). There was already a sizeable motion of reservists refusing to show up for duty (and operative capability effected) prior to the war. If put in a place where the missions allocated, or the government allocating them seem illegitimate, there's a good chance this will be repeated.

Well, my opinion is one that's shared by some very knowledgeable people. As they have pointed out, Biden has kind of backed himself into a corner with his over-the-top embrace of the Israeli response. After investing all this political capital in support of Israel, is it politically palatable for Biden to break with Netanyahu? 

White House pressed Israel during bombing pause to change its strategy

As fighting starts up again, it is unclear whether White House actions made a difference

Despite this notable change in message and tone, outside advisers and Middle East experts said it remains unclear whether Biden would be willing to distance himself or break with Israel if it does not heed the American exhortations and undertakes another broadly devastating aerial campaign.

“There’s a rhetorical change in how they’re talking about it, but it doesn’t seem substantive,” said Steven Cook, senior fellow for Middle East and Africa studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “If Israel pursues its military operations in a similar fashion, then you know the administration really hasn’t had an effect.”

https://archive.ph/FqD0S

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/02/white-house-pressed-israel-strategy-gaza/

 

As the article goes on to note, experts say they see no indication that Israel has changed its tactics in its prosecution of the war. An Israeli spokesperson quoted in the article says Israel sees no need to change its approach to the war. (Although, I suppose we would expect him to say that even if Israel had changed its tactics.)

 

The quoted comments of Bruce Riedel, a very savvy scholar of US policy in the Mideast, about the paralyzing predicament Biden finds himself in, are also telling.

 

As long as Biden doesn't explicitly draw a specific red line, why should Israel care what the rest of the world thinks? Essentially, as far as Israel's foreign concerns goes, it's down to a constituency of one person.

 

As for the Israeli government's domestic support, is there any politically influential concern among Jewish Israelis, who constitute roughly 80% of the population, about the fate of the Palestinian civilians in Gaza? Apart maybe from those voiced by a few leftists?  I think the order of the day for Jewish Israelis is vengeance and return of the hostages. Palestinian welfare doesn't figure in the political calculus.

 

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

 

Karim Khan sounds more balanced than some of his predecessors - not inasmuch as he's into giving Israel a free pass on anything (he won't), but in that he seems to accept and believe Hamas actions constitute clear transgressions. Also, he's less confrontational, and more of a pragmatic when it comes to the ICC's 'diplomatic' work (hence the problematic visit to Israel). The issues might arise from the guy chosen to actually investigate things - Andreas Laursen, who's hardly a 'fan' of Israel. I wonder if this appointment was intended to counter future claims of Khan being soft on Israel, but no way to know until things start rolling.

And just to make it clear, how many of those reserve pilots have actually refused to serve? As they explicitly noted during their protests, if an emergency arose, they would return to service immediately. And that's what, overwhelmingly, they have done. Given their mass resturn to service, one is inclined to wonder how sincere were their protests about being made vulnerable to the judgement of the ICC and how much that argument was contrived to support their opposition to the threat posed by Netanyahu's shenanigans to the Supreme Court.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

 

Well, my opinion is one that's shared by some very knowledgeable people. As they have pointed out, Biden has kind of backed himself into a corner with his over-the-top embrace of the Israeli response. After investing all this political capital in support of Israel, is it politically palatable for Biden to break with Netanyahu? 

White House pressed Israel during bombing pause to change its strategy

As fighting starts up again, it is unclear whether White House actions made a difference

Despite this notable change in message and tone, outside advisers and Middle East experts said it remains unclear whether Biden would be willing to distance himself or break with Israel if it does not heed the American exhortations and undertakes another broadly devastating aerial campaign.

“There’s a rhetorical change in how they’re talking about it, but it doesn’t seem substantive,” said Steven Cook, senior fellow for Middle East and Africa studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “If Israel pursues its military operations in a similar fashion, then you know the administration really hasn’t had an effect.”

https://archive.ph/FqD0S

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/02/white-house-pressed-israel-strategy-gaza/

 

As the article goes on to note, experts say they see no indication that Israel has changed its tactics in its prosecution of the war. An Israeli spokesperson quoted in the article says Israel sees no need to change its approach to the war. (Although, I suppose we would expect him to say that even if Israel had changed its tactics.)

 

The quoted comments of Bruce Riedel, a very savvy scholar of US policy in the Mideast, about the paralyzing predicament Biden finds himself in, are also telling.

 

As long as Biden doesn't explicitly draw a specific red line, why should Israel care what the rest of the world thinks? Essentially, as far as Israel's foreign concerns goes, it's down to a constituency of one person.

 

As for the Israeli government's domestic support, is there any politically influential concern among Jewish Israelis, who constitute roughly 80% of the population, about the fate of the Palestinian civilians in Gaza? Apart maybe from those voiced by a few leftists?  I think the order of the day for Jewish Israelis is vengeance and return of the hostages. Palestinian welfare doesn't figure in the political calculus.

 

 

 

With regard to the Biden administration future reactions to Israel's actions, guess we'll have to wait and see. Same goes for how Israel's operations in the south of the Gaza Strip will pan out. I have already commented on some issues with that elsewhere - mainly that both Israel's intentions and capabilities seem unclear at the moment.

 

I think what's likely to happen is that Israel will try to push things (as in relation to the Biden administration's wishes) as much as it can get away with. And whether through mounting destruction and growing casualty figures, or whether through a single major tragic accident - a red line will be drawn. In terms of political an geo-political damage, it may come too late for Biden, there's that. But again - we'll have to wait and see. I hope it will not come to that - as in not a repeat of the death toll, and no major friction between Israel and the USA.

 

As for your last bit - I think you're intentionally trying to twist my comment and introduce a faux moral argument which is not exactly related to what I posted. I have not said the the motivations of the opposition, or the pilots were pro-Palestinian.

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

And just to make it clear, how many of those reserve pilots have actually refused to serve? As they explicitly noted during their protests, if an emergency arose, they would return to service immediately. And that's what, overwhelmingly, they have done. Given their mass resturn to service, one is inclined to wonder how sincere were their protests about being made vulnerable to the judgement of the ICC and how much that argument was contrived to support their opposition to the threat posed by Netanyahu's shenanigans to the Supreme Court.

 

I'm not sure what this comment have to do with the post you replied to.

 

To address it, though - the way IAF reserve pilots serve is that they keep flying regularly to maintain operational qualification/readiness. It doesn't take too long for a pilot to 'lose' operational status, and there's more to regaining it then simply making up the missing flights. These training missions are what constitutes most of the reserve duty activities for pilots. So when they refused to show up for that, the IAF was starting to experience the effects. As I recall, IAF higher ups admitted things were getting uncomfortable, but that they could manage until the end of the year or so (IMO, that was based on current numbers of refusals, while the trend was growing).

 

As for reporting back to duty - this relates to the nature of the Hamas attack, I think. Had it been one of the more 'ordinary' flare ups - the willingness to return to service would have been lower. In a way there is also a connection to your previous post regarding USA support. So long as the Biden administration basically gives a seal of approval (plus the context of the 7/10 attack), and so long as the Supreme Court 'overhaul' is sort of on a freeze, maybe less issues at the moment. I think if either (or both) will change (Biden withdrawing support/Netanyahu resuming 'attack' on Supreme Court) there will be a reaction. 

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, placnx said:

In these administrative detentions by the IDF, there is no proceeding with an accusation and presentation of evidence, so there's no avenue for appeal. It's of course regarded as illegal under international law, but Israel acts with impunity.

 

As for ICC, I cited the Putin case to show that what you said is incorrect. As regards Israel in the occupied territories, it's permission is not required for its bad actors, including Netanyahu, to be indicted by the ICC. The cases against Israel will move forward when international opprobrium reaches a point where the ICC prosecutor risks becoming an anathema to the UN system.  Action by the ICC would add to the momentum for a just peace, where the sovereignty of a Palestinian state would remove the root factors which led to the birth of Hamas and the continuing relevance of its ideology (whether or not Hamas continues to exist as a formal entity). 

The chief prosecutor of the ICC just visited israel, which is NOT a part of the ICC, and apparently refused to visit Gaza. He is IMO not to be trusted when it comes to israel and has apparently refused to bring any cases against israel, despite many violations of humanitarian law under the illegal occupation of the West Bank.

[scottiejohn]

34 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

refused to bring any cases against israel

Could be because there are no cases to bring!

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, scottiejohn said:

Could be because there are no cases to bring!

Enough of the BS. Off to ignore with you.

[scottiejohn]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Enough of the BS. Off to ignore with you.

You are so kind!

Thank you;

I really understand the amount pain that momentous decision must have taken you!

 

 

Ps;  You do realize of course that I will still be reading and commenting on your BS and that you will occasionally see my and other posters' comments on what you troll about!

Edited December 3, 2023 by scottiejohn

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

You are so kind!

Thank you;

I really understand the amount pain that momentous decision must have taken you!

 

 

Ps;  You do realize of course that I will still be reading and commenting on your BS and that you will occasionally see my and other posters' comments on what you troll about!

 

I'm pretty sure he reads it all anyway and just pretends not to. Sometimes mistakes and replies, or references posts he supposedly can't see. All a bit childish, really.

[Bkk Brian]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The chief prosecutor of the ICC just visited israel, which is NOT a part of the ICC, and apparently refused to visit Gaza. He is IMO not to be trusted when it comes to israel and has apparently refused to bring any cases against israel, despite many violations of humanitarian law under the illegal occupation of the West Bank.

NOT true. He did visit the West Bank after visiting Israel. No wonder you have so many people on ignore, its so you don't have to respond to people calling out your lies.

[scottiejohn]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'm pretty sure he reads it all anyway and just pretends not to. Sometimes mistakes and replies, or references posts he supposedly can't see. All a bit childish, really.

I agree, hence my making the post knowing he will read it, but not now being able to respond! The best of both worlds!

Just like another troll poster who responds to questions to one poster's "avatar" by using one of his other ones!

So funny!

 

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2023 by scottiejohn

[stevenl]

Israel is focused on winning the battle while Hamas is winning the war.

 

I have said it a few weeks ago to be laughed at, but only people unwilling to see can deny that public opinion and even politics is slowly turning away from Israel.

[scottiejohn]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Israel is focused on winning the battle while Hamas is winning the war.

 

I have said it a few weeks ago to be laughed at, but only people unwilling to see can deny that public opinion and even politics is slowly turning away from Israel.

Winning the war and winning over an ingrained and biased public opinion are two entirely different things!

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2023 by scottiejohn

[Morch]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The chief prosecutor of the ICC just visited israel, which is NOT a part of the ICC, and apparently refused to visit Gaza. He is IMO not to be trusted when it comes to israel and has apparently refused to bring any cases against israel, despite many violations of humanitarian law under the illegal occupation of the West Bank.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

Despite your apparent expectations (maybe based on attitudes and positions of former chief ICC prosecutors), the post does not mandate holding a strong bias against Israel. Not part of the job requirement. I don't know why you imagine he'd be allowed into the Gaza Strip, it's not like it's open or safe at the moment. You do not indicate whether you mean he asked to go and was refused or what. In fact, you do not bother with a source at all - while haranguing others about such when it suits.

 

Bring cases against Israel based on what? Had inquiries started? Or do you see these as a formality and already decided the outcome? There is an ongoing ICC investigation regarding various Israeli actions started during the time of his predecessor.  As far as I'm aware it's still on, if on a low burner.  Not sure what you're on about - and doubt you know, either.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Israel is focused on winning the battle while Hamas is winning the war.

 

I have said it a few weeks ago to be laughed at, but only people unwilling to see can deny that public opinion and even politics is slowly turning away from Israel.

 

Do tell.

 

[scottiejohn]

20 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Do tell.

 

Even more Hamas/Aljazeera propaganda!

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Even more Hamas/Aljazeera propaganda!

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped visiting this subforum. 

You just omitted 'anti-semitic' in your post.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

Even more Hamas/Aljazeera propaganda!

 

Eh?

[scottiejohn]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Eh?

Sorry.

 

I was not getting at you, but at the post you referenced!

I was trying to agree with you!

 

[scottiejohn]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped visiting this subforum. 

You just omitted 'anti-semitic' in your post.

How come you are posting that asinine comment here on this forum if as you say "I stopped visiting this subforum"?

 

It really must be difficult to post on a forum you do not visit!

 

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2023 by scottiejohn

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Sorry.

 

I was not getting at you, but at the post you referenced!

I was trying to agree with you!

 

 

 

I don't think it was a well laid out argument or anything, but not what you claim either.

@stevenl is not a fan of Israel, I think, but nothing like a Hamas cheerleader.

[stevenl]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

I don't think it was a well laid out argument or anything, but not what you claim either.

@stevenl is not a fan of Israel, I think, but nothing like a Hamas cheerleader.

I like Israel, which is why I visited several times. Which is more than the vast majority of posters here 

I do disagree with some of their policies including the present military operation.

[placnx]

On 12/2/2023 at 5:49 PM, Morch said:

 

As far as I'm aware, administrative detentions do need to be approved by a judge (plus re-approved periodically), and there is a possibility to appeal to the Supreme Court. What you refer to, I  think, is the initial process and detention. IMO the issue is with the practice itself, rather than how it's implemented.

 

With regard to the ICC you can cite whatever you like - I don't see Putin avoiding international travel, or ICC squads trying to bring him to justice. As for you predictions - again, sounds like wishful thinking rather than something based on reality. The bit about the Palestinian State especially gives a distinct sense that you are not very informed on things Palestinian - but again, engage in wishful thinking.

Apparently the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem does not agree with you: https://www.btselem.org/administrative_detention

 

A two-state solution for now is the only way to stop this cycle of violence. Maybe in the future, Israel will deal with the apartheid within its borders. Then a one-state solution would be feasible if people wanted that. I believe that Putin did not go to South Africa and sent Lavrov instead.

[placnx]

On 12/2/2023 at 5:53 PM, Bkk Brian said:

That's not quite how it is though. There are around 1,300 Palestinians held via administrative detention but only 23 of those are children/minors (19 or under). The current prisoner releases have been mainly children so its doubtful many of them would have been on that form of detention although many could well have been released having already been charged of offenses but not yet attended court. Of course then some had been convicted including for attempted murder. Most however were detained for offenses such as supporting terrorism, trespassing, belonging to an illegal organization, throwing incendiary devices and stones and carrying, possessing and manufacturing weapons, among others.

 

The ICC prosecutor Karim Khan visited Israel a couple of days ago actually, at the request of the families of those Israeli victims of the 7th Oct. After his visit to Israel he then travelled to the West Bank to meet senior Palestinian officials.

Didn't he also go to the Sinai side of the Rafah crossing?

 

I have covered administrative detention in a response to Morch above.

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, placnx said:

Didn't he also go to the Sinai side of the Rafah crossing?

 

I have covered administrative detention in a response to Morch above.

I covered administrative detention as it is in reality, not your version.