If We All Hadn't Had To Endure The Timewasters.

https://twitterwithbraincells.blogspot.com/2023/12/yep-theyve-been-mucking-us-about-again.html

Then I would have liked to have look at the wider legal context.

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-778034

There are really two core principles. The first being; "Military Exigency" or; "Necessity." All Laws of War are subordinate to a legitimate military objective. Protection of the Environment is often the first Law of War to be overridden in this way.

It's a misconception that militaries can't attack civilians. While they can't target them they only have to take reasonable steps to prevent them being killed. Causing a legitimate military objective to not be achieved is not considered; "Reasonable." So a military can most certainly kill civilians in order to achieve legitimate military objectives. 

The second core principle is; "Lawful Excuse." You are allowed to break a minor law in order to prevent a bigger crime. Breaking down a door to prevent a murder, for example.

Hamas is currently and actively committing Crimes Against Humanity. These are the most serious crimes that exist in international law. There is no objective more legitimate than preventing them. So all of the Laws of War can be broken in order to prevent Crimes Against Humanity.

Obviously there has to be a clear connection between how breaking a Law of War prevents a Crime Against Humanity. So you can't randomly shoot some unarmed civilian and then claim Lawful Excuse because someone unrelated to that civilian is committing Crimes Against Humanity.

However at the strategic, command level the severity of Hamas' crimes means that there is very little Israel can't do to bring them to an end.

Sadly though I think the two real tests we're facing are how Anti-Semitic the ICC has become and how susceptible to political manipulation it is.

Through the investigation of Russia and the indictment of Putin Britain made a big show of the fact that the ICC is now for sale. Privately funding the 'investigation' outside of the ICC's normal funding mechanism, recieving the result it paid for.

Britain's intention was that the ICC didn't survive the scandal. It's unlikely to be able to survive another scandal.

For their own sake I think they'd be well served to remember. That as a Court of last resort if Israel's own disciplinary mechanisms are sufficient then the ICC has no jurisdiction in the matter.