Talk:International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Israeli figures

Name

We should probably change the name. The fact that Mohammad Deif is included in these warrants is good enough reason to remove "for Israeli figures". Maybe something like "Israel-Hamas war International Criminal Court arrest warrants" would work. Personisinsterest (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Or do another one for Hamas figures. Selfstudier (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

NO, it is the same issuance.Sportsnut24 (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There have literally been more on this and it was posted before your unilateral move. Since it is NOT just israelis.

Undiscussed move

I reverted the page move, it needs an RM, I think. It is not obvious that the page is primarily about anything other than the two Israeli figures. The Hamas figure is almost an irrelevancy, more a case of going through the formalities. Selfstudier (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The coverage I've read (just a few articles, I haven't looked systematically) have focused overwhelmingly on the Israeli indictments, with the Hamas figures only mentioned in passing. All the headlines only mentioned the Israelis too.

And I suppose that makes sense, right - the Hamas leadership are all wanted on terrorism charges in dozens of countries already, so the warrants for them are of limited notability/interest. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

On a broader and possibly more subjective note, I find the phrasing "...arrest warrants for Israeli figures" oddly grating. Is that just me? I'm not advocating any specific alternative, but it sounds awkward. Perhaps "Israeli leadership"? AntiDionysius (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Israeli leadership is probably a better characterization, however idrk how much my opinion matters since I'm not logged in :/ 2601:647:4400:C80:5F2:9737:9B32:5944 (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The warrant issued BY the ICC involved all 3 figures. Making up stories is not WP is about.

Also see above.Sportsnut24 (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about this, you can open an RM but I can't see that the warrant for Dief is anything more than dotting i's and crossing t's. Lots of RS report their death even though Hamas has not explicitly confirmed it. Of course, should there suddenly be proof contrary, then we can revisit the matter.

I am not enamored of the Israeli figures thing but it was apparently based on International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Russian figures. Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Many might think that Deif is dead, but the fact remains that he is one out of the 3 figures for whom a arrest warrant was issued. Wikipedia shouldn't give a distorted impression of simple facts. Gugganij (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

No one is advocating removing mention of Deif from the article, this is just a discussion about the title.

Do you also think all those news organisations whose articles I linked below who only focused on Netanyahu in their headlines were providing a "distorted impression of simple facts"? AntiDionysius (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

By not mentioning 1/3 of the arrest warrants it very much indeed distorts first impressions...and news organisations are not writing an encyclopedia article - we do. Gugganij (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Once again, Deif's warrant isn't going to be "not mentioned" in any scenario, we are merely discussing whether it should feature in the article title. Articles frequently have titles which do not mention every single facet of the subject at hand, because that's not the function of a title. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Right, but we follow the lead of secondary sources over primary ones, and the secondary sources are focusing very much on the indictment of Netanyahu and Gallant, particularly the former. A quick Goole News search of headlines just now:

• CNN: International Criminal Court issues arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
• AP: Warrants put Israeli PM and others in a small group of leaders accused of crimes against humanity
• The Economist: The arrest warrant is a diplomatic disaster for Netanyahu
• CBS: U.N. court ICC issues arrest warrants for Israel's Netanyahu, former defense chief and a Hamas leader
• FT: Israelis rally around war effort after ICC issues warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu
• Vox: International arrest warrants are out for Netanyahu and Gallant. What happens next?
• JNS: Hours after ICC issues warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, Biden recycles six-month-old statement
• WSJ: ICC Issues War-Crimes Arrest Warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant Over Gaza War
• BBC: Arrest warrants issued for Netanyahu, Gallant and Hamas commander over alleged war crimes
• NYT: Netanyahu’s Arrest Sought by International Criminal Court
• ToI:ICC issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant over Gaza war; PM slams ‘antisemitism’
• WP: What the ICC arrest warrants mean for Netanyahu and Gallant
• AJ: ICC issues arrest warrant for Israeli PM Netanyahu for ‘war crimes’ in Gaza
• The Guardian: ICC issues arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged Gaza war crimes

AntiDionysius (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the article should be named "International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas figures". News articles are not encyclopedia entries, so they are not alike. Also, there are many sources that include Deif in the title, like [1], no need to even prepare a comprehensive list. We should just stick to the accurate article title. Tomer T (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Note that Deif's warrant was also classified as "secret", another reason to treat that case independently."The warrant of arrest for Mr Deif is classified as ‘secret’ in order to protect witnesses and to safeguard the conduct of investigations. However, the Chamber decided to release the information below since conduct similar to that addressed in the warrant of arrest appears to be ongoing, in particular the holding of a number of hostages captive. The Chamber considers it is also in the interest of victims and their families to be aware of the warrant’s existence." Selfstudier (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant, we still need to choose a more reflecting name. Tomer T (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that this article's title reflects a good scope. The overwhelming coverage and notability is for Netanyahu's arrest warrant, with slightly less prominence given to Gallant's arrest warrant. Mohammed Deif, who isn't even confirmed to be alive, is very clearly not what news sources are primarily talking about, and governments are not primarily reacting to Mohammed Deif's arrest warrant. If Deif's arrest warrant becomes notable enough, and there's enough reliable sources independently covering it to warrant an article for it, there's the option to create International_Criminal_Court_arrest_warrants_for_Hamas_figures (there's no need to have a single article that extensively covers both Israeli figures and Hamas figures). If Israel hadn't killed the people that the ICC was preparing arrest warrants for (Yahya Sinwar, Ismail Haniyeh), maybe those two would have their arrest warrants also receive prominent coverage and this article could have covered that too. But they're not alive, the ICC retracted their arrest warrants, and Mohammed Deif was/is not a well-known figure the way the other two leadership figures of Hamas were. Let's keep the current title, but if there ends up being notable coverage of Mohammed Deif, we can create a separate article for that. But for now, I don't think that a person who we can't even confirm is alive should require changing the scope of this article. Just mention him in this article in passing for now, alongside the withdrawn arrest warrants for Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh. JasonMacker (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Further Response from Hungary

Hungary's Orban says he will invite Netanyahu to Hungary after ICC move and centrally, promises not to arrest him. StativStakitKasket (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Added stuff about orban already a few mins ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsnut24 (talk • contribs)

USA politicians

I took the liberty of adding R/D-XX for the individuals as is common in local reporting. Not sure if it is done here (although it is pertinent, IMO), but if not can just mention the list of R's and D's on it's own. Sportsnut24 (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Senator Jacky Rosen should be D-NV, not R-NV 2601:647:4400:C80:5F2:9737:9B32:5944 (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and corrected that. JasonMacker (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Got a few more to add. I'm absolutely exhausted tonight. I'll do it 'morrow.Sportsnut24 (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Please consider the following paragaph for inclusion in the article.--Despitegaza (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

On 22 November 2024, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni announced that the arrest warrant will be discussed at the upcoming G7 meeting of foreign ministers and that she would be "looking into the motivations" of the ICC.

References

Suggest we just wait for the G7 meeting and if it is reported, then we can include it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Map

I have started working on a map of countries that have said that they will/won't arrest Benjamin Netanyahu:
I don't know if it would be useful to add it to the article, but I figured I would put it here and see what we think about it. If anyone has any suggestions about categories or corrections, please reply. Mason7512 (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks very useful to have a quick view of the world. You can paint Portugal in green [2]. Lgrave (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It is useful, but some are ambigous like italy, austria who condemned it but said they would follow ICC/EU regulations. Also Romania did the same.

Maybe put ICC signatories in a diff color too.Sportsnut24 (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the ambiguity was the hardest part of creating this map and a large reason I asked for any suggestions here. I tried to air on the side of putting states in 'unclear'/blank if it wasn't explicit, but every statement is different.

I didn't want to crowd the amount of categories (that's why I named it the 'unclear' category, which is admittedly very broad) but I think indicating signatories is a good idea and i will make a version that does.

Also, could you provide a source for Italy/Romania saying they will follow regulations? For now, I think I'm going to add those types of statements to the 'Will arrest' (but we can make another category if there is a consensus one is needed). Mason7512 (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I just went ahead and added an updated version to the article. Mason7512 (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered labeling the countries that are neither ICC state parties nor signatories? JasonMacker (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I figured that the blank/light grey can act as that as, so far (& to my knowledge), none of the non-party/non-signatories have overlapped with 'Will arrest' nor 'Won't arrest' and I don't want to crowd the categories or confuse people. Also, I see the purpose of the Rome Statute status being an indication of where countries that haven't committed or are unclear stand legally. Is there are reason you see the blank as being insufficient? Mason7512 (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I figured it could be helpful to explain the status of countries that aren't labeled on the map. The part that is confusing to me is the image's accompanying text is "World map of countries who have made statements on the ICC's arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu." But the map is not just for mere statements, but specifically a statement in regards to whether a country will arrest Netanyahu. For example, Al Jazeera's list of government reactions includes Iran, which isn't even party to the ICC (but still a signatory). Surely that counts as a country that has made a statement on the ICC's arrest warrant? But as far as I know, nobody has asked if Iran would arrest Netanyahu should he step on Iranian soil (which seems like a silly hypothetical to entertain in the first place). What would be the way to address this? Another example is that China has also made a statement on the ICC's arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu. Do you think these should be represented somehow on this map? JasonMacker (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The accompanying text is poorly worded, and it should probably be changed (I struggled with concisely wording it and kind of just settled for that). The intention of the map was to portray stated intentions/positions, not the statements themselves (if that make sense). I don't know how to represent statements that do not directly address the hypothetical of arresting him, nor how to represent countries that have not (and probably will not) answer whether they would arrest him because it's pretty obvious that hypothetical would not occur or a similar reason (like Iran). Perhaps a category of states that have expressed support for the warrants, but have not stated that they will arrest him? Though this would also include states like Namibia, Malaysia, and Bolivia alongside Iran. I'm open to any ideas. Mason7512 (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

https://www.justsecurity.org/105064/mapping-state-reactions-icc/ Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention! It makes things much easier to have all the statements in one place. Mason7512 (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem right now is that the US, which is not a signatory to the ICC, is labeled as red. Shouldnt the US be greyed out, like the rest of the ICC-non-signatories?

Also, France should be labeled red, in light of this news. JasonMacker (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

US should be greyed out but France's position is more nuanced. Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I put the US in red because they have clearly stated that they will not be arresting him and any country could arrest him if they wanted to, even non signatories/non parties. I intended the gray, striped, and blank categories to indicate the legal status/level of responsibility of countries that have not committed.. The Red/green, as the map currently is, does not differentiate between members, signatories, and neither.

I have made an alternative version with 2 additional categories: 'Unsupportive; unclear' and 'Supportive; unclear' (represented by pink and light green respectively). Would you prefer that version be used and include the US in 'Unsupportive; unclear'? Maybe that could be a solution to your concern.

I've tried to make the map as clear as possible without causing confusion or adding too many categories, my apologies. Mason7512 (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I put the US in red because they have clearly stated that they will not be arresting him Since they are not required to arrest him, that's irrelevant, we are interested in are those countries required to arrest him by virtue of ICC membership. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Why should we only be interested in those required to? That would limit the information provided by the map to only the 125 member states. That excludes major countries who could impact the legal landscape for these individuals. If, for example, India (a non-member, non-signatory) was to pledge to arrest him (or the opposite and offer safe harbor), should we not indicate that? What about signatories? They aren't required to arrest, only encouraged to, should just ignore Egypt? Saudi Arabia?

In my opinion, we should be clear about the stance of all countries regardless of status, as all countries have the ability to do so under international law. Mason7512 (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Why should we only be interested in those required to? Because that's what the article is about, see the title. Some countries do have their own laws that they could make arrests under but then they would try them in their own countries and not at the Hague. Your map does not need to deal with those issues. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

What part of the title implies the exclusion of the reactions of non-Rome Statute members? If it somehow does, why is the US reaction the most discussed in the 'Reaction' section? I think that text is there for a logical reason: the USA's position is very important as a major ally of Israel and major world power, and these warrants are a major world event. This article deals with the arrest warrants and includes details about ALL international reactions in the text because that is an essential part of this topic, which is at its core about international law and relations. The map should reflect this. If you want a map of the reactions from only member states, then that would be a separate, more specific map. But it would be weird to exclude other reactions, imo it would be undermining how important/relevant they are and would cause confusion.

As for your comment below, I think creating a separate page could be a good idea, as this is likely to have long-term coverage but am confused about your reasoning/the rest of what you said. Mason7512 (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

In fact, now that I think about it, the whole splurge about reactions should be farmed out to it's own page (they are all being duplicated at the parent so refactoring all that makes sense) along with the map. We should restrict ourselves here to prose and clear cut undisputed information (as if the map were an infobox). Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

What part of the title implies the exclusion of the reactions of non-Rome Statute members? From the point of view of your map, the "International Criminal Court arrest warrants" part. Israel is a US ally and not an ICC member state so their (opposing) reactions are entirely predictable and the US view needs must be mentioned in the article but I don't see your map as a quick and dirty summary of the article, it should focus only on the applicability of the warrants. Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we will come to an agreement on this without other input. It might be best to wait for others in order to make a consensus and decision. Mason7512 (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, I removed the map pending a consensus. Atm, two editors say the USA should be greyed and you oppose. Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm making the alternative version of the map you proposed (If no one else adds to this conversation, I will be adding it to the article), should I include signatories or only member states? Also: should 'Supportive; unclear' (light green) and 'Unsupportive; unclear' (pink) be categories, or simply Will/Won't? Mason7512 (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

ICC member states. If it were me and I don't insist on it, I would go with yes, no, unclear. Selfstudier (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Please consider the following paragraph for inclusion in Reactions > International: Lgrave (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Portugal: The Foreign Ministry Paulo Rangel assured that Portugal will comply with its international obligations regarding the enforcement of International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants, namely against the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Lgrave (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Mason7512 (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

References

"2024 Jew arrest warrants" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2024 Jew arrest warrants has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 26 § 2024 Jew arrest warrants until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 27 November 2024

International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Israeli figures → International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Israeli leaders – Involves the head of government and minister of defense, "figures" is too vague. If it were to include Hamas, which is an ongoing discussion, it would be International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders, but consensus seems to be leaning in the direction of not including Hamas in the title. Note: I have also opened an RM at Talk:International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Russian figures to also change it to "leaders". </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 10:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support: in addition to being less specific, as I mentioned above I find the use of "figures" really stylistically annoying, for some reason. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support In some respects it would be simpler if there was a page for each warrant and then we could just use the name but absent that I support the proposed change. Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support change to leaders ( or politicians ). 'Figures' is awkwardly phrased and vague. Mason7512 (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support - "Figures" wording was weird. "Leaders" is a normal word and is much less ambiguous. I also support the change for the Russian ICC arrest warrants article.--JasonMacker (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support - "figures" is a bit too colloquial; "leaders" is justified since the ICC does aim at prosecuting war criminals with high-level responsibility rather than low-level people who carry out orders. Boud (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support Leaders is a better word than figures. Rainsage (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)