u/ThanksToDenial

Should be noted, that said letter is one of identical letters that every single UN Member state receives each year, on their respective national holidays.

https://press.un.org/en/2026/db260211.doc.htm

So, the letter that went out from the Secretary-General is a standard letter that goes out to every member States on their national holiday, and this has been a tradition for decades. Every year, each Member State gets the exact same letter, right? Congratulating on their national holiday and conveying best wishes to the people of that country. As I said, the letters went out yesterday to Iran, Gambia, and Lithuania, if I'm not mistaken. So, like I said, it's a decades long tradition. And I said, each Member State gets the exact same letter. It should not be interpreted by anyone who receives it as an endorsement of whatever policies may be going, that Government may be putting in place. It doesn't change the Secretary-General's view of the crackdown that we saw in Iran, which he called horrendous given the level of violence and deaths that we saw.

I do find it fascinating that there is outrage about Iran receiving said letter, but not when Russia, or Sudan, or North Korea, or Israel, or DRC, or any of the other countries doing horrendous things, received the same letter on their national holiday, while they were engaged in their own atrocities... Why is that?

I actually think it is accurate to call Herzog the Head of State.

Herzog, legally speaking, is the Head of State. Which in a system like Israel has, is a largely symbolic role. They are the figurehead. A symbol of national unity.

Netanyahu, legally speaking, is the Head of Government. They basically run everything. Administration, policy and the executive branch.

As for immunity... well, Herzog isn't wanted any international criminal courts or tribunals as far as i know, so his Head of State immunity should apply. Same can't be said for Netanyahu though. He is wanted by the ICC. And no immunity granted by official capacity applies in front of international criminal courts or tribunals.

This is all on top of the fact that Iran is on the Human Rights Committee

Except they aren't. Last time they got on the Human Rights Committee was in 1978, before the Iranian Revolution.

The same United Nations that appointed Iran as chair of the Human Rights Council?

Iran has never been a member of the UN Human Rights Council.

https://research.un.org/en/unmembers/hrcmembers

Hell, the Human Rights Council doesn't even have a chairperson. It has a President.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/presidency

Iran sits on the UN Human Rights Council...

Iran is not, nor has it ever been, a member of the UN Human Rights Council.

You can just google "unhrc members research", and it should give you the official UN research guide on UNHRC as the top result, which contains a list of every single county that has ever been a member of the council dating back to when it was first created, if you want to confirm what i just said. Should take you about 30 seconds to do so.

giving countries like Iran to be head of human right councils

Iran has never even been a member of the UN human rights council though, let alone it's head...

I mean, i got the official list of all members of UNHRC, dating back to it's creation right here:

https://research.un.org/en/unmembers/hrcmembers

And you can find the current and former "heads" of the council here, for good measure:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/presidency

The UN is a biased organisation that thinks it's fine for Iran to lead on human rights.

How does Iran "lead Human Rights" at the UN exactly?

The only position Iranian representative has held in relation to Human Rights at the UN, was a being a Chair-rapporteur for a small two day event about technology and it's applications regarding human rights, in October of 2023, called the Social Forum.

Or maybe you are counting Iran being on the Asia-Pacific Regional groups internal working group for human rights or something similarly misguided?

If you'd rather listen to an organisation that puts Iran on the human rights council

Iran is not, nor has it ever been, a member of the UN Human Rights Council.

Also, UN Watch? Really? That's about as credible source as Rossiyskaya Gazeta. It's infamous for its bias and Disinformation.

Ugh... UN Watch. That explains your propensity to spreading disinformation. They are about as honest and accurate as your average Fox News host. About as biased too.

Though in this case... You didn't even read your own source, did you?

Do you often confuse a small two day event that took place in October of 2023, to the UN Human Rights Council? Or is it just this one time?

Why don't you come back after reading your own source. Even the first few paragraphs is fine. Though it is, in true UN Watch fashion, inaccurate and filled with disinformation again... But I guess it's close enough until the end of the second paragraph.

No. Iran has never been a member of the UNHRC. Here is the official list of every single country that has ever been a member of the UNHRC:

https://research.un.org/en/unmembers/hrcmembers

If Israel wanted them out of Gaza they would’ve blown up the massive triple-walled border between Egypt and Gaza which would’ve led to the Gazans escaping into the Sinai.

...you are aware that would lead to the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt to be dissolved right? And would definitely lead to another, much larger, war? With the country with strongest military in Africa? And most likely friends.

Seriously, even Smotrich or Ben Gvir wouldn't be that stupid. Egypt can actually do real damage. The subsequent war's casualties for Israel would make the casualties on October 7th look like a rounding error.

And the US most likely could not intervene in that conflict on Israel's behalf either, considering that it would likely compromise NAMRU-3, and that could be even a bigger threat than the war itself. In case you are not aware, that is a US DOD... Sorry, DOW run infectious disease lab in Cairo. What do you think the US Department of War might have in an infectious disease lab in Cairo? Compromising that facility might be a bad idea... There are a grand total of two BSL-3 laboratories in the entirety of the African continent. One of which is NAMRU-3. So imagine every disease outbreak you've heard of in Africa. There is a solid 50/50 chance, that laboratory holds samples of it. Higher chance actually, but minimum of 50/50.

Egypt has already raised a fuss over Israel's violation of the peace treaty and the Philadelphi Accords, by taking control of the Philadelphi corridor. Last thing we need is more treaty violations.

Point is, luckily, no one involved is stupid enough to do something like what you suggest.

Quick fact check.

Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Iran, Bangladesh, Russia, China, Malaysia, etc have all been on the UNHRC.

Here is the official list of all countries that have been on the UNHRC, since it's creation:

https://research.un.org/en/unmembers/hrcmembers

Mostly correct, with one exception. Iran. Iran has never been a member of the UN Human Rights Council.

Also, should be noted, that Russia was expelled and banned from the UN Human Rights Council in 2022. Becoming the second ever country to be expelled and banned from the UNHRC. The first was Sudan, under the rule of Saddam Hussein.

Afghanistan is protected by the UNHRC, not stopped, not acted on. protected

That is demonstrably false though.

You only want to demonize Jews

And how am I doing that, exactly? By pointing out your disinformation about the conflict in Sudan? Did I even mention Jewish people at some point?

Is correcting disinformation you were spreading about the conflict in Sudan somehow antisemitism now perhaps?

Seriously, go be a troll elsewhere.

Oh, it's one of my favourite topics! I got something more for you, for next time!

Look up Special Court for Sierra Leone, and the Charles Taylor case.

Also, look up the ICJ Arrest Warrant Case, particularly paragraph 61 on page 26 of the Judgement.

I also recommend looking up the Pinochet case. It has some good arguments, in regards to Jus Cogens violations, and immunity due to official capacity. Particularly, that there is none.

I got Jurisprudence coming out of my ears on this topic! And it all boils down to there being no immunity, diplomatic or otherwise, for war criminals and other jus Cogens violators, before any international court or tribunal!

And ofcourse, there are the obvious ones to cite. ICTR and ICTY. But I'm just assuming everyone is aware of those two.

Russia

Fun fact. Russia was literally kicked out and banned from the UNHRC in 2022.

Iran has never been even a member of the UN Human Rights Council, let alone it's president.

Official list of all members dating back to its creation can be found here:

https://research.un.org/en/unmembers/hrcmembers

The current president, and official list of previous presidents can be found here:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/presidency

Why are you ignoring that Genocide needs to be ruled by a court and that hasn't happened? Are you against the legal system?

C'mon, I'm sure you can think of a genocide that was never ruled to be a genocide under the genocide convention by a court, can't you?

I mean, I can. Pretty easily. Several, in fact, right off the top of my head. Holocaust at the top of said list. The ongoing Genocide in West Darfur being committed by the RSF being another. No court has ruled on it. But even the US government calls it a genocide. Are you saying the US government is against the legal system too?

Edit: ...I mean... Now that I think about it... I'll accept that argument, if you make it. The US government being against International Legal Systems isn't exactly a secret. My bad, that may have been a poor example. Point still stands though.

There is a genocide going on in Sudan yes. In the West Darfur regions, against the Masalit people, perpetrated by the RSF. The Genocide Watch, the US, and several other parties also back up the determination, that the events taking place there amount to genocide.

What is happening in the DR Congo... Could be genocide? It has distinct ethnic elements to it, but it is more complicated than that. Widespread crimes against humanity and war crimes, sure, but whether or not it amounts to genocide is unclear. M23 Movement, allegedly backed by Rwanda, have especially been busy with the war crimes and crimes against humanity. No authoritative party has called it a genocide yet though.

DR Congo conflict is one of those conflicts that give you a headache when you try to decipher it...

But the above commenter didn't gloss over any of this. You just brought them up, how could they "gloss over" it?

It was a rather poor attempt at deflection on your part though.

What are you, a troll?

But has the ICJ brought genocide cases against any other countries recently?

Yes. Three others, in fact.

Sudan v. United Arab Emirates.

Gambia v. Myanmar.

Ukraine v. Russian Federation.

I actually disagree with the courts decision in taking into account UAEs reservation to article IX. A large number of countries actually do not recognize any reservations to article IX. And I share the opinion of those countries on that matter.

Eh, that was just a two day event most people haven't even heard of, and Iran was just the Chair-rapporteur of said event, in charge of official reports of said event and what happened during it. Literal busywork.

More apt example would be Israel, which hasn't even signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has not signed the Biological Weapons Convention and hasn't even ratified something as basic as the Chemical Weapons Convention, being the President of the UN Conference on Disarmament. That happened last year.

what the fuck is "incitement to genocide" ?

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, article 3(c).

The following acts shall be punishable:

....

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

Incitement is defined as follows:

the action of provoking unlawful behaviour or urging someone to behave unlawfully.

In relation to this topic, the unlawful behaviour being provoked or urged would be genocide.

A good historical example of incitement to genocide would be from the Rwanda genocide. The repeated dehumanising propaganda, where Hutu-owned media repeatedly called the Tutsi minority "cockroaches" and other derogatory terms, and repeated calls for violence or murder against the Tutsi minority by public figures and Hutu officials.

The words "direct" and "public" in this context mean:

Public:

It is “public” under international law if it is communicated to a number of individuals in a public place or to members of a population at large by such means as the mass media.

Direct:

Incitement to genocide must also be proven to be “direct,” meaning that both the speaker and the listener understand the speech to be a call to action.

Does that answer your question?

In relation to the conversation you two are having, I have no comment. I just saw a question I could answer, so I thought I'd answer it.

It is a state

It has jurisdiction over Gaza

The people signing the treaty are the legitimate representatives

To accede to the Rome Statute, one needs to be recognised as a state by the UN. The State of Palestine is recognised as a UN Observer state (the same status as the Holy See), granting them the ability to accede to treaties, where the depository is the UN Secreteriat. Rome Statute is such a treaty. The court itself didn't get to determine statehood, and has not done so. It was, essentially, done for them, by the UN.

The territories considered to be Palestinian territories is also very clearly defined by the UN, and their current scope has been reaffirmed by the ICJ, UNSC and UNGA on several occasions. This was done without prejudice towards any future negotiated solutions to the conflict, but as far as the current territorial scope, it is well defined. Gaza is among those territories.

And obviously, the same entity which represents the State of Palestine at the UN, as an observer state, is the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Otherwise, they wouldn't be the ones representing Palestine at the UN as an observer state.

Ofcourse, for good measure, the ICC also debated these same issues extensively, in their pre-trial phase. In fact, there was proceedings and debates at the ICC on these topics as far back as 2009, and the issues you raised up were finally settled in 2021, during the ICC pre-trial Chamber 1.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_investigation_in_Palestine

Also, interestingly enough, Israel also recognised the PA as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people back in 1993, despite not recognising Palestine as a state. This was done in the 1993 Letters of Mutual Recognition, exchanged by Rabin and Arafat, leading up to the Oslo Accords. So the legitimate representative part is very well established.

Also PA, which ratified the statute, didn't control Gaza at time of ratification and never has since

This sets a bit of a weird precedent around convicts where both sides claim jurisdiction over the other (without checking who is a member of ICC/ICJ: China-Taiwan, Armenia-Azerbaijan- Nagorno-Karabakh, Somalia-Somaliland etc)

There was already a well established precedence for this. Ukraine and Crimea. Ukraine submitted to ICC jurisdiction through a declaration in 2014, after they had already lost control over Crimea. Yet, despite having submitted to the ICC Jurisdiction after having lost control of Crimea, and despite not having control of Crimea since, ICC has jurisdiction in Crimea. Because Crimea is de jure territory of Ukraine, regardless if Ukraine actually is in control of said territory.

ICC jurisdiction is based on de jure territory of state parties and the principle of territorial integrity, and not de facto controlled territories.

For the opposite example to my earlier example, the counter-invasion by Ukraine into Russian territories did not give ICC territorial jurisdiction in those Russian territories Ukraine controlled, despite the fact that Ukraine controlled them. Because said territories were de jure Russian territories.