[YZF]

If Israel's explanations were accepted then there wouldn't be a court case. It's unclear how justice can be done here and what's the standard of evidence. The UN just made a huge change to their accounting blaming "the fog of war" which puts their numbers much more in line with what Israel was saying. There is no independent body reporting numbers, they're either coming from the government of Gaza, i.e. Hamas, or they're coming from Israel. It's just a political circus/war of public opinion.

[dragonwriter]

> If Israel's explanations were accepted then there wouldn't be a court case

The explanations to be accepted by the court would have to be presented as evidence at trial, which would require their to be a court case.

Yes, if their explanations were accepted as conclusive by the prosecutor there wouldn't be a court case, but the prosecutor isn't the final decisionmaker for the court.

> The UN just made a huge change to their accounting blaming "the fog of war" which puts their numbers much more in line with what Israel was saying.

While the details of the charges asked for, beyond their titles, have not been laid out, I don't think the numerical counts that have been adjusted have much bearing on any of them.

[YZF]

> I don't think the numerical counts that have been adjusted have much bearing on any of them.

They totally do. They halved the number of children and women killed which completely changes the combatant/civilian ratio.

> The explanations to be accepted by the court would have to be presented as evidence at trial, which would require their to be a court case.

It's hard to see what sort of evidence will be accepted by the court. Hamas claims every single person killed is a civilian (and their combatants fight in civilian clothes) while Israel claims it's targeting combatants. What sort of Israel do you think Israel can present that will clearly support its case and will be accepted? Is there some sort of uninvolved party that can give us the truth here?

[dragonwriter]

> It's hard to see what sort of evidence will be accepted by the court.

There's quite a history of ICC cases (and they build on a history of ad hoc tribunals like those for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.)

The kinds of evidence that are acceptable are... not particularly mysterious.

> Hamas claims every single person killed is a civilian (and their combatants fight in civilian clothes) while Israel claims it's targeting combatants.

Yeah, if the ICC operated on the level of these kinds of claims it wouldn't take months of evidence gathering before referrals to get to warrants.

> What sort of Israel do you think Israel can present that will clearly support its case and will be accepted?

Once there are actual charges with specifics (right now, we just have the names of crimes for which warrants are being sought, not the specific charges) the kinds of evidence that would tend to disprove the specific charges against specific individuals will be more clear.