UN seeks immunity for UNRWA employees complicit in Oct. 7 massacre - Channel 12 report

[Beastly Boy]

11. The UN is the defendant in this case. The hostage families are the plaintiffs.

It is not within the scope of ICC to address this case:

The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to
the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with
this Statute with respect to the following crimes:
(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression

https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf

Therefore, it is not complicity in war crimes that the hostage families are claiming (they have no standing to petition ICC in the first place), they are claiming damages resulting from this complicity. Since the UN headquarters are located in the US, the US federal courts have jurisdiction over charges against the UN.

Regardless of matters of jurisprudence, extending immunity to war criminals while ignoring the hostages is shameless and despicable on ethical grounds, and it brings into question the commitment of the UN to its stated mission.

It is the continued employment of war criminals past the factual establishment of their crimes that makes UNRWA complicit. While the UN, by extending immunity to a handful of war criminals, acknowledged the UNRWA complicity in a handful of cases that are subject to legal claims by the hostage families, it is still denying their complicity in hundreds of other documented cases of employing war criminals of equal statute. Still, this is sufficient. The UN immunity excepts them from the rule of law, not the facts in evidence, regardless of the nature of their complicity, whether premeditated or opportunistic, beyond any doubt. By granting immunity to the perpetrators, the UN forfeited their opportunity to dispute it.

This is despicable all in itself, regardless of any other assumed attempts to shield anyone else from justice.