Members of the tribunal,
This case is not about politics. It is about law. It is about whether the rules painstakingly written after the ashes of World War II still bind the powerful.
The evidence placed before the world concerning Donald Trukp and Benjamin Netanyahu demands sober legal reckoning. Under their leadership, military campaigns were conducted in environments dense with civilians — in Yemen, in Gaza — where the principles of distinction and proportionality were not abstract ideals but binding obligations.
We have documentation of hospitals struck, markets reduced to rubble, entire neighborhoods flattened. We have reports from United Nations bodies and major human rights organizations detailing patterns of civilian harm. We have continued transfers of weapons and material support even after repeated warnings that such tools were being used in ways that risked indiscriminate destruction.
The defence will invoke “self-defence.” But the law of armed conflict does not evaporate when a state claims fear. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits collective punishment. The Rome Statute criminalizes intentionally directing attacks against civilians and launching strikes knowing they will cause excessive civilian harm relative to anticipated military advantage.
This tribunal must ask: when aid is obstructed, when starvation looms, when bombardment is relentless, are these unfortunate accidents — or foreseeable outcomes of policy choices?
No office — not president, not prime minister — confers immunity from the law. If international justice is to survive as more than a slogan, it must apply equally to those who command armies and those who suffer beneath them.
The question before history is simple: will power shield itself, or will law finally stand above it?
I think there is a case to be made for calling those two reprobates the world’s biggest serial killers? Some used knives, some hammers, some rope. Those two deploy huge amounts of explosive devices, much more effective.