In 2007, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in a case involving Bosnia and Serbia, established that the obligation to refrain from providing weapons or other assistance begins the moment a state becomes aware of the existence of a serious risk that genocide may be committed. Now would you agree or disagree that by issuing the warrants or even before claiming actions “consistent with genocide”, the us was “aware of serious risk”? If it did then its punishable by Article 3, which deals with complicity, which itself then constitutes genocide.

Is that what he said? No. Explanation does not equal justification. Just like the oct 7th does not justify the genocide in gaza, but it certainly is a part of its explanation and one may even come to a conclusion that it was provocative. I cannot understand how do people still have this brainfog when it comes to basic logic and context in these mattters

The people want to be free as in Ukraine. Look how that “reasonable” policy worked out for them.