This is a fairly charged analogy which plays into the presentation of the sides and not the facts.
What if it turns out the Wealthy Businessman has been steadily murdering and Drug Addict's family, taking their land, and forcing them into such distress that they become addicted to a simple chemical escape?
Wearing a suit doesn't make you respectable. Hell, these days it's a cause for suspicion.
Yes, exactly! Our bias might be in favor of Israel because they have familiar-looking uniforms, tanks, etc. and the Palestinians are unshaven and often have a haunted look in their eyes. But not all is at it seems, and that's why the court shouldn't treat Netanyahu with kid gloves just because he looks clean.
Huh? Your comment is frankly non-sensical. Witnesses/victims that appear in court are doing so on behalf of the prosecution, they aren't charged with any crime.
Those are technicalities, but jupp0r was talking about how the public is going to perceive this action by the ICC. jupp0r was concerned that the ICC was equating the two sides, my point is that yes, they're being equated, in the sense that both sides are human. In other words, I don't think this is going to make people think, "huh, I guess both sides are equally guilty," I think it'll make people think, "huh, I guess both sides are being held to the same standard of justice." That's a good thing.
