ICC prosecutor seeks arrest warrants against Sinwar and Netanyahu for war crimes(cnn.com)
cnn.com
ICC prosecutor seeks arrest warrants against Sinwar and Netanyahu for war crimes
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/20/middleeast/icc-israel-hamas-arrest-warrant-war-crimes-intl/index.html
1,201 comments
Everyone seems to be arguing as if they have lots of evidence disproving the Israeli part in war crimes and I’ve seen plenty of videos of absolutely cold blooded murders of unarmed civilians and massive destruction of civilian infrastructure. If Israel is not starving Palestinians why did the US build a jetty to take in aid?
I don’t mention that Hamas are also war criminals because I think everyone can agree they are already. It’s obvious.
Anyway I always thought that courts like this should have a special higher authority and any of us arguing on hacker news, I believe they are brave to take this case, will review the evidence fairly and a court case can happen at some point. If these leaders are innocent then I’m convinced the court will find them not guilty, but they should be allowed to follow any evidence, your or my opinion on hacker news really isn’t very relevant compared to that of experts in war crimes and international law.
I don’t mention that Hamas are also war criminals because I think everyone can agree they are already. It’s obvious.
Anyway I always thought that courts like this should have a special higher authority and any of us arguing on hacker news, I believe they are brave to take this case, will review the evidence fairly and a court case can happen at some point. If these leaders are innocent then I’m convinced the court will find them not guilty, but they should be allowed to follow any evidence, your or my opinion on hacker news really isn’t very relevant compared to that of experts in war crimes and international law.
The merits of the case are mostly irrelevant because the ICC doesn’t have the authority to enforce any of its judgements. Any country that has one of its citizens (or leaders) convicted by the ICC cannot be compelled to honor the judgement, it can only do so voluntarily, whether it’s a signatory or not. If a country chooses not to comply, the only option is for the ICC to wage a war to enforce its judgement, which it can’t do, and is unlikely to convince others to do.
The name of the ICC does not describe what it actually does. The only role it’s ever actually fulfilled is to punish people who have already lost wars. Which is why it’s pretty much only ever been used to prosecute WWII losers, Yugoslavian civil war losers, and random African warlord losers.
The most optimistic outcomes for the ICC here are sanctions (which Israel’s closest allies wont participate in) or restricted international movement for the involved parties (which Israel’s closest allies will also ignore), and I still think that’s rather optimistic.
The name of the ICC does not describe what it actually does. The only role it’s ever actually fulfilled is to punish people who have already lost wars. Which is why it’s pretty much only ever been used to prosecute WWII losers, Yugoslavian civil war losers, and random African warlord losers.
The most optimistic outcomes for the ICC here are sanctions (which Israel’s closest allies wont participate in) or restricted international movement for the involved parties (which Israel’s closest allies will also ignore), and I still think that’s rather optimistic.
Well I think the ICC disagrees with your assessment of them, and they are in fact proving you incorrect by doing the exact opposite of what you’re claiming; attempting to try people who have potentially committed war crimes even though they are allies of western countries. I think this is an excellent thing personally and while it might be a new development for the court I think it’s very reasonable to follow the evidence and come to a conclusion despite huge political pressure.
Of course they would disagree. Their entire existence is based upon this fiction. The fact that they are attempting to reinforce this narrative doesn’t prove anything. If Netanyahu appears in handcuffs in The Hague I’d be forced to reassess my position, or better yet one of the too-many-to-count US war criminals. But I’m quite confident that’s never going to happen.
Talk is cheap, and it doesn’t matter what the ICC says, its role is defined by what it actually does. Which is as I’ve described.
Talk is cheap, and it doesn’t matter what the ICC says, its role is defined by what it actually does. Which is as I’ve described.
We all thought the ICTY would never get their hands on Milošević. I'm old enough to remember the day he appeared in handcuffs.
We can only hope that the law catches up with these fucks.
We can only hope that the law catches up with these fucks.
Milosevic was sent to The Hague after being ousted by a political revolution. I guess you could say that's not exactly the same as losing a war, but certainly within the theme of international law only applying to history's losers (as opposed to history's criminals).
No matter how you spin it, a court created in the wake of the Nuremberg Trials has ironically sealed Israeli leadership's outcast international status. Win or lose, History won't be kind.
It hasn't sealed it yet. It's a start of the process, there's no arrest warrant yet.
Absolutely right and there didn’t changed much in the last 100 years. Here a quote from a old book: ‘It is true that there exists a vast body of what is termed “international law”; but this bloodless caricature lacks the first essential foundation of law in capitalist society, the existence of a sovereign power capable of enforcing it…’[1].
1. World Politics 1918-1936 R. Palme Dutt
1. World Politics 1918-1936 R. Palme Dutt
> The merits of the case are mostly irrelevant because the ICC doesn’t have the authority to enforce any of its judgements. Any country that has one of its citizens (or leaders) convicted by the ICC cannot be compelled to honor the judgement, it can only do so voluntarily
This misunderstands how icc works. Generally the accused has to be in ICC custody for the case to go forward. Once the accused is in custody, the ICC has all sorts of power over them.
Perhaps you mean arresting people is hard. That is true, but the merit part only cones after that part.
> Which is why it’s pretty much only ever been used to prosecute WWII losers, Yugoslavian civil war losers
Neither of those were the ICC.
----
You're not entirely wrong of course. The ICC has trouble enforcing warrants against powerful people from powerful countries.
This misunderstands how icc works. Generally the accused has to be in ICC custody for the case to go forward. Once the accused is in custody, the ICC has all sorts of power over them.
Perhaps you mean arresting people is hard. That is true, but the merit part only cones after that part.
> Which is why it’s pretty much only ever been used to prosecute WWII losers, Yugoslavian civil war losers
Neither of those were the ICC.
----
You're not entirely wrong of course. The ICC has trouble enforcing warrants against powerful people from powerful countries.
Why don't they just try war criminals in absentia, sentence them to death and then put bounties on their heads?
The US put bounties out on Osama Bin Laden. This isn't unprecedented.
The US put bounties out on Osama Bin Laden. This isn't unprecedented.
The US putting a bounty on the head of an internationally-recognized terrorist and leader of a violent non-state actor like Al-Qaeda is nowhere near comparable to an international body putting bounties out for the leaders of sovereign states of millions.
Right, in this hypothetical one bounty target has been convicted of war crimes by an internationally recognized court, and the other is Osama bin Laden.
Well sure they aren't comparable if you leave out the 'convicted war criminal' part of this hypothetical.
What about Hamas leaders then?
Because in theory this is supposed to be about justice not vengeance.
You’re right about that, The ICC has actually only ever prosecuted Africans (and recently issued a couple of warrants against Russians). But The ICC, The ICTY and the IMT/IMTFE all have essentially the same authority when it comes to enforcing “international law”, which is none at all. International laws aren’t real, there is no international government, international police or international armed forces. All international legal or military actions take place only with the voluntary cooperation of all countries involved. If any country decides to withhold that cooperation on any particular issue, then there is no enforcement mechanism. Which is why all of history’s “international courts” have only ever prosecuted the losers of wars.
> International laws aren’t real, there is no international government, international police or international armed forces
What you are expressing here is essentially a variant of the philosophy known as "legal realism" – laws only exist to the extent they are enforced, so a law lacking a sufficiently effective enforcement mechanism isn't really a law at all.
However, that perspective was rarely heard prior to the 20th century. Historically, international law grew out of the work of early modern European scholars such Grotius. Many of them (Grotius included) were natural law theorists – they saw the law of nations as grounded in human nature, and ultimately established by God. In those days, much of Europe – even in the purely domestic sphere – was still governed by customary law: laws evolved due to custom, whose content was never entirely clear, and which were never perfectly enforced. The continental legal tradition was founded on ancient Roman law, which continued to be studied as a kind of abstract intellectual system in universities long after it had ceased to be enforced in practice – however, rather than an exercise without any practical relevance, lawyers and judges would apply its provisions to every day cases, but only when they could get away with doing so – an attempt whenever they could to impose some neat Roman order on the anarchic mess of royal decrees and Germanic pagan custom. Against that historical background, the idea of international law without any clear lawgiver or law-enforcer made much more sense than it does to you.
What you are expressing here is essentially a variant of the philosophy known as "legal realism" – laws only exist to the extent they are enforced, so a law lacking a sufficiently effective enforcement mechanism isn't really a law at all.
However, that perspective was rarely heard prior to the 20th century. Historically, international law grew out of the work of early modern European scholars such Grotius. Many of them (Grotius included) were natural law theorists – they saw the law of nations as grounded in human nature, and ultimately established by God. In those days, much of Europe – even in the purely domestic sphere – was still governed by customary law: laws evolved due to custom, whose content was never entirely clear, and which were never perfectly enforced. The continental legal tradition was founded on ancient Roman law, which continued to be studied as a kind of abstract intellectual system in universities long after it had ceased to be enforced in practice – however, rather than an exercise without any practical relevance, lawyers and judges would apply its provisions to every day cases, but only when they could get away with doing so – an attempt whenever they could to impose some neat Roman order on the anarchic mess of royal decrees and Germanic pagan custom. Against that historical background, the idea of international law without any clear lawgiver or law-enforcer made much more sense than it does to you.
The way it works today is the way it’s always worked. Laws have always needed enforcers, and international laws have only ever been enforced by the winners of war against the losers of war. That’s why the Romans enforced egregious reparations against the Carthaginians after the first Punic war (and took many of their men into slavery), which lead to the second Punic war (after which the same thing happened again).
> The way it works today is the way it’s always worked. Laws have always needed enforcers
Again, you are relying on a contested viewpoint in the philosophy of law as if it were obviously true, despite the fact that many people (both historically and today) disagree with it.
It is one thing to argue for a contested philosophical position – but if you are just going to assert it as "obvious" or "self-evident", then you are really just preaching to the choir, you can only ever convince people who already agree with you.
Again, you are relying on a contested viewpoint in the philosophy of law as if it were obviously true, despite the fact that many people (both historically and today) disagree with it.
It is one thing to argue for a contested philosophical position – but if you are just going to assert it as "obvious" or "self-evident", then you are really just preaching to the choir, you can only ever convince people who already agree with you.
I'm simply stating the facts of history, which your primary criticism of seems to be that they're too realistic. Describing a viewpoint as contested doesn't really mean anything, you are here contesting it, so it's self-evidently contested. That doesn't lend any credibility to what you're saying. Laws without enforcers are just somebody's ideas, and having some esoteric philosophical objection this doesn't change the reality of the situation.
I could issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and hold a trial for him myself. Perhaps I could also contrive some philosophical justification for why this would be a deeply meaningful act, but the reality of daily life would continue without any regard for such a gesture.
I could issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and hold a trial for him myself. Perhaps I could also contrive some philosophical justification for why this would be a deeply meaningful act, but the reality of daily life would continue without any regard for such a gesture.
> I could issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and hold a trial for him myself.
And it wouldn't be discussed through-out the Internet. It wouldn't be spoken about on CNN and other mainstream media.
It all really comes to this, doesn't it? It all comes to the established belief in the authorities. With enough uncontested claims like yours, the power of ICC would fade. However because of witty responses of skissane, its power grows.
One of the best quotes from the Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire:
> A King, a priest, a rich man and a sellsword are in a room. Those three man tell the sellsword to kill the other two.
> Who lives and who dies?
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/161997/so-what-was...
And it wouldn't be discussed through-out the Internet. It wouldn't be spoken about on CNN and other mainstream media.
It all really comes to this, doesn't it? It all comes to the established belief in the authorities. With enough uncontested claims like yours, the power of ICC would fade. However because of witty responses of skissane, its power grows.
One of the best quotes from the Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire:
> A King, a priest, a rich man and a sellsword are in a room. Those three man tell the sellsword to kill the other two.
> Who lives and who dies?
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/161997/so-what-was...
> I'm simply stating the facts of history, which your primary criticism of seems to be that they're too realistic.
No, my criticism is that you are making the category mistake of confusing history with philosophy of law.
Nobody disputes the historical fact that international law has never seen any more than selective enforcement.
The dispute is about what relevance that historical fact has for the ontological status of international law qua law. That's a philosophy of law question, not a history question.
You are also ignoring the historical fact that the vast majority of states prefer to claim compliance with international law (however dubiously) rather than openly defy it. If other states accuse them of violating international law, the standard diplomatic response is to dispute the contents of the law or its application to the facts at hand, not to reject the whole concept of international law. Your nihilism about international law ignores the real historical fact that states at least pretend to believe in it – and a lot of the people who make those decisions on behalf of states (diplomats, bureaucrats, politicians, etc) aren't just pretending to believe in it, they really actually do. This is a real historical and contemporary phenomenon your theory can't explain.
> I could issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and hold a trial for him myself.
There is an obvious difference – nobody with any real world power would accept what you did as legitimate. Whereas, if the ICC issues an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, many people around the world with real power (government officials, judges, diplomats, international bureaucrats, etc) will officially consider that a legitimate act. Now, of course, despite the fact these people do have some real world power, it is unlikely to be enough in practice to actually bring about Netanyahu's arrest. But still, that's a very different situation from your hypothetical of an act which nobody with any significant real world power would accept as legitimate.
And, an ICC arrest warrant is likely to have some real world consequences for Netanyahu – it will likely reduce somewhat his ability to travel internationally; it is also likely to harm Israel diplomatically and politically (e.g. it could well make an easier job for people lobbying for various governments to recognise the State of Palestine); conversely, it is likely also going to help Netanyahu in Israel's domestic politics; whereas, your warrant/trial would have zero real world consequences for him or for his government or country.
No, my criticism is that you are making the category mistake of confusing history with philosophy of law.
Nobody disputes the historical fact that international law has never seen any more than selective enforcement.
The dispute is about what relevance that historical fact has for the ontological status of international law qua law. That's a philosophy of law question, not a history question.
You are also ignoring the historical fact that the vast majority of states prefer to claim compliance with international law (however dubiously) rather than openly defy it. If other states accuse them of violating international law, the standard diplomatic response is to dispute the contents of the law or its application to the facts at hand, not to reject the whole concept of international law. Your nihilism about international law ignores the real historical fact that states at least pretend to believe in it – and a lot of the people who make those decisions on behalf of states (diplomats, bureaucrats, politicians, etc) aren't just pretending to believe in it, they really actually do. This is a real historical and contemporary phenomenon your theory can't explain.
> I could issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and hold a trial for him myself.
There is an obvious difference – nobody with any real world power would accept what you did as legitimate. Whereas, if the ICC issues an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, many people around the world with real power (government officials, judges, diplomats, international bureaucrats, etc) will officially consider that a legitimate act. Now, of course, despite the fact these people do have some real world power, it is unlikely to be enough in practice to actually bring about Netanyahu's arrest. But still, that's a very different situation from your hypothetical of an act which nobody with any significant real world power would accept as legitimate.
And, an ICC arrest warrant is likely to have some real world consequences for Netanyahu – it will likely reduce somewhat his ability to travel internationally; it is also likely to harm Israel diplomatically and politically (e.g. it could well make an easier job for people lobbying for various governments to recognise the State of Palestine); conversely, it is likely also going to help Netanyahu in Israel's domestic politics; whereas, your warrant/trial would have zero real world consequences for him or for his government or country.
Karim Khan, lead ICC prosecutor: I was told by a “senior leader” this court is “built for Africa and thugs like Putin”, not for the West and its allies. https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1792748783996207206/media...
I find it a little unfortunate that the ANC, who have explicitly stated they won't enforce the ICC warrant against Putin (and have previously ignored ICC genocide charges against a Sudanese leader), were still considered a reasonable group to prosecute Israel.
Makes it look rather like they did so at the behest of Russia (whether on behalf of their ally Iran or as a simple continuation of Russian support for the ANC, who knows).
Even if it only looks like that, the conflict of interest is sufficiently obvious that I find it difficult to regard the ICC's indictments wrt Israel as judicially legitimate.
(this is not to imply that Israel is anywhere near innocent of all accusations made against her, only that I see no reason to trust the ICC's judgement in the matter of which ones she's guilty of)
Makes it look rather like they did so at the behest of Russia (whether on behalf of their ally Iran or as a simple continuation of Russian support for the ANC, who knows).
Even if it only looks like that, the conflict of interest is sufficiently obvious that I find it difficult to regard the ICC's indictments wrt Israel as judicially legitimate.
(this is not to imply that Israel is anywhere near innocent of all accusations made against her, only that I see no reason to trust the ICC's judgement in the matter of which ones she's guilty of)
The ICC is not prosecuting Israel. The ICC prosecutes individuals. South African or the ANC have no saying in who the ICC pursues cases against.
The ICJ is handling a the case against Israel filed by South Africa. The ICJ handles only cases with state parties, and only on the basis of complaints of one of those state parties.
The two cases are entirely separate, and the ICC and ICJ are two entirely different courts. The ICC was created under the Rome Statue. The ICJ, meanwhile was founded on the basis of the UN Charter.
The ICJ is handling a the case against Israel filed by South Africa. The ICJ handles only cases with state parties, and only on the basis of complaints of one of those state parties.
The two cases are entirely separate, and the ICC and ICJ are two entirely different courts. The ICC was created under the Rome Statue. The ICJ, meanwhile was founded on the basis of the UN Charter.
Point. My mistake.
I think ICJ giving credence to South Africa given they consider the ICC optional is still ... unfortunate, at best, but "conflict of interest" is rather less applicable.
I think ICJ giving credence to South Africa given they consider the ICC optional is still ... unfortunate, at best, but "conflict of interest" is rather less applicable.
"The merits of the case are mostly irrelevant because the ICC doesn’t have the authority to enforce any of its judgements." - tell this to Slobodan Milošević
Milošević died before any judgement could be rendered. So we have no idea what would have happened if had been found guilty.
He was delivered to the court by his own country who was heavily pressured by the United States. That is obviously not going to happen to Netanyahu considering both US political parties back Israel.
Eh, a conviction would make domestic US political support a a lot dicier to maintain.
A conviction would also require signatory states to arrest the convicted persons - or give up the support for the ICC. Almost all of the EU is member of the ICC. A conviction, or even just an arrest warrant would lead to massive political complications for the EU-Israel relations.
This the US that passed the Hague Invasion Act?
If you’re suggesting “the US” is one monolithic entity, then no.
> If a country chooses not to comply, the only option is for the ICC to wage a war to enforce its judgement
not just does the US criminal elite not recognize ICC but they took it one step further with spelling out[1] what might happen if a US criminal is being charged by the court:
"The Hague Invasion Act", allows the president to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of the Netherlands, where The Hague is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.
... so not only should Israeli and Hamas war crimes be prosecuted, but in order not to appear utterly hypocritical, and "to do right by history", should US/UK war criminals like Dick Cheney, G.W. Bush, Tony Blair, and all other despicable criminal soldiers face the music for what they did in Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and other places. Kidnapping from a sovereign country, torture, etc ... Just utterly barbaric.
But the US especially is a lost cause considering how they treat the worst transgressors and war-criminals like the execution without trial as in the case of Osama bin Laden. So just imagine if anyone would propose having US war criminals meet that very same fate? It would get you banned on every Internet site for "hate speech" LOL. Which is why it's pointless to cite laws, the justice system or pen and paper to solve something that is immune to that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
not just does the US criminal elite not recognize ICC but they took it one step further with spelling out[1] what might happen if a US criminal is being charged by the court:
"The Hague Invasion Act", allows the president to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of the Netherlands, where The Hague is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.
... so not only should Israeli and Hamas war crimes be prosecuted, but in order not to appear utterly hypocritical, and "to do right by history", should US/UK war criminals like Dick Cheney, G.W. Bush, Tony Blair, and all other despicable criminal soldiers face the music for what they did in Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and other places. Kidnapping from a sovereign country, torture, etc ... Just utterly barbaric.
But the US especially is a lost cause considering how they treat the worst transgressors and war-criminals like the execution without trial as in the case of Osama bin Laden. So just imagine if anyone would propose having US war criminals meet that very same fate? It would get you banned on every Internet site for "hate speech" LOL. Which is why it's pointless to cite laws, the justice system or pen and paper to solve something that is immune to that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
- You act like it’s unreasonable for the United States to not want US citizens held by bodies the United States doesn’t recognize the authority of. No sovereign country would accept this.
- What crimes and under whose jurisdiction are Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, and George Bush guilty of? Osama bin Laden was indicted by a US grand jury under US jurisdiction and refused for extradition by the Taliban, not to mention his Interpol arrest warrant from Libya.
You also linked the Wikipedia page for the Hague Invasion Act but didn’t bring up this paragraph from the Abu Ghraib one:
> In response to the events at Abu Ghraib, the United States Department of Defense removed 17 soldiers and officers from duty. Eleven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery. Between May 2004 and April 2006, these soldiers were court-martialed, convicted, sentenced to military prison, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, found to have perpetrated many of the worst offenses at the prison, Specialist Charles Graner and PFC Lynndie England, were subject to more severe charges and received harsher sentences. Graner was convicted of assault, battery, conspiracy, maltreatment of detainees, committing indecent acts and dereliction of duty; he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and loss of rank, pay and benefits. England was convicted of conspiracy, maltreating detainees and committing an indecent act and sentenced to three years in prison.
Let’s not act like the United States not being party to the Rome Statute means that US soldiers can commit crimes with impunity and not be punished under policy like the UCMJ.
- What crimes and under whose jurisdiction are Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, and George Bush guilty of? Osama bin Laden was indicted by a US grand jury under US jurisdiction and refused for extradition by the Taliban, not to mention his Interpol arrest warrant from Libya.
You also linked the Wikipedia page for the Hague Invasion Act but didn’t bring up this paragraph from the Abu Ghraib one:
> In response to the events at Abu Ghraib, the United States Department of Defense removed 17 soldiers and officers from duty. Eleven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery. Between May 2004 and April 2006, these soldiers were court-martialed, convicted, sentenced to military prison, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, found to have perpetrated many of the worst offenses at the prison, Specialist Charles Graner and PFC Lynndie England, were subject to more severe charges and received harsher sentences. Graner was convicted of assault, battery, conspiracy, maltreatment of detainees, committing indecent acts and dereliction of duty; he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and loss of rank, pay and benefits. England was convicted of conspiracy, maltreating detainees and committing an indecent act and sentenced to three years in prison.
Let’s not act like the United States not being party to the Rome Statute means that US soldiers can commit crimes with impunity and not be punished under policy like the UCMJ.
For the US to engage in acts of war against countries that make their choices as to how to apply treaties with the force of law in their territory is pretty extreme, yes. Most countries do accept that if their citizens are held in foreign territory for violation of laws enforceable in that territory, that is an issue for diplomacy, not invasion.
> unreasonable for the United States to not want US citizens held by bodies the United States doesn't recognize the authority of. No sovereign country would accept this.
Many US citizens killed by state actors abroad, including by allies. Nothing of note happens. The key here is you think it is unreasonable for US war criminals to be tried at all (even when they commit atrocities in countries party to the Rome Statue).
Many US citizens killed by state actors abroad, including by allies. Nothing of note happens. The key here is you think it is unreasonable for US war criminals to be tried at all (even when they commit atrocities in countries party to the Rome Statue).
US doesn't recognize any bodies that aren't 100% under the control of US interests.
The people I've mentioned are guilty of acting on made up fake intel (Iraq has WMD's). They ought to face the same fate as Saddam Hussein.
Also in Abu Ghraib low ranking soldiers got convicted when the entire chain of command's been guilty of these crimes. It wasn't a one off.
The US always has and always will continue to commit war crimes because they never had to reckon with their imperial past. And chickens are gonna come home to roost because no other country has been subject to propaganda by its own government while also to that of other countries (Russia/China) as the US. And having such a large number of people simply being illiterate isn't helping.
The reason Trump came to power isn't just because Russia made that happen (also Russia winning the infowar and enabling Trump is the biggest successful Information Operation and achievement of soft-power in the last 4000 years).
I might change my mind if the US is able to do a peaceful handover of power (without an insurrection) next time this is due. And also provided that they do manage to treat the homeless as human beings. Until then this country remains a failed experiment whose population lacks manners, history, culture, cuisine or basic decency. And every soldier (no matter from what poor background they stem) are an embodiment of that failure.
I guess this sounds like Anti-Americanism. But actually I think the US model is the most promising system we have in something that claims it's the free world. I'm just allergic to all forms of nationalistic boot-licking. And I also believe that the only way to make a system stronger is when it's being critcized. Being addicted to applause and praise for imperial achievements of your own country is for the simps who have never lived abroad, and/or for nationalist bootlickers (the US is full of both).
The people I've mentioned are guilty of acting on made up fake intel (Iraq has WMD's). They ought to face the same fate as Saddam Hussein.
Also in Abu Ghraib low ranking soldiers got convicted when the entire chain of command's been guilty of these crimes. It wasn't a one off.
The US always has and always will continue to commit war crimes because they never had to reckon with their imperial past. And chickens are gonna come home to roost because no other country has been subject to propaganda by its own government while also to that of other countries (Russia/China) as the US. And having such a large number of people simply being illiterate isn't helping.
The reason Trump came to power isn't just because Russia made that happen (also Russia winning the infowar and enabling Trump is the biggest successful Information Operation and achievement of soft-power in the last 4000 years).
I might change my mind if the US is able to do a peaceful handover of power (without an insurrection) next time this is due. And also provided that they do manage to treat the homeless as human beings. Until then this country remains a failed experiment whose population lacks manners, history, culture, cuisine or basic decency. And every soldier (no matter from what poor background they stem) are an embodiment of that failure.
I guess this sounds like Anti-Americanism. But actually I think the US model is the most promising system we have in something that claims it's the free world. I'm just allergic to all forms of nationalistic boot-licking. And I also believe that the only way to make a system stronger is when it's being critcized. Being addicted to applause and praise for imperial achievements of your own country is for the simps who have never lived abroad, and/or for nationalist bootlickers (the US is full of both).
You’re ignoring 2 major things
* Israel is the one operating the jetty. If you look at photos the trucks bringing the aid from the sea to land have yellow Israeli civilian plates. These are civilian Israeli contractors being paid by the Israeli government to disperse the aid because the Americans refused to have boots on the ground
* it only takes 3 people (prosecutor + 2 judges) to completely crumble the western block. You could suspect war crimes for any post 9/11 war campaign and arrest every past and present leader of the Us, France, UK, Australia since 2001 because 3 people said so. That’s way too much power for a small group
* Israel is the one operating the jetty. If you look at photos the trucks bringing the aid from the sea to land have yellow Israeli civilian plates. These are civilian Israeli contractors being paid by the Israeli government to disperse the aid because the Americans refused to have boots on the ground
* it only takes 3 people (prosecutor + 2 judges) to completely crumble the western block. You could suspect war crimes for any post 9/11 war campaign and arrest every past and present leader of the Us, France, UK, Australia since 2001 because 3 people said so. That’s way too much power for a small group
> * it only takes 3 people (prosecutor + 2 judges) to completely crumble the western block. You could suspect war crimes for any post 9/11 war campaign and arrest every past and present leader of the Us, France, UK, Australia since 2001 because 3 people said so. That’s way too much power for a small group
There are two additional checks-and-balances which you have not mentioned: (1) Decisions of the Pre-Trial Chamber can be appealed to the Appellate Chamber (2) the UN Security Council can by resolution suspend proceedings in any case for up to 12 months (indefinitely renewable).
So, a prosecution requires (1) the Prosecutor to decide to prosecute, (2) at least two out of three Pre-Trial judges to approve the prosecution, (3) at least three out of five Appellate judges to dismiss any appeal of that decision, (4) either a majority of the UN Security Council or else at least one of its permanent members to oppose suspending the prosecution. That's more than just 3 people's say-so. That's six people plus at least one major world power say-so.
There are two additional checks-and-balances which you have not mentioned: (1) Decisions of the Pre-Trial Chamber can be appealed to the Appellate Chamber (2) the UN Security Council can by resolution suspend proceedings in any case for up to 12 months (indefinitely renewable).
So, a prosecution requires (1) the Prosecutor to decide to prosecute, (2) at least two out of three Pre-Trial judges to approve the prosecution, (3) at least three out of five Appellate judges to dismiss any appeal of that decision, (4) either a majority of the UN Security Council or else at least one of its permanent members to oppose suspending the prosecution. That's more than just 3 people's say-so. That's six people plus at least one major world power say-so.
Think for a minute why Israel might be “providing security” for this floating pier (built by the US), or why a sea-route for aid is even necessary in the first place. Wouldn’t it be much, much simpler to bring in aid by land (via the many border crossings also administered by Israel)?
The pier provides something else to Israel: a large escape hatch for forcibly transferring a large population without resettling them in Israel (or Egypt). This plan was suggested last year by an Israeli think tank linked to Likud and the current Israeli war cabinet: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231024-israel-think-tank...
(By the way, there is still some aid attempting to enter Gaza via the land routes but there are multiple examples of trucks being blocked and food being destroyed. Here’s a video from last week where the IDF watched as food aid was blocked and burned: https://x.com/sapir_slam/status/1791143191988543538?s=46)
The pier provides something else to Israel: a large escape hatch for forcibly transferring a large population without resettling them in Israel (or Egypt). This plan was suggested last year by an Israeli think tank linked to Likud and the current Israeli war cabinet: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231024-israel-think-tank...
(By the way, there is still some aid attempting to enter Gaza via the land routes but there are multiple examples of trucks being blocked and food being destroyed. Here’s a video from last week where the IDF watched as food aid was blocked and burned: https://x.com/sapir_slam/status/1791143191988543538?s=46)
The tragedy of a people who often experience racism being perpetrators of it always shocks me. The difficulty the majority of human beings have differentiating people who look like my enemy, from my enemy, is really impossible for me to understand. Targeting every part of a group in this way rather than as individuals based on the content of their character is something that is still a pipe dream :-(
So your take is Israel is going to take the US military built port and put millions of Palestinians on a boat? This goes way beyond conspiracy theory
Like you mentioned there are hundreds of trucks going in per day but there are also issues with Egypt shutting down their side, Hamas bombing the Israeli gates, and israeli protesters blocking aid. The sea bypasses all 3 of those issues. They’ve already transferred in hundreds of tons of aid in just the few days it’s been open.
Like you mentioned there are hundreds of trucks going in per day but there are also issues with Egypt shutting down their side, Hamas bombing the Israeli gates, and israeli protesters blocking aid. The sea bypasses all 3 of those issues. They’ve already transferred in hundreds of tons of aid in just the few days it’s been open.
This is not my take, this is a proposal that has been suggested by Israeli officials.
Israeli soldiers are on video laughing about blowing up schools, staling women's underwear, shooting civilians, there's been massacres of civilians trying to get food aid, Israel has turned off water for all of Gaza as collective punishment, there's been genocidal statements by Israeli officials, targeting of UN vehicles and international aid groups etc. etc..
There's a hit Israeli song about wiping Gaza making the charts there, there's settlers attacking Palestinian farmers in the West Bank, mobs burning Palestinian vehicles and homes, blocking aid trucks, burning UN property in East Jerusalem etc.
Please can we stop pretending that Israel is somehow a state that can do no wrong and that every criticism of them is simply haters ganging up on them?
Of course every criticism should be targeted at specific individuals, which is exactly what the ICC did.
There's a hit Israeli song about wiping Gaza making the charts there, there's settlers attacking Palestinian farmers in the West Bank, mobs burning Palestinian vehicles and homes, blocking aid trucks, burning UN property in East Jerusalem etc.
Please can we stop pretending that Israel is somehow a state that can do no wrong and that every criticism of them is simply haters ganging up on them?
Of course every criticism should be targeted at specific individuals, which is exactly what the ICC did.
This video has two retired US military lawyers discussing this news:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mCOi71b6AU
"Responding to Legal Challenges to IDF Operations in Gaza"
It's from a pro-Israeli viewpoint but is informed and has a lot of interesting details and maybe insight into the ICC/ICJ and the process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mCOi71b6AU
"Responding to Legal Challenges to IDF Operations in Gaza"
It's from a pro-Israeli viewpoint but is informed and has a lot of interesting details and maybe insight into the ICC/ICJ and the process.
Parties and signatories of the Rome Statute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#/...
Interestingly looks like both the US and Israel withdrew their signatures at some prior point.
The US signature was shaky to begin with (it was never really ratified through the proper channels) and I doubt they would've kept their signatures with the impending invasions following 9/11.
With the so-dubbed "The Hague Invasion Act" I'd say the US has not only withdrawn its signature, it actively threatens anyone trying to hold their citizens accountable to things like war crimes. Officially, they're an observer these days, but practically, I think they're only there to see their enemies get convicted, and nothing else.
With the so-dubbed "The Hague Invasion Act" I'd say the US has not only withdrawn its signature, it actively threatens anyone trying to hold their citizens accountable to things like war crimes. Officially, they're an observer these days, but practically, I think they're only there to see their enemies get convicted, and nothing else.
> The US signature was shaky to begin with (it was never really ratified through the proper channels) and I doubt they would've kept their signatures with the impending invasions following 9/11.
What you are saying here is a bit confused. Under US domestic law, the President has the unilateral authority to sign whatever treaties the President wishes. Ratification comes after signature, the US never ratified the Statute. So there was nothing actually "shaky" about the signature.
This is a topic which confuses a lot of people. Agreeing treaties under international law is a two-stage process – the first stage, "signature" is in-principle agreement but isn't actually legally binding (except for a limited obligation "not to defeat the object and purpose of the treaty", and it isn't very clear what that even means); "ratification" (sometimes also called "acceptance" or "approval") is fully binding agreement. For less important treaties, the two stages are sometimes collapsed into one ("signature without reservation as to ratification"), but for major treaties the distinction is generally preserved. Also, joining a multilateral treaty subsequent to its entry into force is often a single stage process ("accession"). However, the average person doesn't understand this two-stage process, and is used to everyday contexts where signing a contract is sufficient to make it legally binding.
There are some particular reasons why Americans find this even more confusing than people of most countries do. Many Americans have the idea that the US Constitution requires treaties to be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the US Senate. However, strictly speaking, the President ratifies treaties, not the Senate; the Senate just gives the President permission to do so. Furthermore, US law distinguishes between "treaties" (whose ratification requires two-thirds Senate consent) and "international agreements" (whose ratification doesn't) – but as far as international law is concerned, both are treaties – whether some act of ratification requires consent by the US Senate is an internal American matter with which international law is largely unconcerned.
Actually, US law distinguishes three types of "international agreements" (all of which are treaties as far as international law is concerned) – treaties (President ratifies with consent of two-thirds of Senate), congressional-executive agreements (President ratifies with consent of ordinary majority of both House and Senate), and sole executive agreements (President ratifies unilaterally). It is generally understood that "treaties" are used for foundational legal issues, military alliances, borders, human rights, etc; congressional-executive agreements are primarily used for trade; sole executive agreements are used for more minor matters of international cooperation. However, there is no precise legal rule regarding what type of agreement is to be used for which category–the Supreme Court views it as a "political question" which it expects the President and Congress to sort out between themselves, largely without its input. Under international law (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties article 47), if the President ratifies something, that ratification is still binding under international law on the US, even if US Congress (or even the Supreme Court!) decides the ratification to be illegal or unconstitutional – unless its illegality/unconstitutionality was "manifest" and "objectively evident" to the other states parties at the time the President made it.
What you are saying here is a bit confused. Under US domestic law, the President has the unilateral authority to sign whatever treaties the President wishes. Ratification comes after signature, the US never ratified the Statute. So there was nothing actually "shaky" about the signature.
This is a topic which confuses a lot of people. Agreeing treaties under international law is a two-stage process – the first stage, "signature" is in-principle agreement but isn't actually legally binding (except for a limited obligation "not to defeat the object and purpose of the treaty", and it isn't very clear what that even means); "ratification" (sometimes also called "acceptance" or "approval") is fully binding agreement. For less important treaties, the two stages are sometimes collapsed into one ("signature without reservation as to ratification"), but for major treaties the distinction is generally preserved. Also, joining a multilateral treaty subsequent to its entry into force is often a single stage process ("accession"). However, the average person doesn't understand this two-stage process, and is used to everyday contexts where signing a contract is sufficient to make it legally binding.
There are some particular reasons why Americans find this even more confusing than people of most countries do. Many Americans have the idea that the US Constitution requires treaties to be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the US Senate. However, strictly speaking, the President ratifies treaties, not the Senate; the Senate just gives the President permission to do so. Furthermore, US law distinguishes between "treaties" (whose ratification requires two-thirds Senate consent) and "international agreements" (whose ratification doesn't) – but as far as international law is concerned, both are treaties – whether some act of ratification requires consent by the US Senate is an internal American matter with which international law is largely unconcerned.
Actually, US law distinguishes three types of "international agreements" (all of which are treaties as far as international law is concerned) – treaties (President ratifies with consent of two-thirds of Senate), congressional-executive agreements (President ratifies with consent of ordinary majority of both House and Senate), and sole executive agreements (President ratifies unilaterally). It is generally understood that "treaties" are used for foundational legal issues, military alliances, borders, human rights, etc; congressional-executive agreements are primarily used for trade; sole executive agreements are used for more minor matters of international cooperation. However, there is no precise legal rule regarding what type of agreement is to be used for which category–the Supreme Court views it as a "political question" which it expects the President and Congress to sort out between themselves, largely without its input. Under international law (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties article 47), if the President ratifies something, that ratification is still binding under international law on the US, even if US Congress (or even the Supreme Court!) decides the ratification to be illegal or unconstitutional – unless its illegality/unconstitutionality was "manifest" and "objectively evident" to the other states parties at the time the President made it.
Is it not a three-stage process? I found that treaties seem to be unenforceable unless there is a legally mandatory statutory implementation of them, regardless of whether they are ratified.
For instance, in Illinois there was until recently no punishment for a violation of the Vienna Convention by law enforcement, therefore the Convention was essentially worthless. (Illinois state law generally requires a punishment to be attached to make a law mandatory, otherwise the reading of "shall" is directory)
For instance, in Illinois there was until recently no punishment for a violation of the Vienna Convention by law enforcement, therefore the Convention was essentially worthless. (Illinois state law generally requires a punishment to be attached to make a law mandatory, otherwise the reading of "shall" is directory)
> Is it not a three-stage process? I found that treaties seem to be unenforceable unless there is a legally mandatory statutory implementation of them, regardless of whether they are ratified.
As far as international law is concerned, once a treaty has been ratified and entered into force, it is binding on the ratifying state, they have an international legal obligation to obey it, and they can be subject to consequences under international law if they violate it. The nature of those consequences vary greatly depending on the details of the treaty - often treaties have dispute resolution mechanisms to be invoked if one party claims another is violating it (such as the ICJ, arbitration, WTO dispute settlement, etc). Trade treaties often permit imposition of tariffs in cases of violation. In extreme cases, violating a treaty could even result in military action (e.g. what happens if you sign a peace treaty to end a war and then decide not to comply with it?) On the other hand, many treaties are rather toothless in that they fail to provide any real consequences for violations. Still, just because there might not be any real consequence for the violation, doesn’t negate the violation’s legal existence.
Coming to your question about implementing legislation - different countries have different systems. In countries with a “monist” system, international law is considered part of domestic law, and so a treaty once ratified automatically becomes part of the law of the land. Conversely, in countries with a “dualist” system, international law and domestic law are viewed as two independent spheres, and the domestic legal system will not consider a treaty binding absent domestic implementing legislation. And “monist” and “dualist” are ideal types, and some national legal systems are actually hybrids that don’t neatly fit in either category, combining elements of both - they may be monist with respect to certain categories of treaties and dualist with respect to others. Even in a purely monist system, some treaties might be considered “non-self executing” - for example, some treaties require states to criminalise certain acts under their domestic law, but leave the detailed definition of those crimes up to each state party - even in a monist system, such a treaty will likely be viewed as domestically ineffective absent domestic implementing legislation, since the crimes it seeks to create are too vaguely defined to actually be prosecuted. Also, in some countries with a federal system, e.g. the US, implementing legislation may be required at both the federal and state levels; in others, the federal level has the power to impose treaties on the states, even in areas where it would not normally have legislative competence (e.g. the external affairs power under the Australian constitution)
However, from an international law perspective, the question of whether domestic implementing legislation exists is irrelevant. If a state ratifies a treaty and it enters into force, they have an international legal obligation to obey it - and if they fail to do so because they haven’t enacted the necessary domestic legislation, international law does not consider that a valid excuse-they are guilty of violating it, and have to face the consequences of that violation, whatever those may be.
You are talking about the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. There was a 2001 ICJ case on that, the LaGrand case (Germany vs United States). The LaGrand brothers were born in Germany, moved to the United States, never became US citizens, stabbed a man to death in 1982 in Arizona in the course of a bungled bank robbery. Under the Convention, they had the right to German consular assistance, and US authorities had the duty to inform them of that right, but failed to do so. They were sentenced to death, and the state of Arizona executed them in 1999. Germany got an order from the ICJ that the execution not go ahead, but the US chose to defy the ICJ order and execute them anyway. In 2001, the ICJ found that the US had violated Germany’s rights under the Convention by so doing. However, given Germany did not make any request for damages, and the US decided to formally apologise to Germany, the ICJ did not impose any penalties on the US for the violation.
The US argued that under the US constitution the federal government was powerless to compel the state of Arizona to comply with the Convention or the ICJ’s order. Germany even filed a case with the US Supreme Court seeking it to compel Arizona to comply, but it ruled that under the US constitution Arizona didn’t have to. However, international law doesn’t care about the US constitution. If the US constitution prevents the US from obeying international law, that’s an internal US problem of zero relevance to other countries or to international institutions such as the ICJ. Given there are over 190 sovereign states in the world, if national constitutions were an excuse for disobeying international law, international law would quickly turn into a dead letter. Also, while US law considers the federal government and state governments to be “separate sovereigns”, as far as international law is concerned, it is all one country, and the US (represented by the President and State Department) is internationally responsible for the acts of all its subdivisions, and if the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to make states obey international law, that’s its internal problem, with which other countries ought not need to be concerned
As far as international law is concerned, once a treaty has been ratified and entered into force, it is binding on the ratifying state, they have an international legal obligation to obey it, and they can be subject to consequences under international law if they violate it. The nature of those consequences vary greatly depending on the details of the treaty - often treaties have dispute resolution mechanisms to be invoked if one party claims another is violating it (such as the ICJ, arbitration, WTO dispute settlement, etc). Trade treaties often permit imposition of tariffs in cases of violation. In extreme cases, violating a treaty could even result in military action (e.g. what happens if you sign a peace treaty to end a war and then decide not to comply with it?) On the other hand, many treaties are rather toothless in that they fail to provide any real consequences for violations. Still, just because there might not be any real consequence for the violation, doesn’t negate the violation’s legal existence.
Coming to your question about implementing legislation - different countries have different systems. In countries with a “monist” system, international law is considered part of domestic law, and so a treaty once ratified automatically becomes part of the law of the land. Conversely, in countries with a “dualist” system, international law and domestic law are viewed as two independent spheres, and the domestic legal system will not consider a treaty binding absent domestic implementing legislation. And “monist” and “dualist” are ideal types, and some national legal systems are actually hybrids that don’t neatly fit in either category, combining elements of both - they may be monist with respect to certain categories of treaties and dualist with respect to others. Even in a purely monist system, some treaties might be considered “non-self executing” - for example, some treaties require states to criminalise certain acts under their domestic law, but leave the detailed definition of those crimes up to each state party - even in a monist system, such a treaty will likely be viewed as domestically ineffective absent domestic implementing legislation, since the crimes it seeks to create are too vaguely defined to actually be prosecuted. Also, in some countries with a federal system, e.g. the US, implementing legislation may be required at both the federal and state levels; in others, the federal level has the power to impose treaties on the states, even in areas where it would not normally have legislative competence (e.g. the external affairs power under the Australian constitution)
However, from an international law perspective, the question of whether domestic implementing legislation exists is irrelevant. If a state ratifies a treaty and it enters into force, they have an international legal obligation to obey it - and if they fail to do so because they haven’t enacted the necessary domestic legislation, international law does not consider that a valid excuse-they are guilty of violating it, and have to face the consequences of that violation, whatever those may be.
You are talking about the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. There was a 2001 ICJ case on that, the LaGrand case (Germany vs United States). The LaGrand brothers were born in Germany, moved to the United States, never became US citizens, stabbed a man to death in 1982 in Arizona in the course of a bungled bank robbery. Under the Convention, they had the right to German consular assistance, and US authorities had the duty to inform them of that right, but failed to do so. They were sentenced to death, and the state of Arizona executed them in 1999. Germany got an order from the ICJ that the execution not go ahead, but the US chose to defy the ICJ order and execute them anyway. In 2001, the ICJ found that the US had violated Germany’s rights under the Convention by so doing. However, given Germany did not make any request for damages, and the US decided to formally apologise to Germany, the ICJ did not impose any penalties on the US for the violation.
The US argued that under the US constitution the federal government was powerless to compel the state of Arizona to comply with the Convention or the ICJ’s order. Germany even filed a case with the US Supreme Court seeking it to compel Arizona to comply, but it ruled that under the US constitution Arizona didn’t have to. However, international law doesn’t care about the US constitution. If the US constitution prevents the US from obeying international law, that’s an internal US problem of zero relevance to other countries or to international institutions such as the ICJ. Given there are over 190 sovereign states in the world, if national constitutions were an excuse for disobeying international law, international law would quickly turn into a dead letter. Also, while US law considers the federal government and state governments to be “separate sovereigns”, as far as international law is concerned, it is all one country, and the US (represented by the President and State Department) is internationally responsible for the acts of all its subdivisions, and if the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to make states obey international law, that’s its internal problem, with which other countries ought not need to be concerned
This has to be the most comprehensive and informative reply to any question I've posed on the Internet in the last 30 years of being online. Thank you!
I'd not heard about the Arizona case; it actually tracks almost identically an Illinois case, People v. Madej, with a Polish citizen under the same circumstances (although zero information online outside of the court filings).
What powers would the ICJ have to punish individual actors at fault in a situation like this? Or to force an injunction? (outside of monetary damages which does you no good if you're dead)
I'd not heard about the Arizona case; it actually tracks almost identically an Illinois case, People v. Madej, with a Polish citizen under the same circumstances (although zero information online outside of the court filings).
What powers would the ICJ have to punish individual actors at fault in a situation like this? Or to force an injunction? (outside of monetary damages which does you no good if you're dead)
> This has to be the most comprehensive and informative reply to any question I've posed on the Internet in the last 30 years of being online. Thank you!
Law has always been a passion of mine, and international law in particular. I even applied for law school once but wasn’t accepted. If I tried again, applied to more schools, I probably would have been accepted by one of them eventually, but I took it as a message from the great beyond that it wasn’t meant to be. Still, if one believes in parallel universes, I reckon there must be one out there in which right now I’m a lawyer instead of a software engineer
> What powers would the ICJ have to punish individual actors at fault in a situation like this? Or to force an injunction? (outside of monetary damages which does you no good if you're dead)
The ICJ has very broad powers to order states to do things. The only real limit is its own judgement about what is legal and what is prudent-if it starts ordering things which the international community views as unreasonable, it could greatly harm its own reputation, and I think its judges are aware of that risk and keep it in mind when making decisions.
However, while the ICJ can order states to do things, it has no actual power to compel them to obey its orders. Under the UN Charter, that’s the job of the Security Council. In theory, if a state violates an ICJ order, the Security Council can order military action to enforce it. In practice, that obviously doesn’t work when one of the P5 is the respondent, since they aren’t going to vote for military action against themselves. And even if the respondent is some friendless pariah country, other states might not view enforcing an ICJ order as worth going to war over.
An unenforceable order isn’t entirely worthless though. Obviously it can have negative diplomatic and political consequences for the state concerned, it can harm their reputation in the court of international public opinion. And a case can be valuable for establishing legal precedent. The LaGrand case actually was important in that the ICJ for the first time ruled that its provisional measures (basically a preliminary injunction) were legally binding. This was unclear because the wording of the English text of the Statute of the ICJ suggests they are not but the French text suggests they are, and both the English and French are equally authoritative. Faced with that contradiction, the ICJ decided in this case to follow the French over the English.
Law has always been a passion of mine, and international law in particular. I even applied for law school once but wasn’t accepted. If I tried again, applied to more schools, I probably would have been accepted by one of them eventually, but I took it as a message from the great beyond that it wasn’t meant to be. Still, if one believes in parallel universes, I reckon there must be one out there in which right now I’m a lawyer instead of a software engineer
> What powers would the ICJ have to punish individual actors at fault in a situation like this? Or to force an injunction? (outside of monetary damages which does you no good if you're dead)
The ICJ has very broad powers to order states to do things. The only real limit is its own judgement about what is legal and what is prudent-if it starts ordering things which the international community views as unreasonable, it could greatly harm its own reputation, and I think its judges are aware of that risk and keep it in mind when making decisions.
However, while the ICJ can order states to do things, it has no actual power to compel them to obey its orders. Under the UN Charter, that’s the job of the Security Council. In theory, if a state violates an ICJ order, the Security Council can order military action to enforce it. In practice, that obviously doesn’t work when one of the P5 is the respondent, since they aren’t going to vote for military action against themselves. And even if the respondent is some friendless pariah country, other states might not view enforcing an ICJ order as worth going to war over.
An unenforceable order isn’t entirely worthless though. Obviously it can have negative diplomatic and political consequences for the state concerned, it can harm their reputation in the court of international public opinion. And a case can be valuable for establishing legal precedent. The LaGrand case actually was important in that the ICJ for the first time ruled that its provisional measures (basically a preliminary injunction) were legally binding. This was unclear because the wording of the English text of the Statute of the ICJ suggests they are not but the French text suggests they are, and both the English and French are equally authoritative. Faced with that contradiction, the ICJ decided in this case to follow the French over the English.
Whereas Palestine's signature is fake. I don't know how else to call it. I mean are we now to believe the "state of Palestine" is going to arrest and deliver Sinwar, Deif AND deliver the hostages to Israel just because this guy asks?
And they didn't waste any time in stating they would never actually execute the signed treaty. At least we already know that:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmllykpwgdyo
(Yes, I know what the BBC title says, Hamas statement that they won't follow the treaties they agreed to uphold is there, for their own people. In THE SAME STATEMENT they complain that it isn't applied faster to their opponents)
(Also: obvious conclusion, if Hamas has no intention of holding up treaties they signed, then that makes any peace with them worthless, even if it's a signed treaty. Without a trusted counterparty there is no choice)
And they didn't waste any time in stating they would never actually execute the signed treaty. At least we already know that:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmllykpwgdyo
(Yes, I know what the BBC title says, Hamas statement that they won't follow the treaties they agreed to uphold is there, for their own people. In THE SAME STATEMENT they complain that it isn't applied faster to their opponents)
(Also: obvious conclusion, if Hamas has no intention of holding up treaties they signed, then that makes any peace with them worthless, even if it's a signed treaty. Without a trusted counterparty there is no choice)
I think you need to make a distinction here between the Palestinian Authority (which signed it) and Hamas (that supplanted it through violent uprising). The PA still exists and would happily comply, they just don’t have a presence in Gaza.
Absolutely true; Gaza’s system of government has collapsed since long ago, and the “democratic” election, that many people use to justify the equivocation of the Gaza population and Hamas, involved less than half the population of the enclave and had numerous other issues that make the Hamas rule a farce.
That being said, even those that didn’t vote for Hamas would probably not have elected the PA, as public trust of Palestinians in the PA has eroded due to Mahmoud Abbas’s unwillingness to step down and the perception that the PA is a puppet government.
All this to say that Palestinians lack a trustworthy government, much less a government that could be responsible for turning in the Hamas members the ICC wants to arrest.
That being said, even those that didn’t vote for Hamas would probably not have elected the PA, as public trust of Palestinians in the PA has eroded due to Mahmoud Abbas’s unwillingness to step down and the perception that the PA is a puppet government.
All this to say that Palestinians lack a trustworthy government, much less a government that could be responsible for turning in the Hamas members the ICC wants to arrest.
If you think like this, then "warcrimes" are bullshit. The whole point of the UN, the Geneva convention, warcrimes legislation, ... is that it would apply 100% in situations where government collapses, in situations where there is nothing but violence, in civil wars (arguably worse than the current situation). That genocide is forbidden AND punished even in the total absense of public trust, in the absense of government, in war, ...
So that's the problem I have with the statement: it's true, absolutely, but if we think like this then human rights aren't human rights, but merely subject to governance. Your statement is true, but is a denial of international law. If your statement is true, you may as well abolish the international criminal court. After all, if a government exists, there's no need for them and if a government doesn't exist (or doesn't apply) then, as you say, the rules don't apply. So what's the point?
Your statement is true, but the world would be a much better place if your statement was false, and therefore we'll at least pretend it is false.
(and, of course, if you think like this, then absolutely anything goes in war)
So that's the problem I have with the statement: it's true, absolutely, but if we think like this then human rights aren't human rights, but merely subject to governance. Your statement is true, but is a denial of international law. If your statement is true, you may as well abolish the international criminal court. After all, if a government exists, there's no need for them and if a government doesn't exist (or doesn't apply) then, as you say, the rules don't apply. So what's the point?
Your statement is true, but the world would be a much better place if your statement was false, and therefore we'll at least pretend it is false.
(and, of course, if you think like this, then absolutely anything goes in war)
So? Hamas agreed to abide by international treaties signed by Palestine.
AND they "demand" it is held up against Israel.
Plus the basic point stands. With people who think like this, treaties aren't worth the paper they're written on.
AND they "demand" it is held up against Israel.
Plus the basic point stands. With people who think like this, treaties aren't worth the paper they're written on.
In fairness, Israel did have a point that the original judge selection process was unfair to them. Realistically though that is probably not the main reason they didn't sign it and that issue has since been rectified.
[deleted]
Certainly wouldn't want US or IDF soldiers to be held accountable. smh.
The US is still actively pursuing one of the well known people (Assange) who dared publishing evidence, further destroying their own reputation. :(
It's not about being held accountable at all - it's about who is holding them accountable.
The belief is that as sovereign nations, they can hold their own people accountable, and no one else should have the right to hold them accountable instead.
The belief is that as sovereign nations, they can hold their own people accountable, and no one else should have the right to hold them accountable instead.
Is not one of the principles of the ICJ that if a nation process their own war criminal citizen, the ICJ has no jurisdiction. But if they do not properly, the ICJ does.
You are confusing ICJ & ICC. But yes, that is one of the principles of the ICC.
(ICJ = a court for countries to go to when they disagree on how to interpret a treaty. ICC = throw individual people in jail who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide)
(ICJ = a court for countries to go to when they disagree on how to interpret a treaty. ICC = throw individual people in jail who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide)
Only if the country brings good faith cases themselves against the individuals involved in the war crimes. And it only gives them cover for the crimes they are tried for.
My apologies for the abbreviation mixup. I copied the abbreviation from somewhere in the comments. An unwise decision.
> they can hold their own people accountable
Except when they can't, as in the case of senior government figures.
Except when they can't, as in the case of senior government figures.
> Except when they can't, as in the case of senior government figures.
It is a principle of democracy that senior government figures can be held accountable.
E.g. in the US, Trump, a former president and a potential future president, is currently in several trials.
E.g. in Israel, where Netanyahu is under trial in several cases (unrelated to the ICJ) and where e.g. a former PM was convicted of several charges and served time in prison.
It is a principle of democracy that senior government figures can be held accountable.
E.g. in the US, Trump, a former president and a potential future president, is currently in several trials.
E.g. in Israel, where Netanyahu is under trial in several cases (unrelated to the ICJ) and where e.g. a former PM was convicted of several charges and served time in prison.
Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush have yet to be held accountable for their war crimes after a conviction by the ICC.
Obama deserves an investigation and trial at the ICC for much the same reasons, but was somehow seen as better by the ICC and signing countries.
All of your examples are domestic crimes.
Obama deserves an investigation and trial at the ICC for much the same reasons, but was somehow seen as better by the ICC and signing countries.
All of your examples are domestic crimes.
I could be missing something but I don’t think any of those three have ever been convicted by the ICC.
The examples are domestic crimes because the argument is that the US doesn’t need to be party to the Rome Statute because it would enforce similar penalties on servicemen and leaders using domestic jurisdiction. Others countered that the US somehow can’t do that despite the former president literally being on trial as we speak and the above commenter provided examples to the contrary.
The examples are domestic crimes because the argument is that the US doesn’t need to be party to the Rome Statute because it would enforce similar penalties on servicemen and leaders using domestic jurisdiction. Others countered that the US somehow can’t do that despite the former president literally being on trial as we speak and the above commenter provided examples to the contrary.
Some quick searching online turns up relevant stuff:
https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/bush-and-associat...
Not seeing any mention of a conviction on the Wikipedia page though, which seems like it would have at least a mention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...
---
This is pretty wild: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/16/icc-us-coope... (archived: https://archive.md/IDpQk)
That's clearly trying to pull some shit / suppress investigation into US activities.
https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/bush-and-associat...
Not seeing any mention of a conviction on the Wikipedia page though, which seems like it would have at least a mention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...
---
This is pretty wild: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/16/icc-us-coope... (archived: https://archive.md/IDpQk)
That's clearly trying to pull some shit / suppress investigation into US activities.
I must be mis-remembering some Facebook memes based on the 2012 conviction in absentia by a Malaysian tribunal. Seems like the ICC never took it up; although they almost certainly should have. US sanctions and pressure on the ICC not to seems to be working.
> The belief is that as sovereign nations, they can hold their own people accountable, and no one else should have the right to hold them accountable instead.
There is no such thing as a sovereign nation in the modern age.
Even if you ignore the dependence on international trade (i.e. relying on other nations to trade with you), sovereignty requires the military ability to defend yourself against any adversary trying to impose their will on you. In the nuclear age we've effectively abolished this concept thanks to Mutually Assured Destruction. If China wants the US gone, either China "wins" (i.e. the US surrenders or offers a compromise) or the world ends (i.e. the outcome of global thermonuclear war makes "US" and "China" meaningless concepts).
So if "as sovereign nations" is no more than a meaningful flourish, the belief becomes simply this:
> they can hold their own people accountable, and no on else should have the right to hold them accountable instead
We can break this down again:
> they can hold their own people accountable
It's interesting that you say "can", which already admits that there is a difference between the ability and willingness to do so. But even if we ignore this, the important consideration here is that there can be a mismatch between what "they" think "holding their own people accountable" means and what others think.
By "they" you reference the US and Israel but legal entities don't do anything, people do things. Granted, those people exist within social systems of power but at the end of the day people within those states will be the ones holding people accountable or not. If you think of this in terms of people, a potential conflict of interest becomes apparent: the people being held accountable are the military and political leadership and legislators, the people holding them accountable are military and political investigators and courts. The victims of the alleged crimes are not represented by either of these groups as Gazans are generally not fully Israeli citizens.
This isn't to say that Israel's legal system might be unfairly biased against Gazans or that it might err on the side of ignoring crimes against them or that this might be a systemic problem. My point is merely that there's a credible reason to believe that an investigation by Israel into alleged actions by its government against Gazans might be biased simply based on an in-group/out-group distinction between the involved groups.
> no one else should have the right to hold them accountable
This is begging the question of "accountable for what". You can only hold someone accountable if there's some bar they're supposed to meet. Israel was a signatory to the Rome Statute (although it walked back from it in 2002 along with the US) and we're talking about the ICC so the bar seems to be "upholding human rights and abstaining from human rights abuses and war crimes".
You might argue that no outside state should be allowed to intervene in another state's human rights abuses as long as they are contained to that state's territory or only people who are subjects of that state. But clearly Israel doesn't believe this or otherwise the Mossad wouldn't have a history of abductions and assassinations. And it's a good thing too because otherwise we wouldn't look at events like the Rwandan genocide as a horrific failure of the international community and instead just consider it business as usual.
Legally speaking, the ICC clearly has the "right to" do what it is doing. But if you mean morally, again I don't think you believe this unless you believe interventionism is never justified. In other words that would mean you want to go back to the Peace of Westphalia and abolish the notion of universal human rights entirely and allow states to commit genocides, engage in chattel slavery or do all kinds of unspeakable horrors as long as they do so within the confines of their own territory.
I don't think you're saying any of that. I think what you're instead arguing for is nothing more than special pleading: it's different when {the US, Israel} does it.
There is no such thing as a sovereign nation in the modern age.
Even if you ignore the dependence on international trade (i.e. relying on other nations to trade with you), sovereignty requires the military ability to defend yourself against any adversary trying to impose their will on you. In the nuclear age we've effectively abolished this concept thanks to Mutually Assured Destruction. If China wants the US gone, either China "wins" (i.e. the US surrenders or offers a compromise) or the world ends (i.e. the outcome of global thermonuclear war makes "US" and "China" meaningless concepts).
So if "as sovereign nations" is no more than a meaningful flourish, the belief becomes simply this:
> they can hold their own people accountable, and no on else should have the right to hold them accountable instead
We can break this down again:
> they can hold their own people accountable
It's interesting that you say "can", which already admits that there is a difference between the ability and willingness to do so. But even if we ignore this, the important consideration here is that there can be a mismatch between what "they" think "holding their own people accountable" means and what others think.
By "they" you reference the US and Israel but legal entities don't do anything, people do things. Granted, those people exist within social systems of power but at the end of the day people within those states will be the ones holding people accountable or not. If you think of this in terms of people, a potential conflict of interest becomes apparent: the people being held accountable are the military and political leadership and legislators, the people holding them accountable are military and political investigators and courts. The victims of the alleged crimes are not represented by either of these groups as Gazans are generally not fully Israeli citizens.
This isn't to say that Israel's legal system might be unfairly biased against Gazans or that it might err on the side of ignoring crimes against them or that this might be a systemic problem. My point is merely that there's a credible reason to believe that an investigation by Israel into alleged actions by its government against Gazans might be biased simply based on an in-group/out-group distinction between the involved groups.
> no one else should have the right to hold them accountable
This is begging the question of "accountable for what". You can only hold someone accountable if there's some bar they're supposed to meet. Israel was a signatory to the Rome Statute (although it walked back from it in 2002 along with the US) and we're talking about the ICC so the bar seems to be "upholding human rights and abstaining from human rights abuses and war crimes".
You might argue that no outside state should be allowed to intervene in another state's human rights abuses as long as they are contained to that state's territory or only people who are subjects of that state. But clearly Israel doesn't believe this or otherwise the Mossad wouldn't have a history of abductions and assassinations. And it's a good thing too because otherwise we wouldn't look at events like the Rwandan genocide as a horrific failure of the international community and instead just consider it business as usual.
Legally speaking, the ICC clearly has the "right to" do what it is doing. But if you mean morally, again I don't think you believe this unless you believe interventionism is never justified. In other words that would mean you want to go back to the Peace of Westphalia and abolish the notion of universal human rights entirely and allow states to commit genocides, engage in chattel slavery or do all kinds of unspeakable horrors as long as they do so within the confines of their own territory.
I don't think you're saying any of that. I think what you're instead arguing for is nothing more than special pleading: it's different when {the US, Israel} does it.
A more undemocratic, anti human rights perspective is hard to imagine. Only I can hold myself accountable is the essence of authoritarian thinking.
I don't think the US govt gives a hoot for the common soldier except where their warrant would provide precedence for a senator or president to also be arrested.
It's politically embarrassing as attempted prosecutions of soldiers in Northern Ireland have shown. It all gets swept under the carpet, on a pretence it's not good for national security. If you prosecute successfully an individual there is a reasonable chance all military personnel involved could be successfully prosecuted is perhaps another reason it won't happen.
Using the military to prosecute aggressive military operations in an area the clear majority are unarmed, unprotected civilians again shows there is virtually no chance of prosecutions being taken.
Add to that the severe limits added to press freedom, to the point it's obvious the plan is there is no independent reporting, the repeated and systematic targeting of hospitals, ambulances, medical and aid workers, treatment of people detained, never mind densely packed civilian areas which in similar ongoing conflicts (Ukraine/Russia) would be directly called out as war crimes without equivocation, but are ignored, then is there even any point attempting to prosecute individual soldiers?
Seeking arrest warrants for those with most direct decision making powers is far more legitimate, necessary even. Demands for limitless, in all senses, military operations help no one longer term.
Using the military to prosecute aggressive military operations in an area the clear majority are unarmed, unprotected civilians again shows there is virtually no chance of prosecutions being taken.
Add to that the severe limits added to press freedom, to the point it's obvious the plan is there is no independent reporting, the repeated and systematic targeting of hospitals, ambulances, medical and aid workers, treatment of people detained, never mind densely packed civilian areas which in similar ongoing conflicts (Ukraine/Russia) would be directly called out as war crimes without equivocation, but are ignored, then is there even any point attempting to prosecute individual soldiers?
Seeking arrest warrants for those with most direct decision making powers is far more legitimate, necessary even. Demands for limitless, in all senses, military operations help no one longer term.
Well, IDF soldiers themselves were adding to their social media proofs of their war crimes...
It is lucky they are so concisiconscientiousous in documenting their own abuses.
I'm sure it will never come back to haunt them... /s
I'm sure it will never come back to haunt them... /s
Yeah nothing better showing their true intentions than IDF soldiers posing and smiling with Palestinian equivalent of "Holocaust 2023" message they just sprayed on the wall, while still holding the can.
Would it be correct to think of an ICC warrant not as a “warrant” in the traditional sense, but as sanctions?
That is, a court ordered warrant is typically executed by a government’s law enforcement. There is no such proactive enforcement mechanism available to the ICC.
Instead, the governments that have ratified the ICC-related treaties have simply agreed to arrest warrant targets if they happen to travel to their jurisdiction.
As such, it seems more like a “travel-ban” or “house arrest” than a warrant. Is that correct?
That is, a court ordered warrant is typically executed by a government’s law enforcement. There is no such proactive enforcement mechanism available to the ICC.
Instead, the governments that have ratified the ICC-related treaties have simply agreed to arrest warrant targets if they happen to travel to their jurisdiction.
As such, it seems more like a “travel-ban” or “house arrest” than a warrant. Is that correct?
I don't think it makes sense to look at it this way. I would look at it as any other warrant issued by any body. If the target of the warrant lives in a country that recognizes ICC warrants, then it's more or less similar to a warrant issued by that country's government. If not, then it's similar to a country issuing a warrant for the arrest of someone who lives outside their jurisdiction, with no extradition treaties in place.
I do agree that the end result is a sort of "travel ban", but that's no different than if the US issued a warrant for (say) a Chinese citizen living in China. The Chinese government is probably not going to hand that person over, and that person is effectively barred from travel to the US (and likely other countries like Canada that might help the US enforce that warrant if the opportunity presented itself), unless they want to get arrested.
I do agree that the end result is a sort of "travel ban", but that's no different than if the US issued a warrant for (say) a Chinese citizen living in China. The Chinese government is probably not going to hand that person over, and that person is effectively barred from travel to the US (and likely other countries like Canada that might help the US enforce that warrant if the opportunity presented itself), unless they want to get arrested.
That actually happened
Meng Wanzhou (daughter of the founder of Huawei) bypassed sanctions against Iran
Vancouver airport arrested and put her under house arrest for a few years
Meng Wanzhou (daughter of the founder of Huawei) bypassed sanctions against Iran
Vancouver airport arrested and put her under house arrest for a few years
It's a real arrest warrant when its target is in a country which is a party to the Rome Statute. The ICC has conducted a number of investigations involving war crimes and crimes against humanity in Africa, for example; many of those have led to convictions.
A warrant is a standing order to arrest someone on sight.
A warrant may additionally grant the police extrajudicial powers to enforce the warrant but that's a separate legislative concern. In the case of the ICC the enforcement is left up to individual member states. There may be consequences for not enforcing a warrant when the opportunity presents itself.
A warrant may additionally grant the police extrajudicial powers to enforce the warrant but that's a separate legislative concern. In the case of the ICC the enforcement is left up to individual member states. There may be consequences for not enforcing a warrant when the opportunity presents itself.
This is more akin to empaneling a grand-jury in the USA - it is driven by the prosecutors office and is the first step before review to see if adequate evidence exists to justify a "real" warrant that would lead to arrests.
If they get a warrant - its just like a warrant in the USA, maybe the cops bother looking for you i.e. go to your house / work / last known address but more often they just wait until you get a traffic ticket or something where you happen to interact with them. If you had a warrant from another state, the local cops would need a pretty good reason to bother actually looking for you.
If they get a warrant - its just like a warrant in the USA, maybe the cops bother looking for you i.e. go to your house / work / last known address but more often they just wait until you get a traffic ticket or something where you happen to interact with them. If you had a warrant from another state, the local cops would need a pretty good reason to bother actually looking for you.
> If you had a warrant from another state, the local cops would need a pretty good reason to bother actually looking for you.
Often goes slightly further than this. The state issuing the warrant must pay “transport fees” to the state doing the arresting. The arresting state calls the warrant state to see if their transport fees will be authorized. Most of the time, those fees are not authorized by the issuing state. So the suspect is let go, if the police interaction wasn’t otherwise justified in an arrest.
The reasons for why transport fees are generally declined vary, but I’d imagine that as long as the suspect stays out of the issuing state, they can’t commit more crime in that state, so the outstanding warrant is itself an effective deterrent against crime in the issuing state…the suspect generally will avoid returning. Also jails/prisons are overcrowded, dockets are overflowing, etc.
But generally any police interaction which shows a valid warrant in another state, the “local police” will by default attempt an arrest. It’s not “unimportant” to them. Just they can’t do anything with the suspect if they arrest them without approved transport fees so there’s simply no point in completing the arrest.
I learned all this just last week by picking up a homeless fugitive hitchiking along the interstate. But he’d had enough interactions with police in various states and seemed otherwise intelligent enough to be a reliable narrator on the matter.
Often goes slightly further than this. The state issuing the warrant must pay “transport fees” to the state doing the arresting. The arresting state calls the warrant state to see if their transport fees will be authorized. Most of the time, those fees are not authorized by the issuing state. So the suspect is let go, if the police interaction wasn’t otherwise justified in an arrest.
The reasons for why transport fees are generally declined vary, but I’d imagine that as long as the suspect stays out of the issuing state, they can’t commit more crime in that state, so the outstanding warrant is itself an effective deterrent against crime in the issuing state…the suspect generally will avoid returning. Also jails/prisons are overcrowded, dockets are overflowing, etc.
But generally any police interaction which shows a valid warrant in another state, the “local police” will by default attempt an arrest. It’s not “unimportant” to them. Just they can’t do anything with the suspect if they arrest them without approved transport fees so there’s simply no point in completing the arrest.
I learned all this just last week by picking up a homeless fugitive hitchiking along the interstate. But he’d had enough interactions with police in various states and seemed otherwise intelligent enough to be a reliable narrator on the matter.
In my area (Metro Detroit) it must be flipped. I had a rougher life when I was younger and did pass through the jail system once or twice...
The main counties around me go pick you up, not relying on the arresting jurisdiction to transport. One county in particular, Macomb, has a bad reputation in that it will drive across the country to pick you up. Traveling pick up buses criss cross the country. The bad part was the sometimes multi-week long trip spent in handcuffs sleeping in shitty hotels eating cheap McDonald's for every meal.
The main counties around me go pick you up, not relying on the arresting jurisdiction to transport. One county in particular, Macomb, has a bad reputation in that it will drive across the country to pick you up. Traveling pick up buses criss cross the country. The bad part was the sometimes multi-week long trip spent in handcuffs sleeping in shitty hotels eating cheap McDonald's for every meal.
This fellow caught his charge in Las Vegas. Thanks for sharing your story from Macomb! Very familiar with the area.
> Would it be correct to think of an ICC warrant not as a “warrant” in the traditional sense, but as sanctions?
I think it is best to think of it as a warrant because it is a standing order for any member state to arrest them. Whether those member states actually do so is not certain, South Africa for instance has shirked recent ICC arrest warrants multiple times.
I think it is best to think of it as a warrant because it is a standing order for any member state to arrest them. Whether those member states actually do so is not certain, South Africa for instance has shirked recent ICC arrest warrants multiple times.
ICC signatory countries are meant to arrest anyone on the ICC warrant.
South Africa did not with a Sudanese war criminal: "As a signatory to the Rome Statute that governs the jurisdiction and functioning of the Court, South Africa was obliged to arrest al-Bashir when he was in the country, and to extradite him to The Hague to face trial."[1]
Last year, Putin cancelled a visit to South Africa as there's an ICC arrest warrant out for him.
[1] https://theconversation.com/icc-ruling-on-south-africa-and-a...
South Africa did not with a Sudanese war criminal: "As a signatory to the Rome Statute that governs the jurisdiction and functioning of the Court, South Africa was obliged to arrest al-Bashir when he was in the country, and to extradite him to The Hague to face trial."[1]
Last year, Putin cancelled a visit to South Africa as there's an ICC arrest warrant out for him.
[1] https://theconversation.com/icc-ruling-on-south-africa-and-a...
Nobody prevents Netanyahu from traveling to The Hague. It's not a travel ban.
I'd welcome if he came. :)
I'd welcome if he came. :)
It's my understanding that it also has knock on effects to countries hosting those people, or refusing to arrest them, as it means that weapons shouldn't be exported to the hosting country.
However I can't find a reference to that.
However I can't find a reference to that.
[deleted]
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-...
Arrest warrants for both sides in the conflict. That actually makes a lot of sense.
Arrest warrants for both sides in the conflict. That actually makes a lot of sense.
Leaving out personal opinions, I would love to hear some thoughtful speculation on how this might pa out. Will the ICC actually approve the warrants? How far will the US and/or Israel go to threaten or discredit the ICC leadership? Will Egypt or other neighbours respond? What is the reaction in China? Will Europe and the Netherlands stand by the ICC unconditionally?
Warrants requests are for five people.
I think warrants issued against Sinwar, Al-Masri and Haniyeh are very likely. Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant IMHO are over 50%
Proportationality and intention are important when the ICC interprets what constitutes war crime or crime against humanity. These cases also set up a precedents. Arrest warrant for Netanyahu and Gallant is for:
- Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
- Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
- Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
- Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
- Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
- Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h); Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
I think warrants issued against Sinwar, Al-Masri and Haniyeh are very likely. Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant IMHO are over 50%
Proportationality and intention are important when the ICC interprets what constitutes war crime or crime against humanity. These cases also set up a precedents. Arrest warrant for Netanyahu and Gallant is for:
- Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
- Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
- Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
- Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
- Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
- Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h); Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
If Netanyahu produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court allowing his actions, doesn’t that make it impossible to prosecute him?
ICC works in conjunction with national courts. If a country has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong. Or not.
Israel’s judiciary is both functional and independent. Very independent. Of Netanyahu in particular.
And the Israeli judiciary seems to be going along with this.
Source: https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works
> The ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.
ICC works in conjunction with national courts. If a country has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong. Or not.
Israel’s judiciary is both functional and independent. Very independent. Of Netanyahu in particular.
And the Israeli judiciary seems to be going along with this.
Source: https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works
> The ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.
> If Netanyahu produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court allowing his actions, doesn’t that make it impossible to prosecute him?
No, it does not.
> ICC works in conjunction with national courts
Not in the way you are suggesting.
> If a country has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong
No, the ICC will rule a case inadmissible if a state has investigated and/or prosecuted that specific case (not just if it has some general level of legal functionality), unless the ICC also fines that the investigation or prosecution was not genuine (e.g., was pretextual for the purpose of, say, giving the accused an exonerating document to wave around to protect against ICC prosecution.)
See Article 17 of the Rome Statute.
No, it does not.
> ICC works in conjunction with national courts
Not in the way you are suggesting.
> If a country has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong
No, the ICC will rule a case inadmissible if a state has investigated and/or prosecuted that specific case (not just if it has some general level of legal functionality), unless the ICC also fines that the investigation or prosecution was not genuine (e.g., was pretextual for the purpose of, say, giving the accused an exonerating document to wave around to protect against ICC prosecution.)
See Article 17 of the Rome Statute.
Does a country have to be a signatory to the Rome Statute to be subject to it?
My limited understanding is the location/country of the proposed violation or the violators need to be a signatory. In this case, Palestine is a signatory so the actions of Israel in Palestine as well as the actions of Hamas (acting anywhere) are within the court's jurisdiction.
No, in fact Putin was recently subjected to it.
Putin’s crimes were committed in Ukraine, which is a signatory (though not a party to it [yet]).
The "State of Palestine" (the official name in this context) is a signatory to the ICC, and is the location of the committed crimes. I guess you could technically make an argument that despite Sderot et al being an occupation under international law, because they are in the actual control of Israel which isn't a signatory then crimes committed there couldn't be prosecuted by the ICC. Given that the only party who would try to escape arrest for crimes in those areas are Hamas leadership, I doubt that's what Israel wants. Also, I doubt Hamas is willing to legally state any part of Palestine is "Israel", particularly for a relatively non-existential threat like an arrest warrant.
> If Netanyahu produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court allowing his actions, doesn’t that make it impossible to prosecute him?
No. Israel’s courts ratifying alleged war crimes is the Israeli national system being “unwilling or unable to [apply international law] genuinely.”
No. Israel’s courts ratifying alleged war crimes is the Israeli national system being “unwilling or unable to [apply international law] genuinely.”
And to add on to JumpCrisscross, ICC warrants are only valid in countries that are currently member states of the ICC [0], though countries will gladly turn the other eye depending on mutual interests (eg. Narendra Modi's close relationship with Japan, France, Singapore, UAE, and Israel because they didn't enforce US travel sanctions on him when he was CM of Gujarat in the 2000s).
Notably, the US is NOT a signatory of the ICC (this was a whole thing in the Iraq War days).
[0] - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_states.sv...
Notably, the US is NOT a signatory of the ICC (this was a whole thing in the Iraq War days).
[0] - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_states.sv...
For folks interested in this process, take a look at the ICC proceedings against Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman [1] regarding war crimes in Darfur.
[1]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/abd-al-rahman
[1]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/abd-al-rahman
Also the Frontline documentary from 2019 about Ratko Mladić's trial [0]
(Edit: I'm a dummy, this was the ICTY, not the ICC, but the ICTY was the precursor model of the ICC in the aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars).
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJh8fuaqslo
(Edit: I'm a dummy, this was the ICTY, not the ICC, but the ICTY was the precursor model of the ICC in the aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars).
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJh8fuaqslo
It kind of gives the game away when you see that the US is not a signatory but had a big say in appointing the Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan in 2021 and have instituted the "Invade the Hague Act" that would allow the US to invade the Hague if they were to prosecute any American personnel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
The Biden admin cooperated with the ICC, specifically quietly handing documents to the ICC that details Putin's war crimes and urging them to submit arrest warrants for Putin. Notably Russia is also not a signatory of the ICC, so there is definitely precedent for this process that even has had the backing of the US.
IMO Khan's speech today really speaks for itself. The "International Rule of Law" is nothing but a joke if we don't not apply it equally and blindly that will ultimately lead to the degradation of modern society and our species. I highly urge people to go and check out his speech on the matter and to form your own opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
The Biden admin cooperated with the ICC, specifically quietly handing documents to the ICC that details Putin's war crimes and urging them to submit arrest warrants for Putin. Notably Russia is also not a signatory of the ICC, so there is definitely precedent for this process that even has had the backing of the US.
IMO Khan's speech today really speaks for itself. The "International Rule of Law" is nothing but a joke if we don't not apply it equally and blindly that will ultimately lead to the degradation of modern society and our species. I highly urge people to go and check out his speech on the matter and to form your own opinion.
>The "International Rule of Law" is nothing but a joke if we don't not apply it equally and blindly that will ultimately lead to the degradation of modern society and our species.
Part of the "Rule of Law" is enforcement of that law. Who could realistically enforce it against the US? How about China?
Part of the "Rule of Law" is enforcement of that law. Who could realistically enforce it against the US? How about China?
Rule of Law requires you first establish monopoly on violence via global hegemony. If you are willing to accept some kind of global state where individual nations have lost sovereignity then okay, but if not what ends up happening is you limit your own actions while your enemies (who don't care for such rules) can walk free to do whatever.
International rule of law is a joke.
“Rule of law” means all people are equal before the law.
It’s hard to pull off. Some nations have, most haven’t.
But Chairman Xi isn’t going to face charges for his crimes against Uyghurs.
Most countries have no rule of law, and internationally, none do.
“Rule of law” means all people are equal before the law.
It’s hard to pull off. Some nations have, most haven’t.
But Chairman Xi isn’t going to face charges for his crimes against Uyghurs.
Most countries have no rule of law, and internationally, none do.
The international in international law should give you a hint as to why it doesn't apply to the Uyghurs.
There is precedent for the ICC [1], I believe a majority of all the ICC convictions were actually charging individuals committing crimes against their own people without crossing state lines.
The fact that China gets away with its treatment of the Uyghurs (and plenty of other major powers that technically break ICC laws) is definitely an example of how much international law is a farce, though they aren't getting around the ICC by staying within their own borders.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_t...
The fact that China gets away with its treatment of the Uyghurs (and plenty of other major powers that technically break ICC laws) is definitely an example of how much international law is a farce, though they aren't getting around the ICC by staying within their own borders.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_t...
I don't think this is relavent to the complementary principle.
If the israeli judicial system made a good faith attempt to prosecute this crime following the standards of international law, it would probably prevent this warrant even though Israel is not a party to the court.
If the israeli judicial system made a good faith attempt to prosecute this crime following the standards of international law, it would probably prevent this warrant even though Israel is not a party to the court.
If the Israeli Supreme court allows his actions, then that sounds like it would fall under the "unwilling" part of "unwilling or unable to do so".
>produces a document from the Israeli Supreme Court
This would mean that Netanyahu has been charged, tried and eventually acquitted of the same crimes. ICC investigates if the national proceedings are genuine.
To start the process, Israeli prosecutor must prosecute.
This would mean that Netanyahu has been charged, tried and eventually acquitted of the same crimes. ICC investigates if the national proceedings are genuine.
To start the process, Israeli prosecutor must prosecute.
Israel courts have a process of pre-clearance. If the “criminal act” was pre-cleared by the Israeli courts and found lawful, that’s a big deal.
That would make the Israeli court system “unwilling” to apply international law.
That just sounds like the term "unwilling" is to be arbitrarily applied when the ICC doesn't like the national court's decision.
If Israeli courts give clearance to conduct that violates IHL, then that is certainly an unwillingness to enforce said laws.
If Israeli courts seriously and in good faith reviews the conduct and find it lawful, then it’s simply a disagreement between two courts.
Does the fact that the ICC disagrees with the Israeli courts mean the ICC is correct?
Does the fact that the ICC disagrees with the Israeli courts mean the ICC is correct?
The US states:
> The ICC was established by its state parties as a court of limited jurisdiction. Those limits are rooted in principles of complementarity, which do not appear to have been applied here amid the Prosecutor’s rush to seek these arrest warrants rather than allowing the Israeli legal system a full and timely opportunity to proceed.[0]
---
The ICC defines:
> 1. Complementarity: The principle of complementarity governs the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction. This distinguishes the Court in several significant ways from other known institutions, including the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (the ICTY and the ICTR). The Statute recognizes that States have the first responsibility and right to prosecute international crimes. The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings. The principle of complementarity is based both on respect for the primary jurisdiction of States and on considerations of efficiency and effectiveness, since States will generally have the best access to evidence and witnesses and the resources to carry out proceedings. Moreover, there are limits on the number of prosecutions the ICC, a single institution, can feasibly conduct.[1]
namely,
> The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings.
The US argues that the ICC has not adequately allowed this process to play out through the courts in Israel.
---
The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs states:
> The criteria of unwillingness or inability to carry out proceedings would involve some indication of purposely shielding the accused from criminal responsibility or a lack of intent to bring the person to justice. This may be inferred from political interference or deliberate obstruction and delay, from institutional deficiencies due to political subordination of the legal system, or procedural irregularities indicating a lack of willingness and inability to investigate or prosecute genuinely.[2]
---
Imo the hermeneutics are clear, though it will be up to the lawyers from either side to make arguments in favor of/against.
[0]: https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-internatio...
[1]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/20B...
[2]: https://jcpa.org/article/would-judicial-reforms-in-israel-op....
> The ICC was established by its state parties as a court of limited jurisdiction. Those limits are rooted in principles of complementarity, which do not appear to have been applied here amid the Prosecutor’s rush to seek these arrest warrants rather than allowing the Israeli legal system a full and timely opportunity to proceed.[0]
---
The ICC defines:
> 1. Complementarity: The principle of complementarity governs the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction. This distinguishes the Court in several significant ways from other known institutions, including the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (the ICTY and the ICTR). The Statute recognizes that States have the first responsibility and right to prosecute international crimes. The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings. The principle of complementarity is based both on respect for the primary jurisdiction of States and on considerations of efficiency and effectiveness, since States will generally have the best access to evidence and witnesses and the resources to carry out proceedings. Moreover, there are limits on the number of prosecutions the ICC, a single institution, can feasibly conduct.[1]
namely,
> The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings.
The US argues that the ICC has not adequately allowed this process to play out through the courts in Israel.
---
The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs states:
> The criteria of unwillingness or inability to carry out proceedings would involve some indication of purposely shielding the accused from criminal responsibility or a lack of intent to bring the person to justice. This may be inferred from political interference or deliberate obstruction and delay, from institutional deficiencies due to political subordination of the legal system, or procedural irregularities indicating a lack of willingness and inability to investigate or prosecute genuinely.[2]
---
Imo the hermeneutics are clear, though it will be up to the lawyers from either side to make arguments in favor of/against.
[0]: https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-internatio...
[1]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/20B...
[2]: https://jcpa.org/article/would-judicial-reforms-in-israel-op....
a counterpoint
"Prosecutor’s rush to seek these arrest warrants" does not seem to be true.
ICC prosecutor did not bring this case quickly without warning. He has consistently demanded that action must be taken or he will prosecute. Israel's Supreme Court has the authority to conduct judicial review of laws and government decisions and intervene in exceptional, extreme cases. Israeli prosecutors have had time to charge.
>Since last year, in Ramallah, in Cairo, in Israel and in Rafah, I have consistently emphasised that international humanitarian law demands that Israel take urgent action to immediately allow access to humanitarian aid in Gaza at scale. I specifically underlined that starvation as a method of war and the denial of humanitarian relief constitute Rome Statute offences. I could not have been clearer.
>As I also repeatedly underlined in my public statements, those who do not comply with the law should not complain later when my Office takes action. That day has come.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-...
btw. The US has demanded same and put conditions to military aid.
"Prosecutor’s rush to seek these arrest warrants" does not seem to be true.
ICC prosecutor did not bring this case quickly without warning. He has consistently demanded that action must be taken or he will prosecute. Israel's Supreme Court has the authority to conduct judicial review of laws and government decisions and intervene in exceptional, extreme cases. Israeli prosecutors have had time to charge.
>Since last year, in Ramallah, in Cairo, in Israel and in Rafah, I have consistently emphasised that international humanitarian law demands that Israel take urgent action to immediately allow access to humanitarian aid in Gaza at scale. I specifically underlined that starvation as a method of war and the denial of humanitarian relief constitute Rome Statute offences. I could not have been clearer.
>As I also repeatedly underlined in my public statements, those who do not comply with the law should not complain later when my Office takes action. That day has come.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-...
btw. The US has demanded same and put conditions to military aid.
But the amount of aid going into the Gaza strip has increased dramatically (up to the Rafah crossing being taken). i.e. Israel did take action on this matter.
EDIT: It's also important to note the odd timing of asking for arrest warrants for the Hamas leadership at the same time as the Israeli arrest warrants.
Clearly unlike Israel there is no chance in *$#@ that Hamas would prosecute their own leadership for violation of international humanitarian law. The Hamas violations have also occurred earlier.
I.e. Israel should be given more time for its independent legal system to evaluate whether or not there's a case and pursue it. Israel justice system has put prime ministers and presidents on trial. Hamas shouldn't be given any time.
Given this you'd think arrest warrants for Hamas leadership would come a lot sooner.
Since this isn't the case one has to wonder if the prosecutor is doing a "both sides" kind of thing, maybe afraid of backlash if they only go after one side, in which case the response of Israel to the request to increase aid (which has happened) is not relevant.
EDIT: It's also important to note the odd timing of asking for arrest warrants for the Hamas leadership at the same time as the Israeli arrest warrants.
Clearly unlike Israel there is no chance in *$#@ that Hamas would prosecute their own leadership for violation of international humanitarian law. The Hamas violations have also occurred earlier.
I.e. Israel should be given more time for its independent legal system to evaluate whether or not there's a case and pursue it. Israel justice system has put prime ministers and presidents on trial. Hamas shouldn't be given any time.
Given this you'd think arrest warrants for Hamas leadership would come a lot sooner.
Since this isn't the case one has to wonder if the prosecutor is doing a "both sides" kind of thing, maybe afraid of backlash if they only go after one side, in which case the response of Israel to the request to increase aid (which has happened) is not relevant.
> Israel justice system has put prime ministers and presidents on trial.
> Clearly unlike Israel there is no chance in *$#@ that Hamas would prosecute their own leadership for violation of international humanitarian law.
Huh, I almost forgot there were massive protests against the current PM when he set out to cripple the ability of the said Judiciary from trying him in court. But go on.
> Clearly unlike Israel there is no chance in *$#@ that Hamas would prosecute their own leadership for violation of international humanitarian law.
Huh, I almost forgot there were massive protests against the current PM when he set out to cripple the ability of the said Judiciary from trying him in court. But go on.
You also forgot that the PM failed and the Judiciary is still independent and the PM is still under trial. What's your point exactly? What you're saying is evidence of a functioning democracy and the courts are still independent.
> up to the Rafah crossing
How long was that supposed ramp up? Maybe a couple weeks out of 7 months.
How long was that supposed ramp up? Maybe a couple weeks out of 7 months.
There are details here: https://govextra.gov.il/cogat/humanitarian-efforts/home/
EDIT: I can't find a concise summary but latest update: "422 aid trucks were inspected and transferred to the Gaza Strip, yesterday, (May.19). These trucks entered from the various aid routes we developed: Ashdod port, Erez crossing, Judea and Samaria, and JLOTS (maritime route)."
Supposedly the UN said Gaza needs a minimum of 100 trucks a day. https://www.newarab.com/news/un-puts-gaza-humanitarian-aid-n...
EDIT2: It's worth mentioning that since Israel took control of the Gaza side of the Rafah crossing Egypt is refusing to let aid in through that crossing.
EDIT: I can't find a concise summary but latest update: "422 aid trucks were inspected and transferred to the Gaza Strip, yesterday, (May.19). These trucks entered from the various aid routes we developed: Ashdod port, Erez crossing, Judea and Samaria, and JLOTS (maritime route)."
Supposedly the UN said Gaza needs a minimum of 100 trucks a day. https://www.newarab.com/news/un-puts-gaza-humanitarian-aid-n...
EDIT2: It's worth mentioning that since Israel took control of the Gaza side of the Rafah crossing Egypt is refusing to let aid in through that crossing.
I live about eight kilometers from Gaza, the aid trucks are on all the highways at pretty much capacity, and it's been like this for quite a while. I really don't see how much more aid could get in without building more infrastructure, and in fact there is a new port in the strip being built (maybe done already).
It should be noted in context that even bringing in aid is dangerous. The population attacks the aid drivers for two reasons (one, to get the aid, and two, they consider those drivers "traitors" and have been attacking them for long before the current conflict). And there is not insignificant risk to the Gazans as well, there was an incident a few months ago where an aid truck ran people over trying to stop it and some people were killed in a very gruesome fashion.
It should be noted in context that even bringing in aid is dangerous. The population attacks the aid drivers for two reasons (one, to get the aid, and two, they consider those drivers "traitors" and have been attacking them for long before the current conflict). And there is not insignificant risk to the Gazans as well, there was an incident a few months ago where an aid truck ran people over trying to stop it and some people were killed in a very gruesome fashion.
> and in fact there is a new port in the strip being built (maybe done already).
I think yesterday or the day before the first aid came in via the port, actually.
I think yesterday or the day before the first aid came in via the port, actually.
Wait they’re attacking the aid drivers as traitors!?!
Yes, because those aid drivers collaborate with the Israelis. This was going on long before the current war, when they were driving products and not aid.
If you assume rice is 600 calories per kg. And an average need of 2000 cal/day-person. 2,000,000 people in Gaza, and a truck can carry 35,000 kg.
Need about 2X10^6 X 2000 = 4X10^9 calories as day.
At 600 cal/kg you need then 6.67 X 10^6 kg of rice per day.
Truckloads = 6.67X10^6 kg / 35,000 kg/truck = 190 truckloads of rice per day.
Most likely conclusion is Salafists and their supporters lie about everything.
Need about 2X10^6 X 2000 = 4X10^9 calories as day.
At 600 cal/kg you need then 6.67 X 10^6 kg of rice per day.
Truckloads = 6.67X10^6 kg / 35,000 kg/truck = 190 truckloads of rice per day.
Most likely conclusion is Salafists and their supporters lie about everything.
…but rice is 1300kcal/kg, so you need 88 trucks/day.
Are you the salafist you speak of?
Are you the salafist you speak of?
I fucked up, rice is about 600 cal/lb freedom.
> Are you the salafist you speak of?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement
> Are you the salafist you speak of?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement
So they'll be eating this rice raw, then? Raw uncooked rice with a nice cup of seawater to quench their thirst.
If that was true then Putin would also be immune to ICC prosecution, so, it
doesn't seem to work like that.
> it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.
And if you read the last part of the sentence you quoted it should make it pretty clear that it doesn't work like you have interpreted it.
> it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.
And if you read the last part of the sentence you quoted it should make it pretty clear that it doesn't work like you have interpreted it.
The Israeli military often cites that it is impossible to make a difference between Hamas militants and civilians. It reminds me of the VN war in which the VC often dressed as civilians to kill US military personnel. The US was condemned leading attack against VN villages allegedly housing the VC. At some point, they used mercenary like the South Korea military to squash those VC by hitting the whole village with extreme prejudice. Who was at fault?
> Who was at fault?
Pretty clearly the U.S. and the South Vietnamese military. Just because you can't tell who is a combatant and who isn't doesn't give you permission to slaughter entire villages.
Pretty clearly the U.S. and the South Vietnamese military. Just because you can't tell who is a combatant and who isn't doesn't give you permission to slaughter entire villages.
The rules of war evolved specifically so armies would not feel the need to slaughter civilians.
Uniforms, military facilities kept separate from civilian infrastructure, etc. are rules for a reason.
If the group killing your soldiers isn't adhering to these rules of war then all the civilians in the area will find themselves at risk.
There is no world where combatants can expect to be allowed to enjoy the protections civilians are afforded while still killing you.
If the group killing your soldiers isn't adhering to these rules of war then all the civilians in the area will find themselves at risk.
There is no world where combatants can expect to be allowed to enjoy the protections civilians are afforded while still killing you.
> There is no world where combatants can expect to be allowed to enjoy the protections civilians are afforded while still killing you.
That is true, but this does not take away the protection afforded to civilians. As a concrete example, if you take fire from people in civilian clothing holed up in a hospital, then you can return fire in that specific occasion, but you may not start to indiscriminately fire upon people in civilian clothing or hospitals.
(Also, you are not required to wear a uniform. You are required to distinguish yourself from the civpop by at least openly wearing arms and/or wearing a distinctive sign. Keep in mind not everyone in a uniform is a combatant, and not all combatants are armed.)
That is true, but this does not take away the protection afforded to civilians. As a concrete example, if you take fire from people in civilian clothing holed up in a hospital, then you can return fire in that specific occasion, but you may not start to indiscriminately fire upon people in civilian clothing or hospitals.
(Also, you are not required to wear a uniform. You are required to distinguish yourself from the civpop by at least openly wearing arms and/or wearing a distinctive sign. Keep in mind not everyone in a uniform is a combatant, and not all combatants are armed.)
Rules of war should not bend to make war possible.
If group of villagers resists you, maybe you have no right to be there.
If group of villagers resists you, maybe you have no right to be there.
Bold of you to take the same stance Germany took about murdering civilians in the territory they were occupying.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francs-tireurs
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francs-tireurs
I see a parallel to the absolute annihilation of Manila during WW2 by a sustained artillery barrage lasting a few days, by U.S. forces - estimates are that, despite the battle also known as the Rape of Manila, 40% of civilian casualties are due to Allied bombardment.
[deleted]
The right to resist invasion and occupation is not conditioned on forming a regular military force, so the answer to your question is quite obvious.
Both. Which is why the court targets both sides
jimbob45(2)
These reasons for the arrest warrant could apply to a dozen heads of state that I could mention offhand, and I'm just a layman in that field. Is there such a warrant issued already for Assad, president of Syria? Wasn't the recently deceased president of Iran called "The Butcher of Tehran" for a reason?
It has to happen in a place where the ICC has jurisdiction. Palestine has ratified the Rome Statue, and the crimes are happening in Palestine. Syria and Iran have not.
> It has to happen in a place where the ICC has jurisdiction.
> Palestine has ratified the Rome Statue
In any case, The Palestinian Authority does not rule the Gaza strip. Then were overthrown in a very bloody coup, 2005 or 2006, in which Hamas threw some 100 PA members off the top of the buildings.
> I believe that you are referring to The Palestinian Authority
You would be incorrect [0]. The UN recognizes a "State of Palestine" independent of the specific government, which includes both Gaza and the West Bank. This entity, the state of Palestine, not the PLA (that would be weird, like saying the Tory party is signatory to the Rome statute), is signatory to the Rome statute. The state of Palestine is a non-member observer state in the UN.
You're correct that it's good to be precise here, so you should do so around the specific political entity of Palestine when that is what is being discussed.
[0]: Depositary notification of Accession to the Rome Statute by the State of Palestine; https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2015/CN.13.2015-E...
You would be incorrect [0]. The UN recognizes a "State of Palestine" independent of the specific government, which includes both Gaza and the West Bank. This entity, the state of Palestine, not the PLA (that would be weird, like saying the Tory party is signatory to the Rome statute), is signatory to the Rome statute. The state of Palestine is a non-member observer state in the UN.
You're correct that it's good to be precise here, so you should do so around the specific political entity of Palestine when that is what is being discussed.
[0]: Depositary notification of Accession to the Rome Statute by the State of Palestine; https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2015/CN.13.2015-E...
Terrific, thank you, I much appreciate the correction. You'll notice that I stated "I believe", showcasing the uncertainty. I appreciate any additional information to help wade through the mess of information and misinformation surrounding the conflict.
The question of Palestine's admissibility to ICC proceedings was subject to a sophisticated legal review years ago, in relation to a former case.
The gist of the argument can be gleaned from its sub-headings:
Palestine is a State for the purposes of the Statute under relevant principles and rules of international law...... 25
C.1. The Montevideo criteria have been less restrictively applied in certain cases........ 25
C.2. It is appropriate to apply the Montevideo criteria less restrictively to Palestine, for the purposes of the Rome Statute ..... 29
C.2.a. The Palestinian people have a right to self-determination and it has been recognised that this implies a right to an independent and sovereign State of Palestine... 30
C.2.b. The exercise of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination is being obstructed by practices contrary to international law................... 32
C.2.c. Palestine has been recognised by a significant number of States.............. 34
C.2.d. No other State has sovereignty over the Occupied Palestinian Territory............ 35
C.2.e. Palestine’s status as a State Party must be given effect........ 36
C.2.f. The Prosecution’s alternative position is consistent with international law ........ 39
C.2.g. Participants’ arguments regarding a possible referral by the Security Council are unclear.......... 40
D. The Oslo Accords do not Bar the Exercise of the Court’s Jurisdiction........ 40
D.1. The Oslo Accords regulated a gradual transfer of power to the Palestinian Authority over most of the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) and Gaza.............. 40
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20230609070357/http://www.icc-cp...
Coincidentally, Josep Borrell, the foreign policy chief of the EU, announced earlier in the month that several of the bloc's member states intend to recognise Palestinian statehood on the 21st of May - today.
See: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/spain-ireland-reco....
The gist of the argument can be gleaned from its sub-headings:
Palestine is a State for the purposes of the Statute under relevant principles and rules of international law...... 25
C.1. The Montevideo criteria have been less restrictively applied in certain cases........ 25
C.2. It is appropriate to apply the Montevideo criteria less restrictively to Palestine, for the purposes of the Rome Statute ..... 29
C.2.a. The Palestinian people have a right to self-determination and it has been recognised that this implies a right to an independent and sovereign State of Palestine... 30
C.2.b. The exercise of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination is being obstructed by practices contrary to international law................... 32
C.2.c. Palestine has been recognised by a significant number of States.............. 34
C.2.d. No other State has sovereignty over the Occupied Palestinian Territory............ 35
C.2.e. Palestine’s status as a State Party must be given effect........ 36
C.2.f. The Prosecution’s alternative position is consistent with international law ........ 39
C.2.g. Participants’ arguments regarding a possible referral by the Security Council are unclear.......... 40
D. The Oslo Accords do not Bar the Exercise of the Court’s Jurisdiction........ 40
D.1. The Oslo Accords regulated a gradual transfer of power to the Palestinian Authority over most of the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) and Gaza.............. 40
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20230609070357/http://www.icc-cp...
Coincidentally, Josep Borrell, the foreign policy chief of the EU, announced earlier in the month that several of the bloc's member states intend to recognise Palestinian statehood on the 21st of May - today.
See: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/spain-ireland-reco....
You forgot to mention that the coup attempt was by some Western powers and Fatah, against a democratically elected Hamas government, where western powers supplied weapons, intelligence, incentives and training for a coup. They just lost.
> Hamas threw some 100 PA members off the top of the buildings
Also you should support this, because this seems 1) ridiculous given the total number of casualties and nature of the fighting 2) I can only find claim of 2 persons being thrown off building, 1 from Fatah and 1 from Hamas.
Eg. hundred page report from PCHR named "Report on Bloody Fighting in the Gaza Strip from 7 to 14 June 2007" doesn't mention 100 PA thrown off the rooftops.
> Hamas threw some 100 PA members off the top of the buildings
Also you should support this, because this seems 1) ridiculous given the total number of casualties and nature of the fighting 2) I can only find claim of 2 persons being thrown off building, 1 from Fatah and 1 from Hamas.
Eg. hundred page report from PCHR named "Report on Bloody Fighting in the Gaza Strip from 7 to 14 June 2007" doesn't mention 100 PA thrown off the rooftops.
Displacement of civilian populations in occupied areas, and mass settlement of occupier civilian populations into the West Bank also needs to be up there.
It is also a war crime, and doesn't even have the fig leaf of an active war to justify it.
It is also a war crime, and doesn't even have the fig leaf of an active war to justify it.
dotancohen(3)
jiggawatts(6)
Well Netanyahu should be OK given how careful, reserved and calculated the IDF has been, and this will be reflected in any court proceedings.
If Netanyahu is punished for this, then GWB must face a more severe punishments for his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan which saw far more collateral damage.
If Netanyahu is punished for this, then GWB must face a more severe punishments for his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan which saw far more collateral damage.
Its not just the US. A western democracy has never been issued a warrant like this. It's not that hard to find crimes being committed by western leaders (is no one listening to this seasons Serial podcast? Guantanamo is still open).
If this goes through every western leader past and present can have a warrant out for them at any minute, it really doesn't take much to find 1 suspected violation and a need to arrest and stand trial to see if they are guilty.
If this goes through every western leader past and present can have a warrant out for them at any minute, it really doesn't take much to find 1 suspected violation and a need to arrest and stand trial to see if they are guilty.
At that point the court would effectively lose it's legitimacy, as it would be unable to enforce/execute those warrants. Not saying that that is a) good or b) isn't where we are heading... it mirrors the trajectory of the UN and it's certainly in line with trends in economic fragmentation.
This is the real crux of any "Rule of Law" body. Can you enforce it? With the US attached, nearly any law could be enforced globally (by force if necessary) if it got out of hand. But what do you do if the target is the US? Or now China? or even protected by them?
Build an economy that outcompetes them, and is technologically more advanced and then build, carrier strike groups conventional forces, and nuclear weapons.
[deleted]
>But what do you do if the target is the US? Or now China? or even protected by them?
You do nothing. Which is why all of hand-wringing around this ICC decision is for pointless. There is no such thing as "international law" in any practical sense.
You do nothing. Which is why all of hand-wringing around this ICC decision is for pointless. There is no such thing as "international law" in any practical sense.
Cynically from Russian/Chinese point of view that is much preferable.
The "Free World" consistently drums out propaganda for universal "Rule-Based Order". Should the ICC fail to move forward with this, Rus/CN can cynically claim that "Rule-Based Order" is no more than fraud. Good luck forcing China to accept South China Sea Arbitration (which they didn't even participate in the 1st place)
> A western democracy...
Curious: What's "Western" about this particular democracy?
Curious: What's "Western" about this particular democracy?
sounds good
...but that's not going to happen, is it? Kinda shows how politically loaded the topic is.
> How far will the US and/or Israel go to threaten or discredit the ICC leadership? Will Egypt or other neighbours respond? What is the reaction in China? Will Europe and the Netherlands stand by the ICC unconditionally?
ICC warrant will likely just be ignored.
ICC warrant will likely just be ignored.
Sure. But Netanyahu will have to choose sparingly out of state visits lest he finds himself arrested in a foreign country and shipped to the Hague.
He would definitely would - though I’d imagine that most his travel would be done on a diplomatic basis - so it’s possible the Vienna conventions might apply and preclude detention. (not really sure, I’m not a lawyer).
its well manageable risk.
I am not an expert, but I am under impression that he will be jailed in Israel too once/if loses power.
I am not an expert, but I am under impression that he will be jailed in Israel too once/if loses power.
Latest news is that Biden rejects ICC decision. Netanyahu leaves scot free
Support / condemnation will be staunchly factionally split from within all Western Nations. Speaking about a National Unified Will is ridiculous at this stage in history. Eventually, the anti-Israel faction will dominate everywhere except for one or two select Nations that does not include the US. Though, its possible that the US also stays loyal for an indefinite time period. Accurate predication for support / condemnation is rooted in deeper history and geopolitical logic than most people consider.
I think this is very much up in the air.
A high profile Islamic terrorist attacks would shift the narrative, for example. On the other side, if the war cools down a bit people will gradually lose interest in the same way that no one cares about Modi's past actions.
A high profile Islamic terrorist attacks would shift the narrative, for example. On the other side, if the war cools down a bit people will gradually lose interest in the same way that no one cares about Modi's past actions.
It could be up in the air.
For perspective, I'm with Israel. Though, I'm for saving as many Palestinian lives as humanly possible. Which should be all of them, should the clerics and State Actors stop abusing them via radicalization and the Islamic World works with Israel toward offering appropriate options.
But what I'm speaking about, in terms of prediction, isn't the way that the wind blows. What I'm speaking about is high level State intention.
No one today can seriously believe that State political orientation is a grassroots effect. The reality is that, with the exception of extremely unstable States that are de facto puppets of other Nations, the broad political orientation of modern States is an effect of the allowable movements, opinions, revolutions, propaganda, and migrations that are facilitated by the agencies over decades. Ergo, the eventual orientation of any State toward or away from Israel has to be assumed to be in that State's geopolitical interest as dictated at the highest level.
As we can easily observe, if there was an event and the resultant popular effect was not in the State's interest than, no matter what, the event would be minimized into oblivion by State Press.
Conversely, the Press will manufacture events out of virtual non-events if that assists the State's interest.
Only the State or God will determine whether or not it supports Israel, in any future. That's my starting point for prediction.
For perspective, I'm with Israel. Though, I'm for saving as many Palestinian lives as humanly possible. Which should be all of them, should the clerics and State Actors stop abusing them via radicalization and the Islamic World works with Israel toward offering appropriate options.
But what I'm speaking about, in terms of prediction, isn't the way that the wind blows. What I'm speaking about is high level State intention.
No one today can seriously believe that State political orientation is a grassroots effect. The reality is that, with the exception of extremely unstable States that are de facto puppets of other Nations, the broad political orientation of modern States is an effect of the allowable movements, opinions, revolutions, propaganda, and migrations that are facilitated by the agencies over decades. Ergo, the eventual orientation of any State toward or away from Israel has to be assumed to be in that State's geopolitical interest as dictated at the highest level.
As we can easily observe, if there was an event and the resultant popular effect was not in the State's interest than, no matter what, the event would be minimized into oblivion by State Press.
Conversely, the Press will manufacture events out of virtual non-events if that assists the State's interest.
Only the State or God will determine whether or not it supports Israel, in any future. That's my starting point for prediction.
>Only the State or God will determine whether or not it supports Israel
Seems like in most cases the state is more pro-israel than the population.
And God killed that Turkish guy so apparently he's pro-Israel too.
Seems like in most cases the state is more pro-israel than the population.
And God killed that Turkish guy so apparently he's pro-Israel too.
>Seems like in most cases the state is more pro-israel than the population.
In some cases. But like I said, Western Nations are now factional at a high level (in my observation, and whether or not this is an intentional result - in my view, it might be). And the short to medium term may not predict the long term. What is also possible is that what the State says, in any period, may not predict its long-term strategy.
In some cases. But like I said, Western Nations are now factional at a high level (in my observation, and whether or not this is an intentional result - in my view, it might be). And the short to medium term may not predict the long term. What is also possible is that what the State says, in any period, may not predict its long-term strategy.
> Seems like in most cases the state is more pro-israel than the population.
Not really. Go check the results of the popular vote for Eurovision. Israel came in second.
There's a huge quiet population that is pro-Israel. They don't make noise with protests though, so some people don't realize they exist.
Not really. Go check the results of the popular vote for Eurovision. Israel came in second.
There's a huge quiet population that is pro-Israel. They don't make noise with protests though, so some people don't realize they exist.
If there are 25 candidates, how many votes do you need to come in second? And how many supporters do you need for those votes, when it's pay-to-vote and everyone can vote as many times as they want?
The fact that Israel didn't win the popular vote suggests that the support for them is not particularly strong in Europe.
The fact that Israel didn't win the popular vote suggests that the support for them is not particularly strong in Europe.
> The fact that Israel didn't win the popular vote suggests that the support for them is not particularly strong in Europe.
They came in second place. How is that "not particularly strong"?
And the difference between the popular vote and the jury vote was especially dramatic for Israel. No one expected anything else though......
They came in second place. How is that "not particularly strong"?
And the difference between the popular vote and the jury vote was especially dramatic for Israel. No one expected anything else though......
You don't need much support to win when everyone else's votes are split between 24 candidates.
And there is already a precedent for strong popular support. In 2022, Ukraine won the popular vote with 439 points, with 239 points for the next country. This year, Israel lost with 323 points vs. 337 points for the winner. Ukraine, which came in third, also got pretty close with 307 points.
Similar forms of activism, such as petitions and protests, are supposed to demonstrate support for something, but they often end up showing the opposite. Because the absolute number of supporters rarely matters. What's more important is the number of supporters as a fraction of the total, or relative to the expectations.
Once upon a time, I was involved in something controversial. There was a petition opposing us, with a very large number of signatures for that context. But the petition ended up strengthening our case, because it showed that the opposition to our plans was no more widespread than what we had assumed. The next elections proved us correct. A large number of people with a particular opinion didn't matter, because they were a small enough fraction of the total.
And there is already a precedent for strong popular support. In 2022, Ukraine won the popular vote with 439 points, with 239 points for the next country. This year, Israel lost with 323 points vs. 337 points for the winner. Ukraine, which came in third, also got pretty close with 307 points.
Similar forms of activism, such as petitions and protests, are supposed to demonstrate support for something, but they often end up showing the opposite. Because the absolute number of supporters rarely matters. What's more important is the number of supporters as a fraction of the total, or relative to the expectations.
Once upon a time, I was involved in something controversial. There was a petition opposing us, with a very large number of signatures for that context. But the petition ended up strengthening our case, because it showed that the opposition to our plans was no more widespread than what we had assumed. The next elections proved us correct. A large number of people with a particular opinion didn't matter, because they were a small enough fraction of the total.
OP described this system as "it's pay-to-vote and everyone can vote as many times as they want".
This sounds exactly like the scam that the right wing runs in America regarding the "Best Selling Book lists". There are a number of right wing books on the list each year but it turns out those books are purchased in large bulk by right leaning groups funded by billionaire donors and are then handed out for free at events or dumped on the clearance channels. It gives a fake impression that the books are more popular than they really are and is in effect a way to blunt the effectiveness of left wing thinking.
This is also done via channels such as PragerU. Right leaning groups funded by billionaires produce white papers describing their thesis which are then sent out to groups such as PragerU and Ben Shapiro in the form of talking points to be inserted into the narrative of their videos.
This sounds exactly like the scam that the right wing runs in America regarding the "Best Selling Book lists". There are a number of right wing books on the list each year but it turns out those books are purchased in large bulk by right leaning groups funded by billionaire donors and are then handed out for free at events or dumped on the clearance channels. It gives a fake impression that the books are more popular than they really are and is in effect a way to blunt the effectiveness of left wing thinking.
This is also done via channels such as PragerU. Right leaning groups funded by billionaires produce white papers describing their thesis which are then sent out to groups such as PragerU and Ben Shapiro in the form of talking points to be inserted into the narrative of their videos.
That was an astrotrufed campaign funded by Israel,
https://twitter.com/InTrustweDoubt/status/179001795639239479...
Oh sure, Israel managed to astroturf millions upon millions of votes, and manged to control the votes of around 50% of Europe.
Yes, definitely, that's what they did.
Yes, definitely, that's what they did.
Why not?
The main reason I can think of would be that they didn't need to 'astroturf' that many, due to europeans generally being conservative and anti-arab or anti-muslim. But they ran a campaign to get votes, and exactly how efficient it was is very hard to pinpoint.
Zionists have quite extensive tooling and robust parasocial networks for running propaganda campaigns. Why wouldn't they use that to try and become the next host of the Eurovision pop tournament?
The main reason I can think of would be that they didn't need to 'astroturf' that many, due to europeans generally being conservative and anti-arab or anti-muslim. But they ran a campaign to get votes, and exactly how efficient it was is very hard to pinpoint.
Zionists have quite extensive tooling and robust parasocial networks for running propaganda campaigns. Why wouldn't they use that to try and become the next host of the Eurovision pop tournament?
I agree, it's easy to be blinded by the protests. The full picture isn't as obvious.
Between so many options to vote on Israel could get the max points from each country with less than 5% of votes. Its disingenuous to portray this as if a majority of Europeans support Israel.
You are right. This explains the current trend that's happening on social media, "being silent is being complicit".
There is a huge quiet population that is OKAY with 40k Palestinian bombed by Israeli regime.
I had no idea on Eurovision result and to see Israel to be second, I guess people are blind to the genocide
There is a huge quiet population that is OKAY with 40k Palestinian bombed by Israeli regime.
I had no idea on Eurovision result and to see Israel to be second, I guess people are blind to the genocide
Maybe they are scared to talk because Pro-Israel supporters do things like scrape Linkedin profiles and search for Palestinians flag in a bio and then target those peoples employers for harassment?
Honestly it could go either way, there is a lot of astroturfing on both sides to make the noise level so absurd that its hard to see a clear picture.
I have never seen such a large physical response to Israel in my life though, that really leads me to believe that this may be a step change from past incidents regarding Israel/Palestine.
Also the fact that the rich Pro Israeli donors are freaking out more than in the past seems to indicate something has changed.
Honestly it could go either way, there is a lot of astroturfing on both sides to make the noise level so absurd that its hard to see a clear picture.
I have never seen such a large physical response to Israel in my life though, that really leads me to believe that this may be a step change from past incidents regarding Israel/Palestine.
Also the fact that the rich Pro Israeli donors are freaking out more than in the past seems to indicate something has changed.
dotancohen(1)
Or, and I assume you have not considered this, but maybe you should, there is no genocide. And virtually everyone except for some noisy activists knows this.
You live in a bubble if you think social media represents people. Social media represents the highly motivated ones. It does not reward quiet thinkers, it rewards "useful idiots" who have brainless slogans.
The normal people who actually think about things don't participate because they have better things to do than useful idiots.
And then you have people like me who also have better things to do, but feel obligated to post occasionally to at least try to reduce the amount of misinformation.
You live in a bubble if you think social media represents people. Social media represents the highly motivated ones. It does not reward quiet thinkers, it rewards "useful idiots" who have brainless slogans.
The normal people who actually think about things don't participate because they have better things to do than useful idiots.
And then you have people like me who also have better things to do, but feel obligated to post occasionally to at least try to reduce the amount of misinformation.
You are right in that Internet does not represent real life. I saw this during the Bernie 2020 campaign. While there were unbelievably large movements online and even in cities like NYC(that 30k+ rally was a historic day) at the end of the day it led to a false belief that things were much better than they really were.
I was concluding the same thing at the start of this Israel/Palestine conflict but then I saw amazing amounts of resistance to Israel, the likes which I have not seen before. People taking the time to protest in real life gives a more reliable indicator of the internet support. There has definitely been a step change in favor of Palestine. I predicted that i'd see this in my lifetime but I honestly thought it would have taken another 20+ years as more Pro israel older generations died off. The fact that it is happening now and that the rich Israel supporters are freaking out and doing whatever they can to "suppress" the narrative makes me think we are seeing some sort of slow moving shift.
I was concluding the same thing at the start of this Israel/Palestine conflict but then I saw amazing amounts of resistance to Israel, the likes which I have not seen before. People taking the time to protest in real life gives a more reliable indicator of the internet support. There has definitely been a step change in favor of Palestine. I predicted that i'd see this in my lifetime but I honestly thought it would have taken another 20+ years as more Pro israel older generations died off. The fact that it is happening now and that the rich Israel supporters are freaking out and doing whatever they can to "suppress" the narrative makes me think we are seeing some sort of slow moving shift.
> virtually everyone except for some noisy activists knows this
Amos Goldberg, Raz Segal, Omer Bartov, Gabor Mate aren't "noisy activists", I don't think.
Amos Goldberg, Raz Segal, Omer Bartov, Gabor Mate aren't "noisy activists", I don't think.
> there is no genocide
So the ICC already decided on this? No? Well, then I wouldn't be so sure about this if I where you. Because starving a population, denying them water, fuel and medicine amounts to genocide in all but name.
So the ICC already decided on this? No? Well, then I wouldn't be so sure about this if I where you. Because starving a population, denying them water, fuel and medicine amounts to genocide in all but name.
No it doesn’t “amount to genocide in all but name”. Genocide is a very specific crime with a very specific special intent. All of what you named are possible without a genocide.
> The normal people who actually think about things don't participate because they have better things to do than useful idiots.
Actually, "normal" people should thing about these things if their tax dollar is funding the genocide against the Palestinians.
To be quiet on the killing is to be complicit.
> there is no genocide
One better thing for you to do is not spread lies.
Actually, "normal" people should thing about these things if their tax dollar is funding the genocide against the Palestinians.
To be quiet on the killing is to be complicit.
> there is no genocide
One better thing for you to do is not spread lies.
The US seems to have been extremely strong in its reaction to the ruling.
"“My colleagues and I look forward to make sure neither Khan, his associates nor their families will ever set foot again in the United States,” Republican Senator Tom Cotton wrote on X."
"The ICC is the world’s first permanent international war crimes court and its 124 member states are obliged to immediately arrest the wanted person if they are on a member state’s territory."
Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/21/no-equivalence-bide...
I don't understand how the US and many other EU governments can be so extremely critical of a court which as far as I know has been considered legitimate by all of them (except the US which apparently removed its signature... anyone knows why?), and whose decisions have always been applauded by all of them (including Putin's arrest [1]), except for this last one.
Quoting from the linked article [1]: "British journalist George Monbiot wrote in a Guardian op-ed that the ICC targeting Putin was an example of the organization's bias in favor of prosecuting crimes by non-Westerners, ...".
Looks like that's the real issue here, doesn't it?
Imagine a leader of a country saying that the judiciary's decision is wrong and that the judge won't be allowed to travel freely anymore because of that. That would be the end of the rule of law. Why is it different in this case?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_a...
"“My colleagues and I look forward to make sure neither Khan, his associates nor their families will ever set foot again in the United States,” Republican Senator Tom Cotton wrote on X."
"The ICC is the world’s first permanent international war crimes court and its 124 member states are obliged to immediately arrest the wanted person if they are on a member state’s territory."
Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/21/no-equivalence-bide...
I don't understand how the US and many other EU governments can be so extremely critical of a court which as far as I know has been considered legitimate by all of them (except the US which apparently removed its signature... anyone knows why?), and whose decisions have always been applauded by all of them (including Putin's arrest [1]), except for this last one.
Quoting from the linked article [1]: "British journalist George Monbiot wrote in a Guardian op-ed that the ICC targeting Putin was an example of the organization's bias in favor of prosecuting crimes by non-Westerners, ...".
Looks like that's the real issue here, doesn't it?
Imagine a leader of a country saying that the judiciary's decision is wrong and that the judge won't be allowed to travel freely anymore because of that. That would be the end of the rule of law. Why is it different in this case?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_a...
You are making a conclusion based on rationality and governments operating correctly (ie. compromised based consensus between different sides of the political aisle)
Tom Cotton is a clown senator that is an symbol of the dysfunction of the US government of the last few decades. He along with a few frequent imbeciles are the reason there is so much dysfunction. If there was any redeeming factor of the current US system, he would be impeached and removed a long time ago.
Tom Cotton is a clown senator that is an symbol of the dysfunction of the US government of the last few decades. He along with a few frequent imbeciles are the reason there is so much dysfunction. If there was any redeeming factor of the current US system, he would be impeached and removed a long time ago.
It seems more likely than not that the ICC will approve the warrants. This is unprecedented for the ICC to turn its gaze toards a key US ally.
As for how far will the US go, well in 2002, Congress passed (and Bush signed) the American Service Members Protection Act, more colloquially known as the Hage Invasion Act. It authorizes the president to use all necessary force including invading the Netherlands if an American servicemember or appointed official is ever taken into ICC custody. This includes officials and servicemen of key allies, including Israel.
So will Betanyahu or Gallant actually be arrested? Almost certainly not. The practical effect of this is political not legal.
The goal of protests, boycotting, ICJ applications, ICC warrants, UN (GA and SC) motions, "Undecided" voting in Democratic primaries and so on are to incrementally pressure the two key players here: Israel and, more importantly, the US. Why? Because the US could end the conflict with a phone call. They could end it with a press release.
BDS (Boycott, divest, sanction) movements were considered successful in isolating and ultimately toppling the Apartheid South African regime in the 1970s and 1980s. Given this success, an awful lot of lobbying has been directed at US politicans to pass so-called "anti-BDS" laws that are laws in ~37 states. For example, to be a teacher in Texas, you need to sign a contract agreeing to never participate in a BDS movement against Israel.
So the practical effect of ICC warrants is just to incrementally isolate and pressure Israel.
As for how far will the US go, well in 2002, Congress passed (and Bush signed) the American Service Members Protection Act, more colloquially known as the Hage Invasion Act. It authorizes the president to use all necessary force including invading the Netherlands if an American servicemember or appointed official is ever taken into ICC custody. This includes officials and servicemen of key allies, including Israel.
So will Betanyahu or Gallant actually be arrested? Almost certainly not. The practical effect of this is political not legal.
The goal of protests, boycotting, ICJ applications, ICC warrants, UN (GA and SC) motions, "Undecided" voting in Democratic primaries and so on are to incrementally pressure the two key players here: Israel and, more importantly, the US. Why? Because the US could end the conflict with a phone call. They could end it with a press release.
BDS (Boycott, divest, sanction) movements were considered successful in isolating and ultimately toppling the Apartheid South African regime in the 1970s and 1980s. Given this success, an awful lot of lobbying has been directed at US politicans to pass so-called "anti-BDS" laws that are laws in ~37 states. For example, to be a teacher in Texas, you need to sign a contract agreeing to never participate in a BDS movement against Israel.
So the practical effect of ICC warrants is just to incrementally isolate and pressure Israel.
One phone call to whom? Hamas? The conflict is 2 sided. It may pause. But not end. This is very different from Russia invade Ukraine, there is no dispute of the sovereignty in a wider sense. Even china would not say U belong to R. But the hell of P and I, …
There is no easy solution … from camp David to now.
There is no easy solution … from camp David to now.
> There is no easy solution … from camp David to now.
Everyone from the Hague to UC Berkeley administrators is learning one hard truth: agreements with some polities in that part of the world and their ambassadors are not worth very much. But if you pretend that they are then it seems like there are easy solutions.
Everyone from the Hague to UC Berkeley administrators is learning one hard truth: agreements with some polities in that part of the world and their ambassadors are not worth very much. But if you pretend that they are then it seems like there are easy solutions.
> One phone call to whom? Hamas?
To Israel. The modern state of Israel simply cannot exist without the largesse and political cover the US provides.
> There is no easy solution
Yes and no. End the genocide. End the apartheid. Nuremberg-like trials to deal with war criminals on both sides. Reconstruction of a single state. 750,000 settlers has made a two-state solution impossible.
We've been here before: post-US civil war and post-apartheid South Africa.
There is the idea that the currently oppressed population will rise up in vilence against their former oppressors. History doesn't back up this view. Our modern examples such as Reconstruction showed the opposite: the rise of the KKK and the rise of violence against former slaves by their former oppressors.
Afghanistan has been described as the graveyard of empires. This region may be vying for that title.
To Israel. The modern state of Israel simply cannot exist without the largesse and political cover the US provides.
> There is no easy solution
Yes and no. End the genocide. End the apartheid. Nuremberg-like trials to deal with war criminals on both sides. Reconstruction of a single state. 750,000 settlers has made a two-state solution impossible.
We've been here before: post-US civil war and post-apartheid South Africa.
There is the idea that the currently oppressed population will rise up in vilence against their former oppressors. History doesn't back up this view. Our modern examples such as Reconstruction showed the opposite: the rise of the KKK and the rise of violence against former slaves by their former oppressors.
Afghanistan has been described as the graveyard of empires. This region may be vying for that title.
Israel existed for decades without US support. No Jews will agree to live under a Muslim majority one state solution, it will inevitably decay into something similar to Lebanon, Syria, or Egypt.
> No Jews will agree to live under a Muslim majority one state solution
Couldn't you say the same about whites in apartheid South Africa?
Couldn't you say the same about whites in apartheid South Africa?
The situations aren't comparable. Most Israeli citizens are of MENA origin; they are not, as activist wisdom would have it, ambitious Europeans.
It's really not the same thing. Jews have a very long history of being oppressed by Muslims and Christians.
I don’t know that you want to bring South Africa as an example of success. Even the majority is fed up with their government.
How can the US end the conflict with a phone call? I think that is unlikely because I suspect those phone calls have already been had.
And really the only way we are resolving this is by actually solving the underlying issue, which is that there are a set of people essentially locked up in a prison for 30 years and/or slowly being shot by settlers in the West Bank.
And really the only way we are resolving this is by actually solving the underlying issue, which is that there are a set of people essentially locked up in a prison for 30 years and/or slowly being shot by settlers in the West Bank.
Press release: "We're halting all arms shipments to Israel". There's even a legal basis for it, the so-called "Leahy laws" [1]. Israel cannot exist without hte largesse and political cover the United States provides.
I agree about solving the underlying issues and the injustices that have historically taken place but the above is intended to answer the question and engage in analysis rather than arguing the merits, which is likely an unproductive conversation.
[1]: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/PP410_INVES...
I agree about solving the underlying issues and the injustices that have historically taken place but the above is intended to answer the question and engage in analysis rather than arguing the merits, which is likely an unproductive conversation.
[1]: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/PP410_INVES...
Israel is a net exporter of arms. Israel supplies a long list of countries with technologically advanced and strategically important weapons systems that are difficult to substitute. A US embargo would be economically painful, but Israel is perfectly capable of living without US military aid and exports.
https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/fs_2203_at...
https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/fs_2203_at...
I’d honestly love to see them give it a go. They have a LOT of enemies in the region.
If they lose the support of the US they might actually have to play nice.
If they lose the support of the US they might actually have to play nice.
What does playing nice look like to you, if not:
- Giving up Sinai for a peace treaty with Egypt
- Giving up access to the Temple Mount for a peace treaty with Jordan
- Repeatedly offering peace deals to the Palestinian leadership following the Oslo Accords ('2000 Camp David Summit, '2001 Taba Summit, '2007 Olmert offers etc.)
- Giving up Sinai for a peace treaty with Egypt
- Giving up access to the Temple Mount for a peace treaty with Jordan
- Repeatedly offering peace deals to the Palestinian leadership following the Oslo Accords ('2000 Camp David Summit, '2001 Taba Summit, '2007 Olmert offers etc.)
2000 Camp David Summit
[1]
> Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel's Minister of Foreign Relations who participated in the talks, stated that the Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would dismantle the Palestinian organizations. The Israeli response was "we can't accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation." In 2006, Shlomo Ben-Ami stated on Democracy Now! that "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well."
Multiple members of Clinton's negotiating team also dispute that interpretation:
> Robert Malley, part of the Clinton administration and present at the summit, wrote to dispel three "myths" regarding the summit's failure. First myth, Malley says, was "Camp David was an ideal test of Mr. Arafat's intentions". Malley recalls that Arafat didn't think that Israeli and Palestinian diplomats had sufficiently narrowed issues in preparation for the summit and that the Summit happened at a "low point" in the relations between Arafat and Barak.
> The second myth was "Israel's offer met most if not all of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations". According to Malley, Arafat was told that Israel would not only retain sovereignty over some Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, but Haram al Sharif too, and Arafat was also asked to accept an unfavorable 9-to-1 ratio in land swaps.
> The third myth was that "The Palestinians made no concession of their own". Malley pointed out that the Palestinians starting position was at the 1967 borders, but they were ready to give up Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, and parts of the West Bank with Israeli settlements. Further, the Palestinians were willing to implement the right of return in a way that guaranteed Israel's demographic interests. He argues that Arafat was far more compromising in his negotiations with Israel than Anwar el-Sadat or King Hussein of Jordan had been when they negotiated with Israel.
---
2001 Taba Summit
[2]
> A new round of talks was held at Taba in January 2001, during the last few days of the Clinton presidency, between President Arafat and the Israeli foreign minister, and it was later claimed that the Palestinians rejected a "generous offer" put forward by Prime Minister Barak with Israel keeping only 5 percent of the West Bank. The fact is that no such offers were ever made.
[1] Camp David wiki page
[2] Carter - Peace Not Apartheid
[1]
> Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel's Minister of Foreign Relations who participated in the talks, stated that the Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would dismantle the Palestinian organizations. The Israeli response was "we can't accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation." In 2006, Shlomo Ben-Ami stated on Democracy Now! that "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well."
Multiple members of Clinton's negotiating team also dispute that interpretation:
> Robert Malley, part of the Clinton administration and present at the summit, wrote to dispel three "myths" regarding the summit's failure. First myth, Malley says, was "Camp David was an ideal test of Mr. Arafat's intentions". Malley recalls that Arafat didn't think that Israeli and Palestinian diplomats had sufficiently narrowed issues in preparation for the summit and that the Summit happened at a "low point" in the relations between Arafat and Barak.
> The second myth was "Israel's offer met most if not all of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations". According to Malley, Arafat was told that Israel would not only retain sovereignty over some Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, but Haram al Sharif too, and Arafat was also asked to accept an unfavorable 9-to-1 ratio in land swaps.
> The third myth was that "The Palestinians made no concession of their own". Malley pointed out that the Palestinians starting position was at the 1967 borders, but they were ready to give up Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, and parts of the West Bank with Israeli settlements. Further, the Palestinians were willing to implement the right of return in a way that guaranteed Israel's demographic interests. He argues that Arafat was far more compromising in his negotiations with Israel than Anwar el-Sadat or King Hussein of Jordan had been when they negotiated with Israel.
---
2001 Taba Summit
[2]
> A new round of talks was held at Taba in January 2001, during the last few days of the Clinton presidency, between President Arafat and the Israeli foreign minister, and it was later claimed that the Palestinians rejected a "generous offer" put forward by Prime Minister Barak with Israel keeping only 5 percent of the West Bank. The fact is that no such offers were ever made.
[1] Camp David wiki page
[2] Carter - Peace Not Apartheid
They’ve fought them all before and repeatedly won. Before they had US funding, before they had nuclear weapons, before they had an overwhelming advantage in material and technology.
US funding of Israel is used to buy votes in the US, and to buy some influence in Israel, it will not change the military situation much.
US funding of Israel is used to buy votes in the US, and to buy some influence in Israel, it will not change the military situation much.
Israel hardly needs those arms to continue their war in Gaza. It's nice, certainly, and the precision weapons help reduce Palestinian deaths, but Israel does not require it.
You also forget that Israel has fought all its major wars without the US.
You also forget that Israel has fought all its major wars without the US.
They also get $3.8 billion in military aid from the US each year.
And Israel's GDP is ~500billion, of which ~25b is spent on defense. So, that 3.8b would be a dent, but not insurmountable.
Economic measures could be a different story, but pulling that lever on an an ally of 75+ years would damage the US's credibility. Not to mention to the domestic impact in the US. I don't think any decision makers weighing national interest would go there.
Plus, if the US successfully isolated Israel, it's highly likely the whole region would be at war in short time. Hard to imagine the West not getting involved again at that point, except now in a significantly worse position.
Economic measures could be a different story, but pulling that lever on an an ally of 75+ years would damage the US's credibility. Not to mention to the domestic impact in the US. I don't think any decision makers weighing national interest would go there.
Plus, if the US successfully isolated Israel, it's highly likely the whole region would be at war in short time. Hard to imagine the West not getting involved again at that point, except now in a significantly worse position.
The issue is not the genocide in Gaza. The issue is restocking iron Dome, and the ability for Israel to defend against attacks from Hezbollah and Iran… assuming other powers don’t change their stance towards Israel.
The lack of working Iron Dome would mean that Israel would have to go on a big offensive. The lack of US aid will elevate Israel's war posture, not decrease it. People seem to keep forgetting this is an existential war for Israel, there is no clear end goal for Israel's enemies besides its destruction. Of course Israel will never "give up", give up what? Its existence?
Well, they could start by giving up the illegally occupied parts of Palestine.
Palestinian leadership has not shown willingness to take peace offerings that would improve the lives of their people
- '2000 Camp David Summit offer
- '2001 Taba Summit offer
- '2007 Olmert offer
In fact, during the peace talks between '2000 and '2001, the Palestinian leader at the time, Arafat, with control over the main armed faction in PLO at the time, Fatah, has failed to thwart the waves of violence against Israeli citizens, for the following 4-5 years, known as the Second Intifada.
- '2000 Camp David Summit offer
- '2001 Taba Summit offer
- '2007 Olmert offer
In fact, during the peace talks between '2000 and '2001, the Palestinian leader at the time, Arafat, with control over the main armed faction in PLO at the time, Fatah, has failed to thwart the waves of violence against Israeli citizens, for the following 4-5 years, known as the Second Intifada.
Obviously this conflict didn't start with the 1967 borders. Was the situation peaceful before 1967?
No, but completely eliminating Israel isn't (and shouldn't be an option), so hopefully 1967 borders is where it can end. Israel returns occupied territories, Palestine/Hamas stops wanting revenge for everything Israel has done, international community puts pressure on both sides to accept that. Probably not gonna happen, but I think it's the optimal outcome.
Really interesting - how did Israel fare without Iron Dome (ie, before 2011)?
Iron Dome simply allows Israel to do more offense. Without it, they would need to be more cautious.
Iron Dome simply allows Israel to do more offense. Without it, they would need to be more cautious.
>Given this success, an awful lot of lobbying has been directed at US politicans to pass so-called "anti-BDS" laws that are laws in ~37 states. For example, to be a teacher in Texas, you need to sign a contract agreeing to never participate in a BDS movement against Israel.
These are unconstitutional laws that unfortunately are easy to pass but difficult to remove. There needs to be more legal challenges to remove these laws. There have been positive efforts to remove these laws although the states find new ways to keep amended versions of the laws on the books which requires further lawsuits to challenge.
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Constitutional_c...
These are unconstitutional laws that unfortunately are easy to pass but difficult to remove. There needs to be more legal challenges to remove these laws. There have been positive efforts to remove these laws although the states find new ways to keep amended versions of the laws on the books which requires further lawsuits to challenge.
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Constitutional_c...
> Will the ICC actually approve the warrants?
Almost certainly
Almost certainly
Without expressing opinion on the warrants:
A) I'm told warrant approval is almost always a rubberstamp.
B) There will be a discrediting campaign, but ICC's future is the least interesting thing to me.
C) I'm not sure this leads to a conviction, but actual trials will probably take years by which time Bibi and co will be out of office. Again not so interesting.
D) Bibi was already done for. But paradoxically this strengthens him domestically temporarily and massively strengths the Right next elections. I'll expand on this below since this is IMHO interesting.
E) It makes attacking Israel a bit more 'legitimate', but in the ME legitimacy for that was already sky-high. War with Lebanon was very high likelihood anyway.
F) Saudi normalization is DOA for this term (always was, but admin was blind to everyone's interests. Qatar would have had to be nuts not to put every possible roadblock here, and Biden admin could never see what was in front of its eyes).
G) Hamas has not so simple problems here. The various ideas for reintegration has hit serious roadblocks, and later on I believe this will cause them bigger problems than Israel which can always change leaders.
---
D is not 'rally around the flag'. It has to do with the opposition is built: its deep links with the 'security state'. The security state is outraged and itself vulnerable to possible warrants. The same logic could have easily justified adding Gantz.
An Israeli Left opposition which can't claim the world likes them more (due to warrant risk) and loses its security credentials (security state links to pre and post Oct failures, warrant risk again) is dead in the water. Which means it needs more time before an election to find its footing again... But on the other hand, it wouldn't like possible ICC isolation either. So a temporary delay before losing in the elections.
A) I'm told warrant approval is almost always a rubberstamp.
B) There will be a discrediting campaign, but ICC's future is the least interesting thing to me.
C) I'm not sure this leads to a conviction, but actual trials will probably take years by which time Bibi and co will be out of office. Again not so interesting.
D) Bibi was already done for. But paradoxically this strengthens him domestically temporarily and massively strengths the Right next elections. I'll expand on this below since this is IMHO interesting.
E) It makes attacking Israel a bit more 'legitimate', but in the ME legitimacy for that was already sky-high. War with Lebanon was very high likelihood anyway.
F) Saudi normalization is DOA for this term (always was, but admin was blind to everyone's interests. Qatar would have had to be nuts not to put every possible roadblock here, and Biden admin could never see what was in front of its eyes).
G) Hamas has not so simple problems here. The various ideas for reintegration has hit serious roadblocks, and later on I believe this will cause them bigger problems than Israel which can always change leaders.
---
D is not 'rally around the flag'. It has to do with the opposition is built: its deep links with the 'security state'. The security state is outraged and itself vulnerable to possible warrants. The same logic could have easily justified adding Gantz.
An Israeli Left opposition which can't claim the world likes them more (due to warrant risk) and loses its security credentials (security state links to pre and post Oct failures, warrant risk again) is dead in the water. Which means it needs more time before an election to find its footing again... But on the other hand, it wouldn't like possible ICC isolation either. So a temporary delay before losing in the elections.
> I'm told warrant approval is almost always a rubberstamp.
Its pretty similar to an indictment in the US (to judges rather than a grand jury); its an unopposed process where the prosecutor knows the standards and chooses when to bring a case to that step based on confidence in being ready to meet the standards. There's not a lot of probability of surprises if the basic work is done competently and in good faith and not with an intent to push the envelope.
> I'm not sure this leads to a conviction, but actual trials will probably take years by which time Bibi and co will be out of office.
Trials won't take start until the individuals being tried are in custody for trial. (They don't have to be at the same time.)
Its pretty similar to an indictment in the US (to judges rather than a grand jury); its an unopposed process where the prosecutor knows the standards and chooses when to bring a case to that step based on confidence in being ready to meet the standards. There's not a lot of probability of surprises if the basic work is done competently and in good faith and not with an intent to push the envelope.
> I'm not sure this leads to a conviction, but actual trials will probably take years by which time Bibi and co will be out of office.
Trials won't take start until the individuals being tried are in custody for trial. (They don't have to be at the same time.)
>There's not a lot of probability of surprises if the basic work is done competently and in good faith and not with an intent to push the envelope.
It's a tiny bit higher since IMHO he pushed the envelope on starvation (the reported malnutrition death count is 32 out of over two million people), and on not engaging with Israel (was due to a trip to the country before issuing indictments), but given unopposed nature, his advantage is so large I don't see odds of this being rejected.
>Trials won't take start until the individuals being tried are in custody for trial. (They don't have to be at the same time.)
Yeah, the other comment slagged me on this. The essential 'this isn't resolved for years, by which time they are out of office' is right.
It's a tiny bit higher since IMHO he pushed the envelope on starvation (the reported malnutrition death count is 32 out of over two million people), and on not engaging with Israel (was due to a trip to the country before issuing indictments), but given unopposed nature, his advantage is so large I don't see odds of this being rejected.
>Trials won't take start until the individuals being tried are in custody for trial. (They don't have to be at the same time.)
Yeah, the other comment slagged me on this. The essential 'this isn't resolved for years, by which time they are out of office' is right.
ICC does not have trials or conviction in absence.
After the arrest warrant goes out, everything stops until people charged are in custody. It's very unlikely that Gallant or Netanyahu will ever be arrested. Their travel will be just limited for the rest of their lives.
After the arrest warrant goes out, everything stops until people charged are in custody. It's very unlikely that Gallant or Netanyahu will ever be arrested. Their travel will be just limited for the rest of their lives.
True. I never assumed that, though I see now why my phrasing could imply it. You're right - they're probably not stepping in that court. But even if they did, it would take years.
My other point - ICC can issue secret warrants, and no denial would be credible due to its very nature... This is poison to Gantz's political career and same for any active general who would want to join the current opposition following service. The current Israeli opposition is just not competitive without generals, and all they've left are certain people who are very... outspoken to put it mildly.
My other point - ICC can issue secret warrants, and no denial would be credible due to its very nature... This is poison to Gantz's political career and same for any active general who would want to join the current opposition following service. The current Israeli opposition is just not competitive without generals, and all they've left are certain people who are very... outspoken to put it mildly.
> ICC can issue secret warrants
Do you have a source for that? This doesn't make sense to me since it relies on more than a hundred different countries to enforce them, it'd be impossible to keep anything they do a secret
Do you have a source for that? This doesn't make sense to me since it relies on more than a hundred different countries to enforce them, it'd be impossible to keep anything they do a secret
Search for the Thomas Lubanga and Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo cases. The ICC can issue 'sealed' (secret) warrants and tell the countries very late in the process.
Yeah, in practice any such warrant will eventually leak, but it's still a risk for anyone who might be on the other end which de facto creates limits to anyone who might fall under suspicion.
Yeah, in practice any such warrant will eventually leak, but it's still a risk for anyone who might be on the other end which de facto creates limits to anyone who might fall under suspicion.
Interesting, TIL, thanks
> ICC can issue secret warrants, and no denial would be credible due to its very nature
If that's the case then they are defacto banned from travelling. Still these secret warrants will be shared with the respective countries, right? So they should know?
If that's the case then they are defacto banned from travelling. Still these secret warrants will be shared with the respective countries, right? So they should know?
> It makes attacking Israel a bit more 'legitimate', but in the ME legitimacy for that was already sky-high.
On the other hand, it defuses the situation away from an world war wannabe into something Israel fights alone.
On the other hand, it defuses the situation away from an world war wannabe into something Israel fights alone.
Biden has already called the indictment "outrageous." [1]. The U.S. Secretary of State has also spoken out against the indictment [2].
Needless to say, they're backing him, and the ICC can't arrest Netanyahu. At worst, the U.S. government will sanction ICC officials as they did under the Trump administration.
I personally can't believe the ICC is equating the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government. What a shameful organization.
1- https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
2- https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-internatio...
Needless to say, they're backing him, and the ICC can't arrest Netanyahu. At worst, the U.S. government will sanction ICC officials as they did under the Trump administration.
I personally can't believe the ICC is equating the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government. What a shameful organization.
1- https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
2- https://www.state.gov/warrant-applications-by-the-internatio...
The Biden situation is predictable and calls into question the strategy behind the ICC arrest warrants.
First things first: neither the Polizio di Stato, the Garda, nor the RCMP are actually going to arrest Sinwar or Netanyahu. The practical impact of the warrants will be (at least in the near term) negligible.
Concurrently: unlike the ICC Genocide case, which is difficult and unlikely to succeed, the ICC war crimes warrants are probably broadly going to be seen as strong and compelling. Reporting has Biden and his team maneuvering for months to keep any kind of supply lines open to Gaza; he knows firsthand that some of these charges have validity.
But the USA is Israel's most important ally; further, reporting suggests that Biden's team has been the only thing between the current situation and abyss that would kill 3-5x as many civilians. That pushback only functions because of soft power (Israel would not depend on US arms suppliers for indiscriminate bulk bombing, massed land incursions, or supply blockades).
What else can Biden say in this situation? He cannot both assent to the validity of the ICC charges and continue negotiating with Israel for things like US-built supply piers on Gaza's seafront. You can't really do diplomacy wth a world leader while at the same time saying (or implying) that they belong in the Hague.
There's a general vibe where people want international justice to work in simple moral terms, where everyone just lays the truth as they understand it out, a tribunal sorts out the details, and the chips fall as they may. But international law absolutely doesn't work that way; for similar reasons, Assad won't be charged by the ICC for killing half a million Syrians (Syria is not a signatory to the ICC).
Once you accept that the court is fundamentally political, you're left asking: are the politics of this move effective? Will they hasten an end to the conflict, or save lives?
Either way: once the warrants were announced, I think you could have taken bets on what Biden (or literally any other American president in the last 50 years, or any major party candidate for the presidency) would have said, and all the money would be on exactly this. We're not signatories to the ICC to begin with!
(I think Netanyahu is a criminal; the Hague is fine with me, though I think it's more likely he'll do his time in Maasiyahu after the Israelis convict him once his coalition falls apart).
First things first: neither the Polizio di Stato, the Garda, nor the RCMP are actually going to arrest Sinwar or Netanyahu. The practical impact of the warrants will be (at least in the near term) negligible.
Concurrently: unlike the ICC Genocide case, which is difficult and unlikely to succeed, the ICC war crimes warrants are probably broadly going to be seen as strong and compelling. Reporting has Biden and his team maneuvering for months to keep any kind of supply lines open to Gaza; he knows firsthand that some of these charges have validity.
But the USA is Israel's most important ally; further, reporting suggests that Biden's team has been the only thing between the current situation and abyss that would kill 3-5x as many civilians. That pushback only functions because of soft power (Israel would not depend on US arms suppliers for indiscriminate bulk bombing, massed land incursions, or supply blockades).
What else can Biden say in this situation? He cannot both assent to the validity of the ICC charges and continue negotiating with Israel for things like US-built supply piers on Gaza's seafront. You can't really do diplomacy wth a world leader while at the same time saying (or implying) that they belong in the Hague.
There's a general vibe where people want international justice to work in simple moral terms, where everyone just lays the truth as they understand it out, a tribunal sorts out the details, and the chips fall as they may. But international law absolutely doesn't work that way; for similar reasons, Assad won't be charged by the ICC for killing half a million Syrians (Syria is not a signatory to the ICC).
Once you accept that the court is fundamentally political, you're left asking: are the politics of this move effective? Will they hasten an end to the conflict, or save lives?
Either way: once the warrants were announced, I think you could have taken bets on what Biden (or literally any other American president in the last 50 years, or any major party candidate for the presidency) would have said, and all the money would be on exactly this. We're not signatories to the ICC to begin with!
(I think Netanyahu is a criminal; the Hague is fine with me, though I think it's more likely he'll do his time in Maasiyahu after the Israelis convict him once his coalition falls apart).
> But the USA is Israel's most important ally.
However, Israel is not the USA's most important ally.
The US is not really an ally of Israel at all. The NATO countries are. Japan and South Korea are. They have US troops and bases. The US does not send troops to fight in Israel's wars. The US just sends money.
However, Israel is not the USA's most important ally.
The US is not really an ally of Israel at all. The NATO countries are. Japan and South Korea are. They have US troops and bases. The US does not send troops to fight in Israel's wars. The US just sends money.
Right, my point is that we're most important external input to Israel's decision-making process, not that we depend on them (beyond the political fact that the US electorate broadly supports Israel as an enterprise, and ranks the Gaza war at the bottom of important issues).
Israel was one of the US most important assets in the Middle East. At that time, gas/oil ran the world and it was the energy source. The US is simply stuck with that baggage. Meanwhile China is building solar like there is no tomorrow and essentially creating and monopolizing the new energy source.
The US is really in a bad position now.
The US is really in a bad position now.
I know, we need The Art of the Deal.
As I saw someone else put it, this will probably be studied in decades to come as a case study in "why not to piss off your superpower ally."
"The US does not send troops to fight in Israel's wars. The US just sends money"
That's what Ukraine is begging for.
That's what Ukraine is begging for.
> What else can Biden say in this situation? He cannot both assent to the validity of the ICC charges and continue negotiating with Israel for things like US-built supply piers on Gaza's seafront.
He didn't have to say anything about the substance. He could even use them as leverage in negotiations without publicly saying anything about the substance, by conditioning US efforts to get the UNSC to hold them in abeyance (which it explictly can!) conditioned on a cease-fire and concrete steps on aid.
Would it work? Probably not. Would it be better for the US interestd broadly than getting nothing at all while undermining the credibility of an institution that the US, while not a member of, has found practically and diplomatically useful in a number of past cases? Absolutely yes.
> We're not signatories to the ICC to begin with!
We have shut up about, or actively supported, the ICC in many cases, and given the US public nominal goal of a two-state solution demonstrating that international institutions are willing to take on abused on both sides of the conflict without ignoring the legitimate interests or rights of people on either side is something the US ought to be backing rather than burning down.
He didn't have to say anything about the substance. He could even use them as leverage in negotiations without publicly saying anything about the substance, by conditioning US efforts to get the UNSC to hold them in abeyance (which it explictly can!) conditioned on a cease-fire and concrete steps on aid.
Would it work? Probably not. Would it be better for the US interestd broadly than getting nothing at all while undermining the credibility of an institution that the US, while not a member of, has found practically and diplomatically useful in a number of past cases? Absolutely yes.
> We're not signatories to the ICC to begin with!
We have shut up about, or actively supported, the ICC in many cases, and given the US public nominal goal of a two-state solution demonstrating that international institutions are willing to take on abused on both sides of the conflict without ignoring the legitimate interests or rights of people on either side is something the US ought to be backing rather than burning down.
Everything you're pitching here seems predicated on the idea of breaking off all practical diplomacy with Netanyahu. Which, if you think you can topple Netanyahu, sure, but I imagine there are career diplomats telling the administration that moves like these are as likely to bolster Netanyahu's position as they are to hasten his ouster.
Certainly it is not my contention that the US is consistent with respect to the ICC.
It's a bad situation. I genuinely think that the administration is playing the best it can with the cards it was dealt. I think we're all clear what the counterfactual other administration would be doing.
Certainly it is not my contention that the US is consistent with respect to the ICC.
It's a bad situation. I genuinely think that the administration is playing the best it can with the cards it was dealt. I think we're all clear what the counterfactual other administration would be doing.
If it weren't for a large portion of the American public having religious motivation (evangelical protestantism) to support Israel unconditionally, no matter what, then the US would be able to exert considerable pressure on Israel, for instance by threatening to cut off Israel as Israel has been cutting off Gaza. No more arms shipments, no more UN Security Council vetos of any anti-Israel resolution, etc.
But of course this is politically impossible for the US. Near half of the US population would throw an absolute fit.
But of course this is politically impossible for the US. Near half of the US population would throw an absolute fit.
Evangelicals are a small component of the electorate relative to Israel's support (they're like a quarter of the population, and, of course, they're locked in completely to the opposition party; Democrats don't meaningfully campaign for evangelical votes.)
Democrats are only half of congress, though - Republican support is needed to pass bills, currently.
But unconditional support for Israel is a rare topic with mostly bipartisan agreement from the leadership class. The disagreement from the public is very likely more correlated with age than with the party someone supports.
> Near half of the US population would throw an absolute fit.
But a large chunk of the population is already throwing a fit, and given the spread in views among different age groups, that's a growing chunk of the population.
But a large chunk of the population is already throwing a fit, and given the spread in views among different age groups, that's a growing chunk of the population.
If by this you mean they're throwing a fit over Israel and Gaza, no, I don't think polling bears this out at all. Even within the context of the schools themselves, protesters are small minorities of the students and faculty. A large chunk of the media is throwing a fit, to be sure!
I think the best way to sum up public opinion from what we know given polling and on-the-ground numbers is that Americans just don't much care about this. We care. But as is so often the case, caring about this issue makes us the weird ones.
I think the best way to sum up public opinion from what we know given polling and on-the-ground numbers is that Americans just don't much care about this. We care. But as is so often the case, caring about this issue makes us the weird ones.
The situation is ripe for a new political party that isn't wed to zionism. Opposition to zionism is growing on both the left and the right, particularly among young people, but neither had a party to represent this.
No lasting and significant opposition to Zionism will ever take root. To boil it down to a jingoist set of phrases understandable by the masses would require overt antisemitism.
<< set of phrases understandable by the masses
I.. think I disagree. In a sense, Trump technically laid a foundation for that with a rather clever MAGA phrase. Regardless of what you think about him, his policy or his stance on anything, he showed that there are phrases could be utilized to tap into that section with little effort and are not as easily dismissed.
Now.. those could be attacked as overly nationalistic, but that is a separate discussion.
<< No lasting and significant opposition to Zionism will ever take root.
I think I agree despite (n)'ever' being a really long time. A year is eternity in politics and this year is already pretty crazy. I honestly can't say it is impossible.
I.. think I disagree. In a sense, Trump technically laid a foundation for that with a rather clever MAGA phrase. Regardless of what you think about him, his policy or his stance on anything, he showed that there are phrases could be utilized to tap into that section with little effort and are not as easily dismissed.
Now.. those could be attacked as overly nationalistic, but that is a separate discussion.
<< No lasting and significant opposition to Zionism will ever take root.
I think I agree despite (n)'ever' being a really long time. A year is eternity in politics and this year is already pretty crazy. I honestly can't say it is impossible.
I'm hoping that the last year or so will finally deliver a replacement for American FPTP - the Republicans are split between RINOs and MAGA devouts, and the democrats are split too between the centrist and progressives too.
I don't know if it'll actually happen, but this is probably the most likely path towards it, if there is one.
I don't know if it'll actually happen, but this is probably the most likely path towards it, if there is one.
The RINOs are moving towards the welcoming arms of Democrats and the "progressives" don't have a home anywhere as they are barely even tolerated in the Democratic party.
Normally you'd think at least one of the parties would adapt to appeal to the younger generations. Unfortunately I think there is some truth to the idea that Israeli influence is very strong in D.C., so neither party has so much as offered an olive branch to the young.
What the heck does "Opposition to Zionism" even mean? Opposing Zionism is the same as opposing the Irish desire to have Ireland, or the Kiwi desire to have New Zealand.
I suspect you don't know what Zionism is, because otherwise your message makes no sense.
I suspect you don't know what Zionism is, because otherwise your message makes no sense.
It is the opposition to Israel as an ethnostate, which describes neither Ireland nor New Zealand.
There are at least two dozen countries in that area (mid east) of the world who are, constitutionally and in practice, ethnostates. Their constitution explicitly states that they are an "Arab state" and that their laws are based on Sharia law. Just Google for and read the constitutions of those countries in the Arab league, for example Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Syria, etc. And then there is Iran.
Those who actively claim they are opposed to Israel because it is an ethnostate but are not also actively calling for these other states to be dismantled need to explain why that is not anti-semetic.
There is also the related question on those opposed to Israel because it is a "European settler/colonial" state. A significant majority (66%) of Israel consists of brown people. 25% of Israel is not Jewish, and of the rest (the Jewish population), at least half of those are indigenous to that area, and are, from a racial perspective, just as "non-white" as anyone else from that area.
Those who actively claim they are opposed to Israel because it is an ethnostate but are not also actively calling for these other states to be dismantled need to explain why that is not anti-semetic.
There is also the related question on those opposed to Israel because it is a "European settler/colonial" state. A significant majority (66%) of Israel consists of brown people. 25% of Israel is not Jewish, and of the rest (the Jewish population), at least half of those are indigenous to that area, and are, from a racial perspective, just as "non-white" as anyone else from that area.
There are a couple things that set Israel apart from the other countries you listed. Israel gives Jews specifically enumerated privileges, such as a right to citizenship. It also implements an apartheid system in the West Bank — territory it occupies in violation of international law — in which Israelis and Palestinians are subject to two different legal systems. It has withdrawn from Gaza, of course, but it still exerts a high degree of control over it, such as an air and sea blockade.
I don’t know why you think the current demographics of Israel preclude it from being a settler/colonial state. There is a formal effort to attract Jewish settlers. Just a few months ago, there was literally an event in my hometown advertising property in the West Bank to Jewish prospective residents.
I don’t know why you think the current demographics of Israel preclude it from being a settler/colonial state. There is a formal effort to attract Jewish settlers. Just a few months ago, there was literally an event in my hometown advertising property in the West Bank to Jewish prospective residents.
Regarding the West Bank/Gaza: My opinion is that settlements should be removed and there needs to be a path to a Palestinian state. An act of good faith would be to remove the settlements unilaterally, unfortunately, that did not work out too well in Gaza. Advertising West Bank property to Jews is, in my opinion, abhorrent, as well as making a bad situation worse.
On what happens in Israel, all Israeli citizens have equal rights. All countries have rules on who can become citizens. Yes, Israel is unique (I think) in the reasons for citizenship. Israel is also unique in its needs for survival. I am not sure if there are other differences, there could very well be.
On the settler/colonial issue: What I find most interesting about this is how vehement many people are in my country (US) on Israel being a settler/colonial state, when, almost without exceptions, they are the ones living on Native land, using Native resources, and participate in a conspiracy to eradicate Native culture (this is anyone in the US who is not a Native American), and are therefor themselves settler/colonists, while it is the Jews who are native to the middle east, whether the 50% who are Mizrahi or the other 50% who are returning to the land their ancestors were kicked out of.
And the Palestinians are also native to that area. The fundamental issue is: Can there be a compromise where each of these peoples get a land of their own, or is the idea of a Jewish state anywhere is what at some point of time was Dar A-Islam unacceptable.
On what happens in Israel, all Israeli citizens have equal rights. All countries have rules on who can become citizens. Yes, Israel is unique (I think) in the reasons for citizenship. Israel is also unique in its needs for survival. I am not sure if there are other differences, there could very well be.
On the settler/colonial issue: What I find most interesting about this is how vehement many people are in my country (US) on Israel being a settler/colonial state, when, almost without exceptions, they are the ones living on Native land, using Native resources, and participate in a conspiracy to eradicate Native culture (this is anyone in the US who is not a Native American), and are therefor themselves settler/colonists, while it is the Jews who are native to the middle east, whether the 50% who are Mizrahi or the other 50% who are returning to the land their ancestors were kicked out of.
And the Palestinians are also native to that area. The fundamental issue is: Can there be a compromise where each of these peoples get a land of their own, or is the idea of a Jewish state anywhere is what at some point of time was Dar A-Islam unacceptable.
> On the settler/colonial issue: What I find most interesting about this is how vehement many people are in my country (US) on Israel being a settler/colonial state, when, almost without exceptions, they are the ones living on Native land, using Native resources,
The US is undeniably a settler culture. I am outraged at the actions of my ancestors [1] who played a part in that culture. Just because I'm descended from reprehensible people doesn't mean I'm precluded from complaining about reprehensible people today.
> and participate in a conspiracy to eradicate Native culture (this is anyone in the US who is not a Native American), and are therefor themselves settler/colonists
Not saying that the US in the past hasn't been genocidal, but many of the people complaining about Israeli settler culture today are also broadly supportive of current Native American rights issues, which is the opposite of participating in a conspiracy to eradicate their culture.
> while it is the Jews who are native to the middle east, whether the 50% who are Mizrahi or the other 50% who are returning to the land their ancestors were kicked out of.
And here comes the special pleading. What Israel is doing in the West Bank is seizing land from extant landowners, transferring it to a favored landowners, and turning the former landowners into second-class citizens. This is exactly the kind of policy that people complain about in settler colonies. Claims of it's-our-ancestors'-land-from-centuries-ago don't fly in international law (see also Russia's diplomatic failure to assert this vis-a-vis its invasion of Ukraine), and it certainly doesn't justify forcible expropriation of land from current landowners.
[1] Indeed, my great-x-I-don't-remember-how-many grandfather participated in the Cherokee Strip land rush, so this is literally personal ancestry in play here, rather than vague reference to historical US ancestry.
The US is undeniably a settler culture. I am outraged at the actions of my ancestors [1] who played a part in that culture. Just because I'm descended from reprehensible people doesn't mean I'm precluded from complaining about reprehensible people today.
> and participate in a conspiracy to eradicate Native culture (this is anyone in the US who is not a Native American), and are therefor themselves settler/colonists
Not saying that the US in the past hasn't been genocidal, but many of the people complaining about Israeli settler culture today are also broadly supportive of current Native American rights issues, which is the opposite of participating in a conspiracy to eradicate their culture.
> while it is the Jews who are native to the middle east, whether the 50% who are Mizrahi or the other 50% who are returning to the land their ancestors were kicked out of.
And here comes the special pleading. What Israel is doing in the West Bank is seizing land from extant landowners, transferring it to a favored landowners, and turning the former landowners into second-class citizens. This is exactly the kind of policy that people complain about in settler colonies. Claims of it's-our-ancestors'-land-from-centuries-ago don't fly in international law (see also Russia's diplomatic failure to assert this vis-a-vis its invasion of Ukraine), and it certainly doesn't justify forcible expropriation of land from current landowners.
[1] Indeed, my great-x-I-don't-remember-how-many grandfather participated in the Cherokee Strip land rush, so this is literally personal ancestry in play here, rather than vague reference to historical US ancestry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy#Northern_Ireland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnostate#New_Zealand
And I'm not picking on them - tons of countries are like that, and that's fine as long as they ensure equality of all citizens, which Ireland, New Zealand, and Israel have all done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnostate#New_Zealand
And I'm not picking on them - tons of countries are like that, and that's fine as long as they ensure equality of all citizens, which Ireland, New Zealand, and Israel have all done.
I didn’t know about the “White New Zealand Policy”, but it seems to have been rolled back in the 80s. Ireland is not the same as Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK.
I assume you chose the word “citizen” carefully, so let’s just imagine that in a hypothetical Palestinian state — whether alongside or unified with Israel — Palestinians would enjoy the same rights as Israelis, unlike today.
Anyway, obviously you aren’t picking on them for any of that, and I’m not super interested in debating it. I’m just answering your question about what “opposition to Zionism” means.
I assume you chose the word “citizen” carefully, so let’s just imagine that in a hypothetical Palestinian state — whether alongside or unified with Israel — Palestinians would enjoy the same rights as Israelis, unlike today.
Anyway, obviously you aren’t picking on them for any of that, and I’m not super interested in debating it. I’m just answering your question about what “opposition to Zionism” means.
"let’s just imagine that in a hypothetical Palestinian state — whether alongside or unified with Israel — Palestinians would enjoy the same rights as Israelis, unlike today."
If/when there is a Palestinian state, there is no basis to assume that they would enjoy the same rights as Israelis. It would be their own state, and their rights are determined by them. For example, Syrians do not have the same rights of Israelis, and Israelis do not have the same rights as Syrians.
Currently, Israeli Palestinians (Israeli Arabs) have the same rights of Israeli Jews.Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza do not have those same rights.
If/when there is a Palestinian state, there is no basis to assume that they would enjoy the same rights as Israelis. It would be their own state, and their rights are determined by them. For example, Syrians do not have the same rights of Israelis, and Israelis do not have the same rights as Syrians.
Currently, Israeli Palestinians (Israeli Arabs) have the same rights of Israeli Jews.Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza do not have those same rights.
I could have worded that better. In a hypothetical one-state solution, they would enjoy the same rights; in a hypothetical two-state solution, as you say, it would be a nonissue.
Regardless, you have correctly identified one of the core things that anti-Zionism opposes: in Israeli occupied territory, there is currently de jure discrimination against an indigenous ethnic minority population.
Regardless, you have correctly identified one of the core things that anti-Zionism opposes: in Israeli occupied territory, there is currently de jure discrimination against an indigenous ethnic minority population.
The section on NZ refers to a set of racist policies that ended in the 1980s and are now thoroughly discredited. Are you sure you want to cite it as a comparator to Israel?
Same with Norther Ireland. Parent links to policies of Northern Ireland aimed at minimizing Catholic’s political powers, including via controlling the demographics. History has shown these policies to be very wrong and very much the reason for the Troubles.
Historically this region suffered from settler colonialism where Britain encourage Protestants to move into the area. If you wanted to make a comparison to anti-Zionism, then the Nationalist‘s fight for civil rights and political representation is much more apt, then Protestant hardliners wanting to keep the demographics in their favor in order for continue suppress the rights of Norther Irish Catholics.
Ironically, the IRA were not afraid to use terrorism to further the nationalistic cause (similar to a certain Palestinian resistance movement), and when the British tried to defeat them militarily (including via occupation) it only made matter worse. What did work however was stopping these policies which stripped Catholics from their civil rights, and granting them a political avenue for their prospects. Turns out that if you have political means for your goals, you are less likely to use terrorism.
Historically this region suffered from settler colonialism where Britain encourage Protestants to move into the area. If you wanted to make a comparison to anti-Zionism, then the Nationalist‘s fight for civil rights and political representation is much more apt, then Protestant hardliners wanting to keep the demographics in their favor in order for continue suppress the rights of Norther Irish Catholics.
Ironically, the IRA were not afraid to use terrorism to further the nationalistic cause (similar to a certain Palestinian resistance movement), and when the British tried to defeat them militarily (including via occupation) it only made matter worse. What did work however was stopping these policies which stripped Catholics from their civil rights, and granting them a political avenue for their prospects. Turns out that if you have political means for your goals, you are less likely to use terrorism.
Yeah, I didn't really drill down into the Ireland section. I can pretty much only do one deeply flawed country analogy at a time.
I suspect above poster wrote zionism as a way to refer to neo-zionism, since people often mistakenly call nzo-zionist proponents that way.
The gist of the idea is that zionism is a "dead" ideology already, since it has reached its goal of creating a state. The remaining question about it is whether Israel should adhere to post-zionism or to neo-zionism.
Most people in the west opposing the current situation would probably fall in the post-zionist category if they were told about the concept.
The gist of the idea is that zionism is a "dead" ideology already, since it has reached its goal of creating a state. The remaining question about it is whether Israel should adhere to post-zionism or to neo-zionism.
Most people in the west opposing the current situation would probably fall in the post-zionist category if they were told about the concept.
> What the heck does "Opposition to Zionism" even mean?
If I had to guess, I suspect they might mean "opposition to Zionist control of American foreign policy" rather than "opposition to Zionism".
If I had to guess, I suspect they might mean "opposition to Zionist control of American foreign policy" rather than "opposition to Zionism".
Zionists don't control American foreign policy any more than does motherhood, apple pie, or General Mills breakfast cereals --- they are all just things that the American public is aligned on. Israel enjoys broad support in both parties, and that's in part because the voters of those parties support Israel.
> they are all just things that the American public is aligned on
Huh, I see strong and increasingly growing public opposition to Israeli influence on American politics.
Huh, I see strong and increasingly growing public opposition to Israeli influence on American politics.
Except unlike all of those things, explicitly Zionist organizations spend millions of dollars lobbying and campaigning. For example, AIPAC alone has spent almost $2 million to unseat Jamal Bowman in his race against George Latimer, whom AIPAC themselves recruited. [1].
“Controls American foreign policy” is hyperbolic; I don’t think support for Israel would just collapse if those orgs vanished. But come on, comparing Zionism to “motherhood” and “apple pie” is disingenuous.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2024/05/16/aipac-jamaal-bowman-atta...
“Controls American foreign policy” is hyperbolic; I don’t think support for Israel would just collapse if those orgs vanished. But come on, comparing Zionism to “motherhood” and “apple pie” is disingenuous.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2024/05/16/aipac-jamaal-bowman-atta...
That's a weird thing to oppose considering most parties see the control running exactly the other way. The US needs Israel more than Israel needs the US.
Honest question: why does the US need Israel? Or, to put it another way, what concrete help or advantages has Israel given the US over the last few decades?
Even in the (ill-conceived and disastrous) Iraq and Afghanistan wars other ME nations produced a lot more help than Israel did.
Even in the (ill-conceived and disastrous) Iraq and Afghanistan wars other ME nations produced a lot more help than Israel did.
The easiest answer is military tech.
More complex answers involve having an allied county in an area with a lot of Russian influence.
The history is long and complex, but keep in mind Israel ran all by itself for decades, and defended itself in multiple wars, without any US help. It was when Russia started helping Egypt that the US recruited Israel. It was not the other way around.
For a while when Russia seemed powerless people started questioning the relationship, but after Ukraine it was re-energized.
Other answers are cultural: Israel is very similar to the US and Europe, same equal rights for citzens, same democracy, same culture of freedom. And the US is allied with all countries that are similar to it.
More complex answers involve having an allied county in an area with a lot of Russian influence.
The history is long and complex, but keep in mind Israel ran all by itself for decades, and defended itself in multiple wars, without any US help. It was when Russia started helping Egypt that the US recruited Israel. It was not the other way around.
For a while when Russia seemed powerless people started questioning the relationship, but after Ukraine it was re-energized.
Other answers are cultural: Israel is very similar to the US and Europe, same equal rights for citzens, same democracy, same culture of freedom. And the US is allied with all countries that are similar to it.
What military tech has the US gotten from Israel?
What concrete, specific advantages from having an allied country in a distant region?
What concrete, specific advantages from having an allied country in a distant region?
The US needs Israel
It absolutely does not - and it is not anti-Israel sentiment to say so; it's just geopolitics. For the the US, Israel is optional.
Meanwhile if Israel ever decides to pretend it doesn't need the US -- well, you know what would happen.
It absolutely does not - and it is not anti-Israel sentiment to say so; it's just geopolitics. For the the US, Israel is optional.
Meanwhile if Israel ever decides to pretend it doesn't need the US -- well, you know what would happen.
> For the the US, Israel is optional.
That's not really true. The reason are complicated and involve the cold war. I touched on some of the highlights here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40425327
> well, you know what would happen.
Nothing would happen. Israel has defended itself from multiple wars without US help, if anything Israel's enemies are weaker than they were in the past.
Weirdly enough it's actually Israel's enemies that benefit from the US - without the US Israel would just do what it needed to to stay safe, and never mind if the other country is hurt. Israel would not care, because their own security comes first.
With the US Israel is like "fine, we'll do the bare minimum".
This is also why all those people who what the US to stop helping Israel are so incredibly foolish. If Israel felt less secure they would fight with even greater ferocity. If you want Israel to stand down make them feel very very secure.
That's not really true. The reason are complicated and involve the cold war. I touched on some of the highlights here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40425327
> well, you know what would happen.
Nothing would happen. Israel has defended itself from multiple wars without US help, if anything Israel's enemies are weaker than they were in the past.
Weirdly enough it's actually Israel's enemies that benefit from the US - without the US Israel would just do what it needed to to stay safe, and never mind if the other country is hurt. Israel would not care, because their own security comes first.
With the US Israel is like "fine, we'll do the bare minimum".
This is also why all those people who what the US to stop helping Israel are so incredibly foolish. If Israel felt less secure they would fight with even greater ferocity. If you want Israel to stand down make them feel very very secure.
Israel has [fought] multiple wars without US help
This obviously wrong, and on multiple levels.
First, there's $330b of financial support since 1946. Access to advanced weapon systems since 1962. Crucial intelligence + diplomatic support in all the big wars (56/67/73); crucial munitions support, and an offer to send a large numbers of ground troops in 73. Solid and almost unquestioning diplomatic support (or acquiescence) of essentially every action Israel has taken since 67 (no matter how provocative or ultimately detrimental to its own interests), backed by the assurance of automatic UNSC veto of course.
In the current operation, you've got 2 carriers parked offshore along with other assets in the region; special access to fuel depots and arms caches (that even Ukraine doesn't get); technical support from U.S. companies like Google, etc.
The idea that Israel fights its wars "without US help" just ludicrous.
Meanwhile, in return -- Israel just doesn't provide all that much. The U.S. supports Israel mostly for ideological regions (such as the kindling that it provides to the apocalyptic fantasies of the Christian Right) and to please other domestic political constituencies; and yes, out of a legitimate sense of moral responsibility since the Holocaust -- but not because it really needs Israel to be around (in the sense that it needs the UK, Germany, Japan, etc). It objectively needs countries like Sweden and Turkey more than it needs Israel.
Completely cut off from U.S. aid -- it would survive of course, but under significantly diminished circumstances. In particular it would have to give up the Greater Israel project -- which it of course needs to do anyway, but it would have to do so much sooner, and in an abrupt, violatile way leaving it in a much less secure position than it would like to find itself shunted into.
If you want Israel to stand down make them feel very very secure.
This is of course the mantra we've hearing since 67. And which brought us to the place we're in now.
This obviously wrong, and on multiple levels.
First, there's $330b of financial support since 1946. Access to advanced weapon systems since 1962. Crucial intelligence + diplomatic support in all the big wars (56/67/73); crucial munitions support, and an offer to send a large numbers of ground troops in 73. Solid and almost unquestioning diplomatic support (or acquiescence) of essentially every action Israel has taken since 67 (no matter how provocative or ultimately detrimental to its own interests), backed by the assurance of automatic UNSC veto of course.
In the current operation, you've got 2 carriers parked offshore along with other assets in the region; special access to fuel depots and arms caches (that even Ukraine doesn't get); technical support from U.S. companies like Google, etc.
The idea that Israel fights its wars "without US help" just ludicrous.
Meanwhile, in return -- Israel just doesn't provide all that much. The U.S. supports Israel mostly for ideological regions (such as the kindling that it provides to the apocalyptic fantasies of the Christian Right) and to please other domestic political constituencies; and yes, out of a legitimate sense of moral responsibility since the Holocaust -- but not because it really needs Israel to be around (in the sense that it needs the UK, Germany, Japan, etc). It objectively needs countries like Sweden and Turkey more than it needs Israel.
Completely cut off from U.S. aid -- it would survive of course, but under significantly diminished circumstances. In particular it would have to give up the Greater Israel project -- which it of course needs to do anyway, but it would have to do so much sooner, and in an abrupt, violatile way leaving it in a much less secure position than it would like to find itself shunted into.
If you want Israel to stand down make them feel very very secure.
This is of course the mantra we've hearing since 67. And which brought us to the place we're in now.
This is all extremely weak. The Biden administration could stop the war today by calling Netanyahu and saying they will cut off aid and protection guarantees if they don't. Reagan has actually done so in the past.
Everything else is domestic politics, and personal convictions for Biden. But Israel will not continue this war if the USA tells them to stop it. They are far too dependent on USA aid for it.
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/13/world/reagan-demands-end-...
Edit: here is the full quote about the events in 1982:
2 P.M. (8 A.M., New York time) -The Israeli Cabinet meets. A message from President Reagan arrives, expressing ''outrage'' and, reportedly threatening to halt the Habib mission. The Cabinet decides to end the raids and order new ones only if they are ''essential.''
4 P.M. (10 A.M., New York time) -President Reagan tries for hour to call Mr. Begin but cannot get through. 4:50 P.M. (10:50 A.M., New York time) - King Fahd of Saudi Arabia calls Mr. Reagan. 5 P.M. (11 A.M., New York time) -A new cease-fire goes into effect in west Beirut. 5:10 P.M. (11:10 A.M., New York time) - Mr. Reagan reaches Mr. Begin for 10-minute telephone call. 5:40 P.M. (11:40 A.M., New York time) - Mr. Begin calls President Reagan to say that a ''complete cease-fire'' had been ordered.
Everything else is domestic politics, and personal convictions for Biden. But Israel will not continue this war if the USA tells them to stop it. They are far too dependent on USA aid for it.
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/13/world/reagan-demands-end-...
Edit: here is the full quote about the events in 1982:
2 P.M. (8 A.M., New York time) -The Israeli Cabinet meets. A message from President Reagan arrives, expressing ''outrage'' and, reportedly threatening to halt the Habib mission. The Cabinet decides to end the raids and order new ones only if they are ''essential.''
4 P.M. (10 A.M., New York time) -President Reagan tries for hour to call Mr. Begin but cannot get through. 4:50 P.M. (10:50 A.M., New York time) - King Fahd of Saudi Arabia calls Mr. Reagan. 5 P.M. (11 A.M., New York time) -A new cease-fire goes into effect in west Beirut. 5:10 P.M. (11:10 A.M., New York time) - Mr. Reagan reaches Mr. Begin for 10-minute telephone call. 5:40 P.M. (11:40 A.M., New York time) - Mr. Begin calls President Reagan to say that a ''complete cease-fire'' had been ordered.
The domestic political situation was different. Begin’s grip on power at the time seems like it was tenuous, the economy was in bad shape and the war had escalated out of control. It even seems that Begin wasn’t fully aware of what was going on in Lebanon. Netanyahu has already stated that they’ll continue without US support.
Sure, Netanyahu claims this in front of the cameras, but when the specter of delays in US aid was actually hanging in the air, Israeli officials were painting a very different picture [0]:
> Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Chairman Yuli Edelstein said that when he was on Capitol Hill last week, he told all of his interlocutors that the aid “is extremely urgent.”
> “This is aid for immediate needs, not for something we’ll use in a matter of years,” he emphasized to JI on Thursday.
The clear reality is that Israel, while extremely high tech, just doesn't have anywhere near the necessary production of ammunitions and weapons to act in this war without US aid. Especially if the USA and EU countries were to prohibit weapons shipments entirely (as they clearly should for any country currently engaging in a genocide).
Even the recent successful defense against the Iranian retaliation required direct US and French assistance, it wasn't possible with Israeli forces and equipment alone.
[0] https://jewishinsider.com/2024/02/israel-u-s-military-aid-ga...
> Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Chairman Yuli Edelstein said that when he was on Capitol Hill last week, he told all of his interlocutors that the aid “is extremely urgent.”
> “This is aid for immediate needs, not for something we’ll use in a matter of years,” he emphasized to JI on Thursday.
The clear reality is that Israel, while extremely high tech, just doesn't have anywhere near the necessary production of ammunitions and weapons to act in this war without US aid. Especially if the USA and EU countries were to prohibit weapons shipments entirely (as they clearly should for any country currently engaging in a genocide).
Even the recent successful defense against the Iranian retaliation required direct US and French assistance, it wasn't possible with Israeli forces and equipment alone.
[0] https://jewishinsider.com/2024/02/israel-u-s-military-aid-ga...
Israel is currently dependent on external munitions suppliers, which do not necessarily need to include the US. Israel did leverage US assistance to shoot down Iran's drone attack, but it also leveraged Arab state cooperation. It is probably not the case that Israel is existentially dependent on US military aid. It's worth remembering, though, that Israel wants that aid, and also wants the tacit endorsement of the United States, and is acutely aware that one of our two political parties is more committed to Israel's current leadership than the other; read anything they say with a grain of salt.
If the US and EU countries were to cut Israel off, what other options does it have? Russia is already importing various weapons, a good part of them from Iran, who will absolutely cut them off if they start helping Israel. India and Pakistan are not sympathetic to Israel. Arab countries will feel internal pressures if they become major suppliers to Israel. Who is then left? Would China really wade into this conflict, and endanger their own relations with the Arab world?
Their second largest trading partner is the second largest munitions supplier in the world. Further: the Arab world is not in fact aligned against Israel. They are much more concerned about Iran than they are about Palestine.
None of this is going to happen, because everybody involved is aware that Israel would be sustainable after a realignment away from the west. Everything gets worse for everybody (except China) after that occurs, so it won't be allowed to occur.
(It's further mooted by the fact that opposition to Israel is largely an Internet phenomenon; Israel enjoys broad, bipartisan popular support in the US, Gaza is at the very bottom of polled issues in order of importance to the electorate, and a very significant chunk (possibly more than half) of people rating Gaza as important support Israel.)
None of this is going to happen, because everybody involved is aware that Israel would be sustainable after a realignment away from the west. Everything gets worse for everybody (except China) after that occurs, so it won't be allowed to occur.
(It's further mooted by the fact that opposition to Israel is largely an Internet phenomenon; Israel enjoys broad, bipartisan popular support in the US, Gaza is at the very bottom of polled issues in order of importance to the electorate, and a very significant chunk (possibly more than half) of people rating Gaza as important support Israel.)
I did not say that the Arab world is united against Israel. However, there is significant anti-Israeli public sentiment everywhere in the Arab world, even more so than against Iran. Even if Arab leaders are not as sensitive to public sentiment as more democratic countries, they can't easily ignore it entirely, and becoming the main supporter of Israel is not a comfortable domestic position for any Arab leader.
Also, you are grossly misrepresenting public opinion in the USA and the EU. In the USA there is a significant and extremely vocal minority, especially among the Democratic party base, that deeply care for the genocide in Gaza. This has been visible in the major student protests, and in the significant protest votes in Democratic primaries (>10% undecided in some states!). And given the extremely tight election, this is very likely to cause issues for Biden. Now, whether reversing support for the genocide would cause larger issues is debatable, but I think unlikely - as most of the avid Israel-can-do-no-wrong supporters are not going to vote against Trump anyway.
In Europe the situation is even more difficult for the pro-genocide camp, as the population, especially in Western Europe, and doubly especially among the significant Arab, Pakistani, Indian, Turkish, and North African immigrants, is much more sensitive to the issue of colonial genocide.
Also, you are grossly misrepresenting public opinion in the USA and the EU. In the USA there is a significant and extremely vocal minority, especially among the Democratic party base, that deeply care for the genocide in Gaza. This has been visible in the major student protests, and in the significant protest votes in Democratic primaries (>10% undecided in some states!). And given the extremely tight election, this is very likely to cause issues for Biden. Now, whether reversing support for the genocide would cause larger issues is debatable, but I think unlikely - as most of the avid Israel-can-do-no-wrong supporters are not going to vote against Trump anyway.
In Europe the situation is even more difficult for the pro-genocide camp, as the population, especially in Western Europe, and doubly especially among the significant Arab, Pakistani, Indian, Turkish, and North African immigrants, is much more sensitive to the issue of colonial genocide.
The student protests, which are for obvious reasons not representative of the whole population, are themselves numerically a small portion of the faculty and staff at the institutions they're taking place at. Excellent recent examples of this: repeated instances of walkouts or sit/stand protests at commencement ceremonies, where everyone involved is arranged out on a field, almost as if to make these kinds of tallies easy to make (but serious tallies of protests at Columbia, Chicago, and UCLA have also been made). It just doesn't take a lot of people to make a lot of noise.
The "10% undecided" thing is a statistical null result, mirroring the last Democratic reelection campaign (Obama's, against Romney), which didn't include any attempted organized effort to lodge protest votes with "undecided" and still ran up those counts.
Polling --- Pew is a good place to start --- shows Israel below every other "major" issue, even among 18-29 year olds --- except (ironically) student debt. The issue gets less important as you go up in age brackets into cohorts that actually turn out and vote.
The groundswell of support for Palestine in America is, I believe, largely an Internet phenomenon. It's easy to forget that we're the weird people who tune in to this stuff. Most people just live their lives, and, for reasons that are straightforward to understand, care a lot more that a 12 pack of Diet Coke got weirdly expensive than about whatever is happening across the world. We have the same problem marshaling support for Ukraine!
The "10% undecided" thing is a statistical null result, mirroring the last Democratic reelection campaign (Obama's, against Romney), which didn't include any attempted organized effort to lodge protest votes with "undecided" and still ran up those counts.
Polling --- Pew is a good place to start --- shows Israel below every other "major" issue, even among 18-29 year olds --- except (ironically) student debt. The issue gets less important as you go up in age brackets into cohorts that actually turn out and vote.
The groundswell of support for Palestine in America is, I believe, largely an Internet phenomenon. It's easy to forget that we're the weird people who tune in to this stuff. Most people just live their lives, and, for reasons that are straightforward to understand, care a lot more that a 12 pack of Diet Coke got weirdly expensive than about whatever is happening across the world. We have the same problem marshaling support for Ukraine!
> What else can Biden say in this situation? He cannot both assent to the validity of the ICC charges and continue negotiating with Israel for things like US-built supply piers on Gaza's seafront. You can't really do diplomacy wth a world leader while at the same time saying (or implying) that they belong in the Hague.
He doesn't have to do diplomacy with them. He could call their bluff. He could unilaterally start delivering food and dare anyone to stop him. If Israel starts killing "3-5x as many civilians" he could declare war on Israel.
All of these are things he could do. Won't. But could.
He doesn't have to do diplomacy with them. He could call their bluff. He could unilaterally start delivering food and dare anyone to stop him. If Israel starts killing "3-5x as many civilians" he could declare war on Israel.
All of these are things he could do. Won't. But could.
We cannot in fact unilaterally establish supply operations off the Gazan seafront over the objections of the Israeli leadership.
The US Navy can unilaterally establish supply operations by sea almost anywhere in the world. If a carrier group sailed in and started setting up a port in Gaza to deliver food, there's no chance Israel would be able to do anything about it.
They could definitely stop it, but things would get incredibly ugly from there.
Right, this is like an Orson Scott Card fantasy. Which, don't let me yuck your yums or anything, but no, this isn't really a possible scenario. Israel will be an Article 5 NATO member before it is a military adversary of the United States (neither thing will happen, but if we're betting on impossible scenarios.)
I agree that the scenario is quite unlikely but I brought it up to dispute an argument you made: That, as the US has to negotiate with Israel, they have to go against the ICC.
My point is that the US could "assent to the validity of the ICC charges". The "fantasy" is several unlikely escalations away after that, and even that scenario is something that the US could deal with.
So ruling out that they go against the ICC because they have to, we can conclude that they go against the ICC because they want to.
My point is that the US could "assent to the validity of the ICC charges". The "fantasy" is several unlikely escalations away after that, and even that scenario is something that the US could deal with.
So ruling out that they go against the ICC because they have to, we can conclude that they go against the ICC because they want to.
The US doesn't even assent to the validity of the ICC itself, let alone the recent charges. If the whole argument is an attempt to dispose of the question of whether the US cooperates with, recognizes, or cares about the ICC, that question is disposed of: the US does not. I think the Hague Liberation bill is silly and performative, but let the record show that we have a statute obligating us to invade the Hague if the ICC breathes on us the wrong way.
Something like half the world's population doesn't acknowledge the ICC. And the ICC hasn't covered itself in glory over the last 20 years --- the Darfur fiasco being the most obvious example.
All this just brings me back to: the ICC charges are a political act (fair enough! politics matter!) and should be evaluated on their political effectiveness. The predictable result of the charges: the leader of the only political party in the US that even ostensibly cares about Palestine disavowed the charges. How'd that help?
Something like half the world's population doesn't acknowledge the ICC. And the ICC hasn't covered itself in glory over the last 20 years --- the Darfur fiasco being the most obvious example.
All this just brings me back to: the ICC charges are a political act (fair enough! politics matter!) and should be evaluated on their political effectiveness. The predictable result of the charges: the leader of the only political party in the US that even ostensibly cares about Palestine disavowed the charges. How'd that help?
Is that what was wrong with his later books? They assumed a level of rationality and immoral clarity that doesn’t exist in real life?
I think that "an enforced naval military blockade of Gazan seafront since 2007" is a more accurate phrasing of that state of affairs than "Israel's leaders may object...".
> reporting suggests that Biden's team has been the only thing between the current situation and abyss that would kill 3-5x as many civilians
Um. What?
Biden's team vetoed UN calls for a ceasefire three times.
Biden's team has delivered how many billions of dollars of weapons in the last 8 months?
Biden's team has consistently and repeatedly lied in front of the whole world, saying that they see "no evidence" of genocide. This, during the most documented mass murder in all history. This, despite clear and unequivocal genocidal statements from Israeli leadership, media, and populace.
How many people have resigned from his team now, saying they can't have this much Palestinian blood on their hands any more? To claim that Biden has prevented deaths in the last 8 months is breathtaking. At every juncture he and the team he still has have been complicit.
Um. What?
Biden's team vetoed UN calls for a ceasefire three times.
Biden's team has delivered how many billions of dollars of weapons in the last 8 months?
Biden's team has consistently and repeatedly lied in front of the whole world, saying that they see "no evidence" of genocide. This, during the most documented mass murder in all history. This, despite clear and unequivocal genocidal statements from Israeli leadership, media, and populace.
How many people have resigned from his team now, saying they can't have this much Palestinian blood on their hands any more? To claim that Biden has prevented deaths in the last 8 months is breathtaking. At every juncture he and the team he still has have been complicit.
I think this here is what Hilary Clinton was talking about recently... she got panned in the media for it, but I'm pretty sure she was right (and I'm by no means a fan).
What's your point? I agree with some of this but disagree with most of it, but either way, it doesn't intersect with anything I wrote.
You seem to be saying in your above comment that Biden's only possible choice is to appease Israel to hopefully get some humanitarian concessions from them. This is probably true due to the reality of American domestic politics, but if we ignore that then other choices are obvious. Treat Israel as we once treated South Africa. Force regime change by isolating them.
Yes, that is what I am saying. Cutting off arms sales to Israel will not prevent a supply blockade of Gaza or a Rafah invasion, both of which are issues that the US has publicly campaigned on --- we don't know what other red lines the US has set up, or how much worse this could yet become. Contrary to popular belief, it's not at all clear that Israel is dependent on the US militarily; we're a small part of their defense budget.
I think domestic politics are certainly a factor, but not a big one in an ICC case, because Americans, to a first approximation, do not give a shit about the ICC; further, we aren't a party to the ICC, so it's not as if the administration is being asked to do something or help adjudicate.
I want to say again that I think this particular case is well-founded. But an ICC warrant against the leader of a non-signatory is fundamentally a political act, and while I don't take issue with the stated intent of that act, I don't get the theory of change behind it.
I put it to you directly: what good comes of this while Netanyahu remains in power?
I think domestic politics are certainly a factor, but not a big one in an ICC case, because Americans, to a first approximation, do not give a shit about the ICC; further, we aren't a party to the ICC, so it's not as if the administration is being asked to do something or help adjudicate.
I want to say again that I think this particular case is well-founded. But an ICC warrant against the leader of a non-signatory is fundamentally a political act, and while I don't take issue with the stated intent of that act, I don't get the theory of change behind it.
I put it to you directly: what good comes of this while Netanyahu remains in power?
H.W. Bush brought Israel in line: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-hw-bush-israel-palesti...
Reagan did it with a single phone call: https://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/13/world/reagan-demands-end-...
Reagan did it with a single phone call: https://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/13/world/reagan-demands-end-...
Bush's settlement policies didn't work at all. West Bank settlements drastically increased in the years following that showdown. Can you look at a graph and spot the point where Bush "brought Israel in line"?
(I kind of like Bush 1, at least as a competent operator with some discernible principles, and think Israeli settlement of the West Bank is abhorrent).
(I kind of like Bush 1, at least as a competent operator with some discernible principles, and think Israeli settlement of the West Bank is abhorrent).
> Yes, that is what I am saying. Cutting off arms sales to Israel will not prevent a supply blockade of Gaza or a Rafah invasion
It would if Israel has any sense of self preservation at all. They need the support of the American government more than they need Gazan land.
It would if Israel has any sense of self preservation at all. They need the support of the American government more than they need Gazan land.
I think that's unlikely to be true. I think it's a self-serving western myth that Israel, with one of the largest economies and the best trained and resourced military in the region (see the Arab States performance vs. the IRGC in Syria and Yemen for counterexamples) is a US-dependent proxy. The west tried to ice Russia out of supplies for the Ukranian invasion, and that didn't work despite near-unanimity. Israel will just buy bombs from China, which is their next largest trading partner after us. We will lose all influence over Israeli policy, at least until [insert US partisan political argument here].
(I also think it's not at all clear that serious policymakers in Israel "want Gazan land", let alone need it; the messianic nutballs bolstering Netanyahu's coalition are, to put it mildly, not representative of mainstream Israel policy thinking.)
A reminder that we're just talking about this stuff here; this is HN, not the UN Security Council. If we're going to have threads like this here, we're going to have to accept that we're having curious conversations, not high-stakes deliberations. So: I can be wrong about all of this stuff, and I'm glad to hear why. But we're not going to solve Israel/Gaza on a thread.
(You didn't say anything to prompt that disclaimer, it's just a stress reaction from previous threads).
(I also think it's not at all clear that serious policymakers in Israel "want Gazan land", let alone need it; the messianic nutballs bolstering Netanyahu's coalition are, to put it mildly, not representative of mainstream Israel policy thinking.)
A reminder that we're just talking about this stuff here; this is HN, not the UN Security Council. If we're going to have threads like this here, we're going to have to accept that we're having curious conversations, not high-stakes deliberations. So: I can be wrong about all of this stuff, and I'm glad to hear why. But we're not going to solve Israel/Gaza on a thread.
(You didn't say anything to prompt that disclaimer, it's just a stress reaction from previous threads).
I think the biggest thing the US is doing for Israel is discouraging regional actors from getting involved. If the US took no position here either way, the conflict would probably turn into a proxy war pretty quickly. Whether you think that's good or not depends on your viewpoint. I personally prefer that the states in the area, even if they don't necessarily directly represent the Palestinians, negotiate the conflict because they have to deal with the fallout on their own borders/politics.
Being able to purchase weapons from the US also gives them significant political latitude internally. When a significant amount of your economy and government spending goes to making weapons, you're going to affect domestic budgets, which will make coalition building much harder especially in a country with as many small parties as Israel. We see this in Russia as well but because Russia is not democratic when it comes to defense allocation, it simply throws its dissidents in jail or encourages them to leave.
Being able to purchase weapons from the US also gives them significant political latitude internally. When a significant amount of your economy and government spending goes to making weapons, you're going to affect domestic budgets, which will make coalition building much harder especially in a country with as many small parties as Israel. We see this in Russia as well but because Russia is not democratic when it comes to defense allocation, it simply throws its dissidents in jail or encourages them to leave.
> Israel will just buy bombs from China
Or just make them themselves. That seems fully within their capabilities if push comes to shove. After all, we are talking about bombs not fighter jets.
Or just make them themselves. That seems fully within their capabilities if push comes to shove. After all, we are talking about bombs not fighter jets.
> (I also think it's not at all clear that serious policymakers in Israel "want Gazan land", let alone need it; the messianic nutballs bolstering Netanyahu's coalition are, to put it mildly, not representative of mainstream Israel policy thinking.)
And yet are regularly re-elected. And have been for decades.
And yet are regularly re-elected. And have been for decades.
It is not the case that the ultra-right fringe parties like Jewish Power had governing power for decades. It's a parliamentary system, weirdos get elected to the Knesset, but the governing authorities --- at least prior to Netanyahu, and even during Sharon's time! --- were normies, not neo-Kahanist terrorists. It's easy to find lots and lots of political analysis about why this has happened, much of it having to do with the probability that Netanyahu could wind up imprisoned (for things having nothing to do with Gaza) once he fails to assemble a governing coalition.
See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40421217
See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40421217
This dynamic – a political leader trying to run away from justice – has, historically been a very common way in which states fail; which is why a lot of people who pay close attention to such things are very concerned about the state of US democracy.
[deleted]
I honestly have no idea how you're not seeing the point. I quoted your text and responded to it.
Which of the facts I stated do you disagree with? I'm sure I can find you a source for any of them.
Which of the facts I stated do you disagree with? I'm sure I can find you a source for any of them.
I believe that 'tptacek's point could be summarized as "the facts are, in a real sense, not material to this conversation, as we are operating entirely with the domain of realpolitik rather than morality".
Biden, in _theory_, could say to Israel that "continued arms supplies are contingent on surrendering Netanyahu and Gallant to The Hague immediately", but a) it's not at all clear that that would work, b) in the near term it probably causes Israel to make the situation on the ground in Gaza even worse, and c) it would come with serious domestic political repercussions in an election year.
I hate all of that too, and it doesn't speak well of us as a society or species, but what _should_ happen and what _would_ happen are two very different things.
Biden, in _theory_, could say to Israel that "continued arms supplies are contingent on surrendering Netanyahu and Gallant to The Hague immediately", but a) it's not at all clear that that would work, b) in the near term it probably causes Israel to make the situation on the ground in Gaza even worse, and c) it would come with serious domestic political repercussions in an election year.
I hate all of that too, and it doesn't speak well of us as a society or species, but what _should_ happen and what _would_ happen are two very different things.
> tptacek's point could be summarized as "the facts are, in a real sense, not material to this conversation
Tptacek is demonstrating this well by editing the part of the comment I quoted, then acting confused. However, I don't subscribe to the idea that facts are not material to discussions involving claims of fact.
The claim Biden is preventing deaths in Gaza while sending the bombs that are killing them and vetoing ceasefire resolutions left right and center, even against the will of his own voters, would require stronger evidence than has been provided.
Also, international law, including the Genocide Convention, is binding on all signatory states. 'Realpolitik' is not a defense for complicity in genocide.
However, let's look at your abc points, ignoring international law for the moment:
a) it's not at all clear that that would work
We've skipped past the issue, which is that we shouldn't be sending arms at all at this point. We also have other leverage which hasn't been used yet - sanctions, trade restrictions, etc.
b) in the near term it probably causes Israel to make the situation on the ground in Gaza even worse
This has merit - Israel did threaten to use more unguided bombs if the arms flow stopped. Too bad Biden's people vetoed the UN ceasefire resolutions three times, against the will of basically the entire planet. What about the realpolitik of that loss in our global standing?
c) it would come with serious domestic political repercussions in an election year.
Believe it or not, and despite tptacek's claims above that most people don't care, polls in fact show that significantly more registered Democrats disapprove of Biden's handling of the situation in Gaza (sending arms) than approve, and that this is affecting their vote [0].
> "This issue is a stone-cold loser for Biden," said Douglas Schoen, a pollster and strategist who reviewed the Reuters/Ipsos poll results. "He's losing votes from the left, right and center."
0 - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-divide-gaza-war-...
Tptacek is demonstrating this well by editing the part of the comment I quoted, then acting confused. However, I don't subscribe to the idea that facts are not material to discussions involving claims of fact.
The claim Biden is preventing deaths in Gaza while sending the bombs that are killing them and vetoing ceasefire resolutions left right and center, even against the will of his own voters, would require stronger evidence than has been provided.
Also, international law, including the Genocide Convention, is binding on all signatory states. 'Realpolitik' is not a defense for complicity in genocide.
However, let's look at your abc points, ignoring international law for the moment:
a) it's not at all clear that that would work
We've skipped past the issue, which is that we shouldn't be sending arms at all at this point. We also have other leverage which hasn't been used yet - sanctions, trade restrictions, etc.
b) in the near term it probably causes Israel to make the situation on the ground in Gaza even worse
This has merit - Israel did threaten to use more unguided bombs if the arms flow stopped. Too bad Biden's people vetoed the UN ceasefire resolutions three times, against the will of basically the entire planet. What about the realpolitik of that loss in our global standing?
c) it would come with serious domestic political repercussions in an election year.
Believe it or not, and despite tptacek's claims above that most people don't care, polls in fact show that significantly more registered Democrats disapprove of Biden's handling of the situation in Gaza (sending arms) than approve, and that this is affecting their vote [0].
> "This issue is a stone-cold loser for Biden," said Douglas Schoen, a pollster and strategist who reviewed the Reuters/Ipsos poll results. "He's losing votes from the left, right and center."
0 - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-divide-gaza-war-...
The 'political repercussions' case is pretty flimsy [0].
Bigger picture - this disagreement seems fundamentally rooted in conflicting political philosophies, as alluded to above. More facts are not going to change that.
An example... "'Realpolitik' is not a defense complicity in genocide." Says who? I mean I agree with you on the face of things, but who gets to decide what genocide means? And what does it mean for international law to be "binding on all signatory states"? Some view overconfidence in this notion as Wilson's great and lasting mistake.
Unfortunately, there is no compiler that can adjudicate these types of questions for us.
0 - https://www.natesilver.net/p/your-friends-are-not-a-represen...
Bigger picture - this disagreement seems fundamentally rooted in conflicting political philosophies, as alluded to above. More facts are not going to change that.
An example... "'Realpolitik' is not a defense complicity in genocide." Says who? I mean I agree with you on the face of things, but who gets to decide what genocide means? And what does it mean for international law to be "binding on all signatory states"? Some view overconfidence in this notion as Wilson's great and lasting mistake.
Unfortunately, there is no compiler that can adjudicate these types of questions for us.
0 - https://www.natesilver.net/p/your-friends-are-not-a-represen...
Realpolitik is a defense. The ICC issues a verdict that your committing war crimes, and are to be put to death. Your 10 carrier strike group, says you aren't, therefore you are not put to death. Proving that the court of the carrier strike group is superior to the court of the ICC.
Maybe your court of carrier strike group says the ICC judges are committing war crimes, issues a warrant for their arrest, the SEAL team executes the warrant against the fugitives from justice, and tries, convicts and executes them.
If you still think realpolitik isn't a defense, look at a practitioner of it like Kissinger, ask yourself why Pinochet, et al, were tried, but say Kissinger was not for Operation Condor.
Maybe your court of carrier strike group says the ICC judges are committing war crimes, issues a warrant for their arrest, the SEAL team executes the warrant against the fugitives from justice, and tries, convicts and executes them.
If you still think realpolitik isn't a defense, look at a practitioner of it like Kissinger, ask yourself why Pinochet, et al, were tried, but say Kissinger was not for Operation Condor.
You need to make a distinction between positive (what-is) claims and normative (what-ought) claims. When you say realpolitik is a "defence", whether or not it is actually used as a "defence" in reality is disconnected on the validity of that position as a moral fact.
Look up judgement proof, or jury nullification, ever heard of the OJ Simpson trial? Realpolitik is why OJ wasn't convicted.
Juries in and of themselves are realpolitik, it's why most countries don't use them, because they deliver verdicts the legal professions dislike.
Juries in and of themselves are realpolitik, it's why most countries don't use them, because they deliver verdicts the legal professions dislike.
> Realpolitik is a defense.
Outside of a courtroom, and ignoring all international law and externalities, sure. Within the Hague, or the parts of the world where international justice is respected, not so much.
> the court of the carrier strike group is superior to the court of the ICC.
Until your 10 carrier strike group gets fucked up by Yemeni drones, or Iranian swarms. Or no country wants to trade with you any more, because you can't be trusted and their citizens are furious.
Or until China utterly dominates you economically and geopolitically, because they invested in growth instead of carrier groups. Or until you're stretched too thin on too many fronts and no one wants to help any more, or any of the other unintended (possibly world-ending) consequences of our wilful and belligerent disrespect of long established international law.
... But the claim that "Biden actually saved lots of Palestinians from dying" because of the "realpolitik" of the situation is silly. The claim that Kissinger actually saved lives by coordinating assassinations so that South America didn't need to be bombed into submission would be farcical, and so is this.
Outside of a courtroom, and ignoring all international law and externalities, sure. Within the Hague, or the parts of the world where international justice is respected, not so much.
> the court of the carrier strike group is superior to the court of the ICC.
Until your 10 carrier strike group gets fucked up by Yemeni drones, or Iranian swarms. Or no country wants to trade with you any more, because you can't be trusted and their citizens are furious.
Or until China utterly dominates you economically and geopolitically, because they invested in growth instead of carrier groups. Or until you're stretched too thin on too many fronts and no one wants to help any more, or any of the other unintended (possibly world-ending) consequences of our wilful and belligerent disrespect of long established international law.
... But the claim that "Biden actually saved lots of Palestinians from dying" because of the "realpolitik" of the situation is silly. The claim that Kissinger actually saved lives by coordinating assassinations so that South America didn't need to be bombed into submission would be farcical, and so is this.
This still is not quite grappling with the fundamental issue imo
Realpolitik, in the sense Morgenthau and Kissinger understood it, absolutely takes into account management of public opinion and risks related to violation of international standards. It just does not only take those into account in decisions related to national interests.
> But the claim that "Biden actually saved lots of Palestinians from dying" because of the "realpolitik" of the situation is silly. The claim that Kissinger actually saved lives by coordinating assassinations so that South America didn't need to be bombed into submission would be farcical, and so is this.
This is stated as a fact and dismissed on the basis of a tacit moral argument rather than reasoning. Why would the claim be silly? I see no reason for those statements to be cast aside as un-addressable or 'farcical'.
On the other hand...
> 10 carrier strike group gets fucked up by Yemeni drones, or Iranian swarms
If this were possible Houthi drones would have done it already (against a single carrier).
> because they [China] invested in growth instead of carrier groups
China has been investing heavily in their military for three decades [0]. And we will see about that growth part... it is not looking so rosy for Xi currently.
0 - https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/CHN/chi...
Realpolitik, in the sense Morgenthau and Kissinger understood it, absolutely takes into account management of public opinion and risks related to violation of international standards. It just does not only take those into account in decisions related to national interests.
> But the claim that "Biden actually saved lots of Palestinians from dying" because of the "realpolitik" of the situation is silly. The claim that Kissinger actually saved lives by coordinating assassinations so that South America didn't need to be bombed into submission would be farcical, and so is this.
This is stated as a fact and dismissed on the basis of a tacit moral argument rather than reasoning. Why would the claim be silly? I see no reason for those statements to be cast aside as un-addressable or 'farcical'.
On the other hand...
> 10 carrier strike group gets fucked up by Yemeni drones, or Iranian swarms
If this were possible Houthi drones would have done it already (against a single carrier).
> because they [China] invested in growth instead of carrier groups
China has been investing heavily in their military for three decades [0]. And we will see about that growth part... it is not looking so rosy for Xi currently.
0 - https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/CHN/chi...
>Biden's team vetoed UN calls for a ceasefire three times.
"Calls for ceasefire" that didn't include "calls to release the hostages", to say nothing of the fact that Hamas leadership had already been shouting they would "repeat October 7th again and again until the final destruction of Israel" and so on.
"Calls for ceasefire" that didn't include "calls to release the hostages", to say nothing of the fact that Hamas leadership had already been shouting they would "repeat October 7th again and again until the final destruction of Israel" and so on.
It's really not in Israel's interests to hamper any aid if it ever was. There's no need to coerce on this point. Biden could have gone 'Yay ICC!' and still got cooperation here.
Israel has three alternatives:
Option 1: Do a real siege (never tried. Gaza has less malnutrition deaths than Cali according to their own figures, and besides everything would have been over months ago if it did. That's the real weakness with the ICC case).
Option 2: Provide aid yourself (expensive).
Option 3: Let other people do it for you and not pay for it.
Obviously the optimal choice is the last one. The real differences between US and Israel are elsewhere (e.g. delusional postwar planning by both sides).
Israel has three alternatives:
Option 1: Do a real siege (never tried. Gaza has less malnutrition deaths than Cali according to their own figures, and besides everything would have been over months ago if it did. That's the real weakness with the ICC case).
Option 2: Provide aid yourself (expensive).
Option 3: Let other people do it for you and not pay for it.
Obviously the optimal choice is the last one. The real differences between US and Israel are elsewhere (e.g. delusional postwar planning by both sides).
> I personally can't believe the ICC is equating the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government.
I think that is an unfair statement. Just because they asked for a warrant to be issued for both does not imply that they think both are the same.
I think that is an unfair statement. Just because they asked for a warrant to be issued for both does not imply that they think both are the same.
It's a PR play ultimately, they can't just say "Netanyahoo is a war criminal, K thx bai". That would call the court's judgement into question for a lot of people. If massacring civilians and aid workers is a war crime, then yeah, he's a war criminal, but they have to also address the elephant in the room, that Hamas is also wantonly committing war crimes and is calling for even more even though they're significantly less powerful in this dynamic.
I don't like this "but Hamas is worse" rethoric. War crimes are ware crimes, you're not allowed to commit them because the other side is worse than you.
This may be how things played out after the second world war, but it's a horrible standard to live by. If the ICC has any integrity, they won't take "but they started it" as an excuse.
This may be how things played out after the second world war, but it's a horrible standard to live by. If the ICC has any integrity, they won't take "but they started it" as an excuse.
>you're not allowed to commit them because the other side is worse than you.
Aren't you? I thought the Geneva convention and similar treaties all require reciprocity.
Aren't you? I thought the Geneva convention and similar treaties all require reciprocity.
Under the Geneva conventions, yes, but the Rome statute only copies select passages of the Geneva convention, and I don't believe the "we can commit war crimes as long as you don't promise not to commit war crimes" is part of what's copied.
The Rome Statute does allow foe the ICC to convict according to the Geneva conventions as well, but the exemptions therein don't necessarily apply.
The Rome Statute does allow foe the ICC to convict according to the Geneva conventions as well, but the exemptions therein don't necessarily apply.
First of all, "In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience." (Article 1, second paragraph, Additional Protocol I.)
Second, both Israel and Palestine have signed the main conventions. Israel with reservations, and have not signed AP I and II. Palestine have signed all of them, unconditionally.
Since both are signatories, they are both bound by the conventions even if the other party breaks them.
Second, both Israel and Palestine have signed the main conventions. Israel with reservations, and have not signed AP I and II. Palestine have signed all of them, unconditionally.
Since both are signatories, they are both bound by the conventions even if the other party breaks them.
It should also be noted that the geneva conventions have passed into customary international law. They apply even to countries that haven't signed them.
> Aren't you? I thought the Geneva convention and similar treaties all require reciprocity.
No, i don't think so.
To quote the fourth geneva convention (fourth convention is the part related to treatment of civilians):
> Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
No, i don't think so.
To quote the fourth geneva convention (fourth convention is the part related to treatment of civilians):
> Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
Absolutely, most people don't think that far though so they're trying to hedge a bit.
So why did it take them 7 months to issue a warrant? It should have been issued on Oct 8.
The fact that it didn't tell you all you need to know about how legitimate this "court" is.
The fact that it didn't tell you all you need to know about how legitimate this "court" is.
For the same reason they didn't issue a warrant against the Israel government over the past twenty years: the conflict spiraled out of control months ago.
In 2019, the ICC got involved following the 2014 Gaza war and concluded that war crimes were taking place (on both sides, in different ways), but they concluded that they lacked jurisdiction. Investigations has been ongoing ever since.
In 2019, the ICC got involved following the 2014 Gaza war and concluded that war crimes were taking place (on both sides, in different ways), but they concluded that they lacked jurisdiction. Investigations has been ongoing ever since.
You're not wrong, but the world is imperfect and they're forced into this weird role of being both a political institution and an "international court" which, as constructs go, doesn't make a lot of sense.
Short of going full "one world government" or the next best thing, "team america world police" you can't really violate state sovereignty even if someone is doing atrocities so instead you need to convince key players or a critical mass that something should be done. If successful, you can then tighten the screws on that person as fast as you can get all the relevant bureaucracies moving.
Short of going full "one world government" or the next best thing, "team america world police" you can't really violate state sovereignty even if someone is doing atrocities so instead you need to convince key players or a critical mass that something should be done. If successful, you can then tighten the screws on that person as fast as you can get all the relevant bureaucracies moving.
By combing these warrants into a single press release they've completely lost any legitimacy.
There were no "screws needed" to issue an arrest warrant against Hamas months ago. Yet they didn't.
They should have issued arrest warrants years ago against Hamas for deliberately firing into civilian territory. It's an easy case to make, no one at all claims Hamas didn't do that.
But, nope, they did not issue any warrant.
No, they only issued a warrant against Hamas to pretend like they have some balance in trying to issue a warrant against Netanyahu.
It's no longer Netanyahu on trial, it's actually now ICC that is on trial. If the ICC actually grants the warrant against Netanyahu they have proven themselves to be a bunch of clowns with no legitimacy.
We shall see.
There were no "screws needed" to issue an arrest warrant against Hamas months ago. Yet they didn't.
They should have issued arrest warrants years ago against Hamas for deliberately firing into civilian territory. It's an easy case to make, no one at all claims Hamas didn't do that.
But, nope, they did not issue any warrant.
No, they only issued a warrant against Hamas to pretend like they have some balance in trying to issue a warrant against Netanyahu.
It's no longer Netanyahu on trial, it's actually now ICC that is on trial. If the ICC actually grants the warrant against Netanyahu they have proven themselves to be a bunch of clowns with no legitimacy.
We shall see.
Yeah, again, you're not wrong. While I'd maybe call that position a bit idealistic, it is really weird that they didn't go after various people earlier. That said, they don't have their own carrier strike group so they have to generate international cooperation. The US is already kinda iffy on the ICC's existence because they've called out our war criminals before and, for reasons I don't fully understand, that's a problem. The whole thing is very...contrived I guess?
A big complication is that on the one hand you have an identifiable army, on the other hand you have something akin to a militia/guerrilla where combatants and non-combatants are hard to ID often because one person can be both. When you have a resistance it get further muddied because like in WWII France, the resistance was civilians. So you can be a civilian and a combatant.
Things like what Milosevic or what Janjaweed leaders do are identifiable.
Things like what Milosevic or what Janjaweed leaders do are identifiable.
> does not imply that they think both are the same.
They clearly not the same. One is a modern state and one is not.
The actions of both are not so different. Killing civilians is not good. Whether it be guerilla terrorism or bombs and troops
They clearly not the same. One is a modern state and one is not.
The actions of both are not so different. Killing civilians is not good. Whether it be guerilla terrorism or bombs and troops
> Killing civilians is not good.
International law looks at this differently. There's a huge difference between targeting civilians and striking genuine military targets that have civilian human shields, especially after issuing a warning and taking reasonable precautions. The first is a war crime, the second is actually allowed by Geneva conventions. The phrase “killing civilians” throws these differences out of the window and simply shouldn't be used in intelligent conversion about this topic.
International law looks at this differently. There's a huge difference between targeting civilians and striking genuine military targets that have civilian human shields, especially after issuing a warning and taking reasonable precautions. The first is a war crime, the second is actually allowed by Geneva conventions. The phrase “killing civilians” throws these differences out of the window and simply shouldn't be used in intelligent conversion about this topic.
> There's a huge difference between targeting civilians and striking genuine military targets that have civilian human shields
Even in the latter case, the cost to civilian lives has to be proportional to the the military value/lives saved long-term by ending the threat. This is not proportional: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
But unfortunately, the latter case does not account for all that we've seen in the last few months and years. There's been plenty of "targeting civilians" too
Even in the latter case, the cost to civilian lives has to be proportional to the the military value/lives saved long-term by ending the threat. This is not proportional: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
But unfortunately, the latter case does not account for all that we've seen in the last few months and years. There's been plenty of "targeting civilians" too
As far as i understand, Israel disputes much of this (not that civilians have died, but that it has been non porpotional). ICC is innocent until proven guilty, so its going to take more evidence than anonoymous leaks to get a guilty verdict.
Additionally they werent charged on the basis of unporportionality afaik, i think all the charges are based around failing to let in enough food aid, causing a famine.
Additionally they werent charged on the basis of unporportionality afaik, i think all the charges are based around failing to let in enough food aid, causing a famine.
> i think all the charges are based around failing to let in enough food aid, causing a famine
No, starvation is only one of the alleged offences: "the use of starvation as a method of warfare, together with other attacks and collective punishment against the civilian population of Gaza"
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-...
No, starvation is only one of the alleged offences: "the use of starvation as a method of warfare, together with other attacks and collective punishment against the civilian population of Gaza"
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-...
I guess we'll have to wait and see what the case is when it gets to trial. The legal report https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p... makes it sound like the primary thing is alleged use of starvation, with other attacks being in the context of that (with the caveat that other charges are still under investigation):
> The Prosecutor seeks arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, the Israeli Minister of Defense, on the basis that they committed the war crime of ‘intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare’ under article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the ICC Statute. The Prosecutor also seeks to charge the two suspects with various other war crimes and crimes against humanity associated with the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare under articles 7 and 8 of the ICC Statute
> The Prosecutor seeks arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, the Israeli Minister of Defense, on the basis that they committed the war crime of ‘intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare’ under article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the ICC Statute. The Prosecutor also seeks to charge the two suspects with various other war crimes and crimes against humanity associated with the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare under articles 7 and 8 of the ICC Statute
> especially after issuing a warning and taking reasonable precautions
Ahh, yes, like when the IDF told Gazan civilians by evacuation order to move to the south of Gaza because they were going to intensify bombing in the north.
And then increased bombing of southern Gaza by 85% in the next 10 days...
Source: https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-war-satellite-data-shows-isr...
Ahh, yes, like when the IDF told Gazan civilians by evacuation order to move to the south of Gaza because they were going to intensify bombing in the north.
And then increased bombing of southern Gaza by 85% in the next 10 days...
Source: https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-war-satellite-data-shows-isr...
Really?
I think that is a distinction without a difference
If your siblings are killed or maimed in their home or at a party, do you care?
Killing people is a bad thing
I think that is a distinction without a difference
If your siblings are killed or maimed in their home or at a party, do you care?
Killing people is a bad thing
International law thinks there is a significant difference between different types of death in war, and that is the basis of these proceedings.
You can personally think international law is wrong, but that probably won't affect what the ICC does very much.
You can personally think international law is wrong, but that probably won't affect what the ICC does very much.
Does anybody look at it like that though? If a sibling of yours was accidentally killed in a car accident would you consider that to be the equivalent as somebody deliberately running down your sibling? While the end result is the same the intent is different.
Maybe you could argue Israel is not accidentally doing this, but collateral damage of civilians will almost always happen regardless of how careful attacks are planned. I don't think there has ever been a war that occurred in such a densely packed area that has had no civilian causalities.
Maybe you could argue Israel is not accidentally doing this, but collateral damage of civilians will almost always happen regardless of how careful attacks are planned. I don't think there has ever been a war that occurred in such a densely packed area that has had no civilian causalities.
> Maybe you could argue Israel is not accidentally doing this,
I think there is an element in glee at civilian casualties on both sides
I think there is an element in glee at civilian casualties on both sides
Context and nuance are very important. Are the allied forces of WWII all mass murderers?
Or to put it more broadly what distinguishes a soldier who has killed dozens of enemy soldiers from a school shooter who killed dozens of his peers?
According to your statement they are morally equivalent, society at large would vehemently disagree with you.
Or to put it more broadly what distinguishes a soldier who has killed dozens of enemy soldiers from a school shooter who killed dozens of his peers?
According to your statement they are morally equivalent, society at large would vehemently disagree with you.
> Killing people is a bad thing
There are videos of them celebrating on Oct 7 and crowds attacking the hostages when they're brought into Gaza.
Did they think killing is a bad thing?
There are videos of them celebrating on Oct 7 and crowds attacking the hostages when they're brought into Gaza.
Did they think killing is a bad thing?
> Did they think killing is a bad thing?
I do not know, but not on the face of it
But we can all do better than justify our actions on the basis of "they did it too"
That is school yard logic, and nation states can do better
Silly me, tho. The nation states involved all seem to be devoid of principals
I do not know, but not on the face of it
But we can all do better than justify our actions on the basis of "they did it too"
That is school yard logic, and nation states can do better
Silly me, tho. The nation states involved all seem to be devoid of principals
Then you disagree with international law and common sense. If my siblings are killed with a rocket that targeted a hospital turned a weapon silo, I would blame those who put the weapons there, not those who launched the rocket.
Two things:
1. In many cases whole Gazen families have bee killed in their homes.
2. I always blame those giving orders. On both sides.
1. In many cases whole Gazen families have bee killed in their homes.
2. I always blame those giving orders. On both sides.
Obviously Hamas are responsible for the hospital becoming a target.
But there is version of this where weapons at the hospital are removed by force, without bombing it.
But there is version of this where weapons at the hospital are removed by force, without bombing it.
> But there is version of this where weapons at the hospital are removed by force, without bombing it.
Version A (what happens now): Israel calls everybody in the vicinity of the hospital, gives them time to evacuate. Then Israel strikes the hospital with a missile without a warhead. Then Israel actually bombs it.
Version B (what you suggest): IDF storms in with guns blazing.
What version, in your opinion, will result in more civilian deaths?
Version A (what happens now): Israel calls everybody in the vicinity of the hospital, gives them time to evacuate. Then Israel strikes the hospital with a missile without a warhead. Then Israel actually bombs it.
Version B (what you suggest): IDF storms in with guns blazing.
What version, in your opinion, will result in more civilian deaths?
Yeah, but it's a magical version in an imaginary realm.
Protecting a few key humanitarian sites from bombing doesn't seem impossible if there was a will to do so.
Maybe you can explain how you envision that working.
The Israeli army would use their miliary assets on the ground. They invaded and established a temporary occupying force to deal with Hamas, so resources other than air are available.
The air force can hit the targets required around the hospital to allow an easier time for ground forces. Reach the hospital, and use those ground forces to secure it.
The air force can hit the targets required around the hospital to allow an easier time for ground forces. Reach the hospital, and use those ground forces to secure it.
It took them 7 MONTHS! To issue an arrest warrant for some blatantly obvious crimes.
Issues warrants for both sides at the same time is utterly repugnant and calls the entire court into question.
Issues warrants for both sides at the same time is utterly repugnant and calls the entire court into question.
It does mean that in the realm of logic.
But media, PR and politics don’t play by these rules. Mention two things together and the messages will go through.
A similar example would be Whataboutism, a logical fallacy, but it seems to work very well in politics.
But media, PR and politics don’t play by these rules. Mention two things together and the messages will go through.
A similar example would be Whataboutism, a logical fallacy, but it seems to work very well in politics.
While I understand your point about the optics of it, optics should play no role in determining whether somebody is guilty of war crimes. When optics are a primary factor, war crime laws are a tool the powerful use to punish the weak.
I have my issues with the ICC, but they are supposed to enforce international law impartially.
I have my issues with the ICC, but they are supposed to enforce international law impartially.
The ICC isn't equating the actions of Hamas and Netanyahu. They are being accused of separate crimes.
These warrants were released simultaneously even though Hamas broadcast the footage immediately after Oct 7. (The footage of the man being decapitated with a hoe was even shown live from the UN, before the news cut off the broadcast.)
[deleted]
[deleted]
The real issue with the warrants isn't 'equating'. It's the political point to cover two deeper issues:
First, that Biden admin and others can't escape culpability for any such claim if it's considered credible. Second, the dubious factual basis (trucks were allowed in all the time; temporary port and air supply obviously with Israel's approval; the very low malnutrition death count according to Gaza health ministry's own reports).
The first made the admin's reply inevitable. The second made it even more likely, but it's a too complex point for PR I guess, so they went with 'equating'.
First, that Biden admin and others can't escape culpability for any such claim if it's considered credible. Second, the dubious factual basis (trucks were allowed in all the time; temporary port and air supply obviously with Israel's approval; the very low malnutrition death count according to Gaza health ministry's own reports).
The first made the admin's reply inevitable. The second made it even more likely, but it's a too complex point for PR I guess, so they went with 'equating'.
Biden technically has authority to invade the Netherlands if they arrest any member of the military or government of Israel under the American Service-Members' Protection Act since Israel is a major non-NATO ally.
olliej(1)
>I personally can't believe the ICC is equating the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government. What a shameful organization.
I agree 100%! Over the past year, Israel has caused orders of magnitude more innocent deaths by terrorist actions (as outlined in the warranted issued here), has a much higher civilian death rate during military operations (Oct 7 was around 60%, while IDF's battles have been higher, with both sides hiding military targets within civilian areas) and should be taken far more seriously, as their support from other national aggressors like the US makes them far more dangerous.
I agree 100%! Over the past year, Israel has caused orders of magnitude more innocent deaths by terrorist actions (as outlined in the warranted issued here), has a much higher civilian death rate during military operations (Oct 7 was around 60%, while IDF's battles have been higher, with both sides hiding military targets within civilian areas) and should be taken far more seriously, as their support from other national aggressors like the US makes them far more dangerous.
> How far will the US and/or Israel go to threaten or discredit the ICC leadership?
If warrants are issued, I’d bet at least the House votes to sanction the ICC [1]. If Trump wins, I’d bet it passes. (Which is ironic, since every moment of attention on Israel and Palestine is a win for Trump. This war is Biden’s abortion debate. He’s checkmated, with massive vote losses regardless of what he does.)
[1] https://www.axios.com/2024/05/20/icc-netanyahu-arrest-warran...
If warrants are issued, I’d bet at least the House votes to sanction the ICC [1]. If Trump wins, I’d bet it passes. (Which is ironic, since every moment of attention on Israel and Palestine is a win for Trump. This war is Biden’s abortion debate. He’s checkmated, with massive vote losses regardless of what he does.)
[1] https://www.axios.com/2024/05/20/icc-netanyahu-arrest-warran...
Yes. I reckon Trump will win this presidency purely on the number of conscience voters not voting for Biden this time around. I don’t think the (probably PR) building of the port is going to save Biden here.
That is not to say I think Trump would have handled the situation any better. I’m sure it would have been fuel on the fire.
Can we all agree on one single thing though:
The Governments of USA, Germany, UK and Israel would be best informing the world of their definition of genocide as there is definitely a massive difference in opinion of what genocide is. It is super important. If they can explain why and how what is happening doesn’t match the definition of genocide agreed upon in the Genocide Convention of 1948 then maybe the world will stop using the word. But until they can change everyone’s minds, people are going to keep believing it. I think that would solve a lot of this back and forward.
That is not to say I think Trump would have handled the situation any better. I’m sure it would have been fuel on the fire.
Can we all agree on one single thing though:
The Governments of USA, Germany, UK and Israel would be best informing the world of their definition of genocide as there is definitely a massive difference in opinion of what genocide is. It is super important. If they can explain why and how what is happening doesn’t match the definition of genocide agreed upon in the Genocide Convention of 1948 then maybe the world will stop using the word. But until they can change everyone’s minds, people are going to keep believing it. I think that would solve a lot of this back and forward.
> People aren’t using the ‘G’ word lightly
They absolutely are. Really everyone with a non-cynical opinion in this whole mess, on both sides, is deeply unserious. There are no solutions here, at all. Everyone wants something terrible. Push one side and you eventually get to "The Palestinians Deserve What They Get". Push the other and you get to "Jews are Colonizers Who Need to be Driven Out". And BOTH SIDES use the term "genocide", largely incorrectly, to describe those horrors and are SHOCKED AND OFFENDED that anyone would describe their own opinions so.
I've just given up. My general political feelings align mostly with the Palestinians here, if for no other reason than it stops the immediate bleeding faster. But there will be no peace here, not within our lifetimes.
They absolutely are. Really everyone with a non-cynical opinion in this whole mess, on both sides, is deeply unserious. There are no solutions here, at all. Everyone wants something terrible. Push one side and you eventually get to "The Palestinians Deserve What They Get". Push the other and you get to "Jews are Colonizers Who Need to be Driven Out". And BOTH SIDES use the term "genocide", largely incorrectly, to describe those horrors and are SHOCKED AND OFFENDED that anyone would describe their own opinions so.
I've just given up. My general political feelings align mostly with the Palestinians here, if for no other reason than it stops the immediate bleeding faster. But there will be no peace here, not within our lifetimes.
> Really everyone with a non-cynical opinion in this whole mess, on both sides, is deeply unserious. There are no solutions here, at all. Everyone wants something terrible.
You've put my thoughts into words better than I could.
I'm not seeing a happy ending to this story, ever. I keep thinking about the turf war storyline in The Last of Us II (which was clearly written as an allegory for the Israel-Palestine conflict), and I think the storyline's conclusion was apt. There is only death and misery ahead. Get out if and while you can, and don't look back.
You've put my thoughts into words better than I could.
I'm not seeing a happy ending to this story, ever. I keep thinking about the turf war storyline in The Last of Us II (which was clearly written as an allegory for the Israel-Palestine conflict), and I think the storyline's conclusion was apt. There is only death and misery ahead. Get out if and while you can, and don't look back.
I disagree, but I appreciate your opinion regardless.
The thing is, there is a definition of Genocide and while I think what Hamas did in October was absolutely monstrous I just can’t logically conclude they committed Genocide. So anyone saying that is just ‘saying it’ if you catch my drift. But for what is happening in Gaza, I just want my Government to explain why so I can know for sure that I am mistaken about it and it isn’t genocide. The definition shows it is, but my Govt are saying that it isn’t. It just feels like a whole load of double think to me. Y’know what I mean? If there’s a definition of what it is, then why is the world seeing with their eyes it is genocide and a few powerful allies of Israel saying it isn’t.
Why does logic need to be so controversial eh? A definition is right there yet ‘opinions’ are taken more than fact in this age.
Feeling the same as you - won’t be any peace in the middle east at this rate.
The thing is, there is a definition of Genocide and while I think what Hamas did in October was absolutely monstrous I just can’t logically conclude they committed Genocide. So anyone saying that is just ‘saying it’ if you catch my drift. But for what is happening in Gaza, I just want my Government to explain why so I can know for sure that I am mistaken about it and it isn’t genocide. The definition shows it is, but my Govt are saying that it isn’t. It just feels like a whole load of double think to me. Y’know what I mean? If there’s a definition of what it is, then why is the world seeing with their eyes it is genocide and a few powerful allies of Israel saying it isn’t.
Why does logic need to be so controversial eh? A definition is right there yet ‘opinions’ are taken more than fact in this age.
Feeling the same as you - won’t be any peace in the middle east at this rate.
> what Hamas did in October
...is not all of what Hamas is responsible for, nor a limited statement of its goals or desires. Nor frankly does it even reflect the limits of what non-palestinians like you are calling for. All the kids in NYC chanting "From the River to the Sea" are embracing a genocidal frame (that the expulsion of an existing population from its home is an OK thing to do). And... you don't really care, and choose to excuse that while you condemn the other side.
And so you (yes, you personally) are making things worse and not better. Because when Hamas or whoever finally gets to the line with an army capable of marching across it, they'll think they have your support.
Like I said, there will be no peace here. And the reason is opinions like yours that choose to excuse one evil while you rail against another.
...is not all of what Hamas is responsible for, nor a limited statement of its goals or desires. Nor frankly does it even reflect the limits of what non-palestinians like you are calling for. All the kids in NYC chanting "From the River to the Sea" are embracing a genocidal frame (that the expulsion of an existing population from its home is an OK thing to do). And... you don't really care, and choose to excuse that while you condemn the other side.
And so you (yes, you personally) are making things worse and not better. Because when Hamas or whoever finally gets to the line with an army capable of marching across it, they'll think they have your support.
Like I said, there will be no peace here. And the reason is opinions like yours that choose to excuse one evil while you rail against another.
<< is not all of what Hamas is responsible for
I read and then re-read the parent. It does not not appear that he has been discussing the totality of both 'sides' actions ( and there is a loooong history there ), but rather focused on most recent Hamas action and Israel's response to it.
From where I sit, OP is not wrong. It is tiring - it is especially tiring when it is couched in moralistic 'you should support <my side>' with the undertone of 'because we are the good guys'. I am starting to seriously doubt there are good guys here.
<< And so you (yes, you personally) are making things worse and not better. Because when Hamas or whoever finally gets to the line with an army capable of marching across it, they'll think they have your support.
And I guess this is the weirdest part. There is really one army in this conflict. An army with technology, training, supplies and knowledge seemingly to do whatever is needed -- some of it courtesy of American taxpayer -- and still managing to fail so hard across the board against seemingly inferior enemy, who adopted guerrilla warfare.
<< And the reason is opinions like yours that choose to excuse one evil while you rail against another.
I remain unconvinced. OP is not excusing anything. Personally, I can easily say Hamas is bad.
Can you openly say Israel's response is bad? Can you even openly state its response is 'over the top'?
No? Then the discussion will remain fruitless and the issue will remain as-is for and will not be solved within our lifetimes. Might as well check out and keep US semi-safe.
I read and then re-read the parent. It does not not appear that he has been discussing the totality of both 'sides' actions ( and there is a loooong history there ), but rather focused on most recent Hamas action and Israel's response to it.
From where I sit, OP is not wrong. It is tiring - it is especially tiring when it is couched in moralistic 'you should support <my side>' with the undertone of 'because we are the good guys'. I am starting to seriously doubt there are good guys here.
<< And so you (yes, you personally) are making things worse and not better. Because when Hamas or whoever finally gets to the line with an army capable of marching across it, they'll think they have your support.
And I guess this is the weirdest part. There is really one army in this conflict. An army with technology, training, supplies and knowledge seemingly to do whatever is needed -- some of it courtesy of American taxpayer -- and still managing to fail so hard across the board against seemingly inferior enemy, who adopted guerrilla warfare.
<< And the reason is opinions like yours that choose to excuse one evil while you rail against another.
I remain unconvinced. OP is not excusing anything. Personally, I can easily say Hamas is bad.
Can you openly say Israel's response is bad? Can you even openly state its response is 'over the top'?
No? Then the discussion will remain fruitless and the issue will remain as-is for and will not be solved within our lifetimes. Might as well check out and keep US semi-safe.
> Can you openly say Israel's response is bad? Can you even openly state its response is 'over the top'?
Israel's response is bad. Israel's response is 'over the top'.
Can you state that responses to that which embrace eliminationist goals are likewise bad? Do you condemn not just "Hamas" but Palestinian nationalist aims (oft-parroted by activist westerners who don't really understand what it means) of retaking the 1948 land? Or do you just look the other way and figure The Jews Have It Coming? You're picking a side here, whether you admit it or not. And picking a side means that someone loses.
Israel's response is bad. Israel's response is 'over the top'.
Can you state that responses to that which embrace eliminationist goals are likewise bad? Do you condemn not just "Hamas" but Palestinian nationalist aims (oft-parroted by activist westerners who don't really understand what it means) of retaking the 1948 land? Or do you just look the other way and figure The Jews Have It Coming? You're picking a side here, whether you admit it or not. And picking a side means that someone loses.
<< Can you state that responses to that which embrace eliminationist goals are likewise bad?
Sure, elimanationist goals are likewise bad. I will go even further, it is a really bad idea for the humanity to go down that path, because, if history taught us anything, it is really, really hard to stop violence once it starts.
<< Do you condemn not just "Hamas" but Palestinian nationalist aims?
Can you define those a little more closely? I am hedging, because it is already moving way past the discussion at play and if want to evaluate all nations nationalist aims, I am not sure we should be limiting ourselves to just Palestinians.
<< You're picking a side here, whether you admit it or not.
I worry that you may have chosen a side and are not arguing in good faith ( whether you admit it or not ). Based on your statement, no matter what I say, you have already made a determination about me and my views. That is fine. I am ok with stopping this conversation here. I am not expecting to change minds. I was, however, expecting more.
<< And picking a side means that someone loses.
Does it really have to be that way? Is it truly a zero-sum game? It is not a rhetorical question. I am curious if you can imagine a non-binary world.
Sure, elimanationist goals are likewise bad. I will go even further, it is a really bad idea for the humanity to go down that path, because, if history taught us anything, it is really, really hard to stop violence once it starts.
<< Do you condemn not just "Hamas" but Palestinian nationalist aims?
Can you define those a little more closely? I am hedging, because it is already moving way past the discussion at play and if want to evaluate all nations nationalist aims, I am not sure we should be limiting ourselves to just Palestinians.
<< You're picking a side here, whether you admit it or not.
I worry that you may have chosen a side and are not arguing in good faith ( whether you admit it or not ). Based on your statement, no matter what I say, you have already made a determination about me and my views. That is fine. I am ok with stopping this conversation here. I am not expecting to change minds. I was, however, expecting more.
<< And picking a side means that someone loses.
Does it really have to be that way? Is it truly a zero-sum game? It is not a rhetorical question. I am curious if you can imagine a non-binary world.
> I worry that you may have chosen a side and are not arguing in good faith
Which side do you think I've picked? What can I say to convince you that I haven't? There are no solutions here. There can be no Palestinian homeland within the 1948 borders without terrible violence. There will be no peace within Gaza and the West Bank without it. At best we can achieve a detent for a while and an end to the immediate violence, with a pie-in-the-sky best case of some kind of end to the west bank settlement activity and maybe a little clawing back of recently-taken territory.
If you're asking for more than that, on either side, you're perpetuating the conflict and making things worse. Because eventually we'll get to a stage where one side isn't dominant, and what happens then is an actual shooting war with millions of civilian casualties.
Which side do you think I've picked? What can I say to convince you that I haven't? There are no solutions here. There can be no Palestinian homeland within the 1948 borders without terrible violence. There will be no peace within Gaza and the West Bank without it. At best we can achieve a detent for a while and an end to the immediate violence, with a pie-in-the-sky best case of some kind of end to the west bank settlement activity and maybe a little clawing back of recently-taken territory.
If you're asking for more than that, on either side, you're perpetuating the conflict and making things worse. Because eventually we'll get to a stage where one side isn't dominant, and what happens then is an actual shooting war with millions of civilian casualties.
<< There are no solutions here.
Zero disagreement. This is an HN thread. It is not even intended for a solution. The fact that is even discussed here is an indicator how unusual a conflict it is.
I am not a dignitary. I hold zero to no real world power. Frankly, if I did, I assume I would not be discussing stuff online for practical reasons. As it stands, its just two humans talking.
<< There can be no Palestinian homeland within the 1948 borders without terrible violence.
I will ignore for a moment the 1948 restriction.
I look at this from an outsider point of view so when I see words like this, I can't help but respond with 'but there already is terrible violence; how exactly do you want to escalate it?'
<< actual shooting war with millions of civilian casualties.
There already is a shooting war with all the horrors war can bring. The only thing missing is millions of civilian casualties. And it does not look like it ( war ) is being contained. If anything, there is a growing risk of expanding and moving beyond ME region.
<< If you're asking for more than that
Best I can ask for is a plea that both sides stop. Right now, this is probably the only reasonable way to stop immediate violence. And I suppose we can worry about 'day after' then. But as I mentioned before, once the violence starts, it may be hard to stop.
<< Because eventually we'll get to a stage where one side isn't dominant
Because it worked so well now with a dominant party?
<< pie-in-the-sky best case of some kind of end to the west bank settlement activity and maybe a little clawing back of recently-taken territory
So what do we do? Nothing? It goes full circle to 'there are no solutions here'.
edit:
I think I will be removing myself from the remainder of this conversation. It was genuinely interesting to me so I thank you for your answers. It looks like it is going to be a long week here as I am starting to get half panicky dms.
Zero disagreement. This is an HN thread. It is not even intended for a solution. The fact that is even discussed here is an indicator how unusual a conflict it is.
I am not a dignitary. I hold zero to no real world power. Frankly, if I did, I assume I would not be discussing stuff online for practical reasons. As it stands, its just two humans talking.
<< There can be no Palestinian homeland within the 1948 borders without terrible violence.
I will ignore for a moment the 1948 restriction.
I look at this from an outsider point of view so when I see words like this, I can't help but respond with 'but there already is terrible violence; how exactly do you want to escalate it?'
<< actual shooting war with millions of civilian casualties.
There already is a shooting war with all the horrors war can bring. The only thing missing is millions of civilian casualties. And it does not look like it ( war ) is being contained. If anything, there is a growing risk of expanding and moving beyond ME region.
<< If you're asking for more than that
Best I can ask for is a plea that both sides stop. Right now, this is probably the only reasonable way to stop immediate violence. And I suppose we can worry about 'day after' then. But as I mentioned before, once the violence starts, it may be hard to stop.
<< Because eventually we'll get to a stage where one side isn't dominant
Because it worked so well now with a dominant party?
<< pie-in-the-sky best case of some kind of end to the west bank settlement activity and maybe a little clawing back of recently-taken territory
So what do we do? Nothing? It goes full circle to 'there are no solutions here'.
edit:
I think I will be removing myself from the remainder of this conversation. It was genuinely interesting to me so I thank you for your answers. It looks like it is going to be a long week here as I am starting to get half panicky dms.
> I will ignore for a moment the 1948 restriction.
Demanding people leave their homes doesn't work. They fight. They kill. They'll starve. They'll die. This is exactly the problem we're seeing in Gaza, and it's just amazing to me that you don't understand it's symmetric.
It doesn't matter who you think "should" be living there, Israelis actually are. Homes are homes. People in the western pro-palestinian movement have fooled themselves into thinking that Israelis will just move to The Bronx or Palo Alto or whatever, and that's not remotely how it works.
> Because it worked so well now with a dominant party?
It's working comparatively well, yes. Both Israeli and Gazan casualties are bad, but low relative to total population. That's not the way real ethnic wars work, usually. If a Palestinian army thinks they can actually win, they'll invade and kill everyone. Because to their worldview it's their land and the Jews are invaders, and that's what you do with invaders. It shocks me the extent to which people don't understand this.
Demanding people leave their homes doesn't work. They fight. They kill. They'll starve. They'll die. This is exactly the problem we're seeing in Gaza, and it's just amazing to me that you don't understand it's symmetric.
It doesn't matter who you think "should" be living there, Israelis actually are. Homes are homes. People in the western pro-palestinian movement have fooled themselves into thinking that Israelis will just move to The Bronx or Palo Alto or whatever, and that's not remotely how it works.
> Because it worked so well now with a dominant party?
It's working comparatively well, yes. Both Israeli and Gazan casualties are bad, but low relative to total population. That's not the way real ethnic wars work, usually. If a Palestinian army thinks they can actually win, they'll invade and kill everyone. Because to their worldview it's their land and the Jews are invaders, and that's what you do with invaders. It shocks me the extent to which people don't understand this.
“choose to excuse one evil while you rail against another.”
Well that is incorrect and to put words in my mouth and then personally attack based on said words is kind of pointless.
My argument is about genocide. Words don’t equate genocide, but certain actions are. I don’t think you’ll be winning any nobel peace prizes for figuring out the difference.
Well that is incorrect and to put words in my mouth and then personally attack based on said words is kind of pointless.
My argument is about genocide. Words don’t equate genocide, but certain actions are. I don’t think you’ll be winning any nobel peace prizes for figuring out the difference.
> My argument is about genocide.
And my argument is that your "genocide argument" is overnarrow and has the effect of picking a side in a conflict that cannot and will not end unless people stop perpetuate it like that. Stopping your particular favorite enemy has the effect of empowering and emboldening their enemies, who are just as bad.
And my argument is that your "genocide argument" is overnarrow and has the effect of picking a side in a conflict that cannot and will not end unless people stop perpetuate it like that. Stopping your particular favorite enemy has the effect of empowering and emboldening their enemies, who are just as bad.
I’ve been having fun.
This is like the Flat Earth equivalent in geopolitics — and getting people to explain why they think things is fascinating.
I also like irony — so seeing Israel “prosecuted” for the lowest civilian casualty rate in modern history is hilarious.
This is like the Flat Earth equivalent in geopolitics — and getting people to explain why they think things is fascinating.
I also like irony — so seeing Israel “prosecuted” for the lowest civilian casualty rate in modern history is hilarious.
Please tell me by what metric and to what other conflicts are you comparing this to where over 35,000 people (over 15,000 of which are children) killed constitutes the "lowest civilian casualty rate in modern history". The smugness with which you treat the tragedy that is currently unfolding is disgusting.
Not parent, but let's take each side's numbers at face value:
The Gaza Ministry of Health says as of today that 35,562 people have been killed [0]. The Israeli Ministry of Defense in March said it has killed 13,000 Hamas operatives [1].
Leaving aside the two month gap between these figures, the civilian casualty ratio is 1:1.7.
I tried to find a source for what a "typical" casualty ratio is in urban conflicts. This source [2] claims that 90% of overall casualties is a typical number. That would be a ratio of 1:9.
John Spencer, who chairs the Modern Warfare Institute at USMA, and seems to be an authority on the subject, has a tweet addressing this specifically [3], in which he cites the Battles of Mosul, and Manila as having casualty rates of 1:2.5, 1:6 respectively.
I don't think proving the negative of "lowest civilian casualty rate in modern history" is feasible, but a nearly 5x improvement in civilian casualties compared to the assumed norm, and lower civilian casualties than Spencer's comparisons seems to indicate that the claim is not without merit.
[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-ham... [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-says-gaza... [2] https://civiliansinconflict.org/our-work/conflict-trends/urb... [3] https://x.com/SpencerGuard/status/1786612914117349769
The Gaza Ministry of Health says as of today that 35,562 people have been killed [0]. The Israeli Ministry of Defense in March said it has killed 13,000 Hamas operatives [1].
Leaving aside the two month gap between these figures, the civilian casualty ratio is 1:1.7.
I tried to find a source for what a "typical" casualty ratio is in urban conflicts. This source [2] claims that 90% of overall casualties is a typical number. That would be a ratio of 1:9.
John Spencer, who chairs the Modern Warfare Institute at USMA, and seems to be an authority on the subject, has a tweet addressing this specifically [3], in which he cites the Battles of Mosul, and Manila as having casualty rates of 1:2.5, 1:6 respectively.
I don't think proving the negative of "lowest civilian casualty rate in modern history" is feasible, but a nearly 5x improvement in civilian casualties compared to the assumed norm, and lower civilian casualties than Spencer's comparisons seems to indicate that the claim is not without merit.
[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-ham... [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-says-gaza... [2] https://civiliansinconflict.org/our-work/conflict-trends/urb... [3] https://x.com/SpencerGuard/status/1786612914117349769
It’s hard to believe those numbers when (according to anonymous Israeli military officers) the Israelis are willing to routinely accept civilian casualties of 20 to 1. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
Neither the Gaza Ministry of Health, nor the armed wing of Hamas have released the number of combatant casualties, leaving the IDF's number as the only estimate available. If that estimate is incorrect, they could and should challenge it by putting forth their own.
The source you provided says "for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians". This is clearly an upper bound, and makes no claim about how close to this they actually come.
In the same way, I might offer my customers an SLA of two nines in their contract, but never drop below three in practice. Part of effective planning is describing the worst case scenario, but that doesn't imply it will actually happen.
The source you provided says "for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians". This is clearly an upper bound, and makes no claim about how close to this they actually come.
In the same way, I might offer my customers an SLA of two nines in their contract, but never drop below three in practice. Part of effective planning is describing the worst case scenario, but that doesn't imply it will actually happen.
The IDF counts every grown man that they kill as a "Hamas operative"
Neither the Gaza Ministry of Health, nor the armed wing of Hamas have released the number of combatant casualties, leaving the IDF's number as the only estimate available. If that estimate is incorrect, they could and should challenge it by putting forth their own.
Hamas counts every Hamas operative younger than 18 who dies as a child.
This is an outrageous and horrifying accusation, can you share your source for it?
The battle of Manila stands out as one of the most horrifying in modern history, hardly a good standard to be targeting.
Modern History is already quite good compared to the entirety of history. The bog standard Siege of La Rochelle ended up starving the civilian population of 27,000 to 5,000. War is brutal, and when you dealing with brutal enemies like Hamas it's never going to an orderly affair.
> 35,000 people (over 15,000 of which are children)
For what is worth, the UN estimates are significantly lower with less than 8’000 children (and 5’000 women) out of the 25’000 identified casualties. Maybe there are indeed 10’000 additional victims as Hamas claims (the UN take that number at face value, Israel estimated are slightly lower) but it seems unlikely that 75% of them are children. It’s not physically imposible though.
For what is worth, the UN estimates are significantly lower with less than 8’000 children (and 5’000 women) out of the 25’000 identified casualties. Maybe there are indeed 10’000 additional victims as Hamas claims (the UN take that number at face value, Israel estimated are slightly lower) but it seems unlikely that 75% of them are children. It’s not physically imposible though.
The number of dead will be higher than reported, as there are many still under the rubble of thousands of homes.
And there will still be many more starving to death each day, thanks for aid trucks being attacked and burned (with IDF collusion apparently).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/21/israel...
And there will still be many more starving to death each day, thanks for aid trucks being attacked and burned (with IDF collusion apparently).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/21/israel...
> If a country has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong. Or not.
There is no definition of Genocide but only of what you can get away with. These countries are engaged in a proxy war via Israel. They can't replace Israel right now, heck they can't even replace the current leadership. So they just have to explain away and launder the reputation of the operation.
There is no definition of Genocide but only of what you can get away with. These countries are engaged in a proxy war via Israel. They can't replace Israel right now, heck they can't even replace the current leadership. So they just have to explain away and launder the reputation of the operation.
One of the interesting aspects to me, is that ICC considers this both a non-international and international armed conflict (mildly different laws apply depending on which it is, but the difference is small as far as i understand)
How could something be both? Palestine is either a separate state from Israel or it isn't.
How could something be both? Palestine is either a separate state from Israel or it isn't.
> How could something be both? Palestine is either a separate state from Israel or it isn't.
I don't think this is correct. Palestine's status is disputed. Legal status isn't a physical property, it's a social one, so if many people think "A" is "B", then "A" is in some sense genuinely "B".
Considering the conflict in both contexts avoids "Oops, the entire thing is nullified because it's technically Conflict Type 1, not Conflict Type 2."
I don't think this is correct. Palestine's status is disputed. Legal status isn't a physical property, it's a social one, so if many people think "A" is "B", then "A" is in some sense genuinely "B".
Considering the conflict in both contexts avoids "Oops, the entire thing is nullified because it's technically Conflict Type 1, not Conflict Type 2."
I agree its disputed, but i don't think it follows from that that it is both. Like hypothetically (i say hypothetically since this is not the situation at hand afaik) if there was one crime that only applied to non international armed conflicts and one that applied to international, i don't think it would be just to charge with both just because its a bit unclear which is the correct one.
--
I also found in the legal report the following that partially explains the reasoning https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p... :
War crimes require a nexus to an armed conflict, and for some war crimes this conflict must be international.5 For this reason, it is necessary to assess the situation in Gaza and in Israel to determine whether an armed conflict exists and if so, its nature. 13. The Panel agrees with the Prosecutor’s conclusion that the conflicts in Israel and Gaza comprise an international armed conflict and a non-international armed conflict running in parallel. Hamas is a highly organized non-State armed group, and the hostilities between Hamas and Israel have been sufficiently intense to reach the threshold of a non-international armed conflict. The Panel’s assessment is that the non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas began, at the latest, on 7 October 2023, when Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups launched Operation al-Aqsa Flood against Israel and Israel launched its Operation Iron Swords in response. The Panel has also concluded that there is an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine on the basis either that: a) Palestine is a State in accordance with criteria set out in international law, for which there is a sufficiently strong argument for the purpose of an application to the Court for an arrest warrant, and an international armed conflict arises if a State uses force against a non-state actor on the territory of another State without the latter’s consent; or b) Palestine and Israel are both High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and that pursuant to the text of Common Article 2 of the Conventions, an armed conflict between two High Contracting Parties is international in character; or c) There is a belligerent occupation by Israel of at least some Palestinian territory. 14. The Panel’s assessment is that the international armed conflict began at the latest on 7 October 2023, when Israel first started responding to the Hamas attack on its territory by using force on the territory of Palestine without the latter’s consent.
--
I also found in the legal report the following that partially explains the reasoning https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p... :
War crimes require a nexus to an armed conflict, and for some war crimes this conflict must be international.5 For this reason, it is necessary to assess the situation in Gaza and in Israel to determine whether an armed conflict exists and if so, its nature. 13. The Panel agrees with the Prosecutor’s conclusion that the conflicts in Israel and Gaza comprise an international armed conflict and a non-international armed conflict running in parallel. Hamas is a highly organized non-State armed group, and the hostilities between Hamas and Israel have been sufficiently intense to reach the threshold of a non-international armed conflict. The Panel’s assessment is that the non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas began, at the latest, on 7 October 2023, when Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups launched Operation al-Aqsa Flood against Israel and Israel launched its Operation Iron Swords in response. The Panel has also concluded that there is an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine on the basis either that: a) Palestine is a State in accordance with criteria set out in international law, for which there is a sufficiently strong argument for the purpose of an application to the Court for an arrest warrant, and an international armed conflict arises if a State uses force against a non-state actor on the territory of another State without the latter’s consent; or b) Palestine and Israel are both High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and that pursuant to the text of Common Article 2 of the Conventions, an armed conflict between two High Contracting Parties is international in character; or c) There is a belligerent occupation by Israel of at least some Palestinian territory. 14. The Panel’s assessment is that the international armed conflict began at the latest on 7 October 2023, when Israel first started responding to the Hamas attack on its territory by using force on the territory of Palestine without the latter’s consent.
Also, it is not that hard to imagine conflicts that are technically both, e.g. a conflict that starts out as non-international and becomes international at a certain point.
"so if many people think A is B, then A is in some sense genuinely B."
Rather, A is A for many people, and B is B for many people. Both groups aren't mutually exclusive
( GroupA ∩ GroupB ) != ∅
Rather, A is A for many people, and B is B for many people. Both groups aren't mutually exclusive
( GroupA ∩ GroupB ) != ∅
I don't see how this relates. The point was about Palestine as a state. If enough people recognize Palestine as a separate state, this becomes an international issue. I believe this was the A is B claim digging made. What would be the analogous claim for your point? That some folks believe Palestine is it's own state, and some folks don't, and that the views are not mutually exclusive?
Yes, that is my point. The same applies to Taiwan. Guatemala considers Taiwan a country, China does not. Some countries belong to both groups depending on the context.
Yeah, but we are judging a thing that happened in time. So the sets will have some noise/overlap who will specify the conflict as A or B during which time of the conflict.
The ICC likely judges about crimes that happened during multiple phases of the conflict, hence the conflict could have multiple types.
The ICC likely judges about crimes that happened during multiple phases of the conflict, hence the conflict could have multiple types.
I’s guess it depends on who you’re talking to: some organizations or states see Palestine as a state, others do not, and others see it as a future state but not one at this time. Keeping a definition broad lessens the chance of outright dismissal of otherwise cogent claims of wrongdoing.
That’s all insofar as anyone or entity actually respects international law. It comes down to states agreeing that it’s in their best interests to cooperate on a matter. As long as the USA and Europe support Israel and don’t bring to bear any leverage to stop this insanity and form an independent state, the ICC can call Palestine whatever it wants to describe the situation.
That’s all insofar as anyone or entity actually respects international law. It comes down to states agreeing that it’s in their best interests to cooperate on a matter. As long as the USA and Europe support Israel and don’t bring to bear any leverage to stop this insanity and form an independent state, the ICC can call Palestine whatever it wants to describe the situation.
I don't think it matters what other groups think, it matters what the ICC thinks, and they already ruled they think Palestine is a state, at least in a preliminary fashion (i'm sure if this gets to trial the question will be relitigated).
Additionally ICC only has juridsiction if Palestine is a state. So the entire thing goes away if Palestine is not a state (since only states can aceede to the rome convention).
I do not think Palestine being a state is the same question as if this conflict is international. I think it may be possible for both Palestine to be a state and this conflict be non international. However IANAL and that is pure speculation.
Additionally ICC only has juridsiction if Palestine is a state. So the entire thing goes away if Palestine is not a state (since only states can aceede to the rome convention).
I do not think Palestine being a state is the same question as if this conflict is international. I think it may be possible for both Palestine to be a state and this conflict be non international. However IANAL and that is pure speculation.
It is not a separate state. Israel controls the borders and the airspace of Palestine and Palestine is not allowed, at least by law, to raise its own army, navy, air force. Israel is thus sovereign over Palestine and the Palestinians are its subjects, which is why Israel is not a democracy, and why this conflict is a rebellion.
Considering the Oct 7 attack it seems pretty wise of Israel to have not allowed Hamas a more advanced military. It is the professed goal of their government to eliminate Israel.
Israel's rationale for de-facto annexation is irrelevant.
Israel says it's fighting Hamas, a non-state actor. That's non-international conflict.
It's also invading and attacking citizens of Palestine State without consent of its representatives (PA), that's international conflict.
It's also invading and attacking citizens of Palestine State without consent of its representatives (PA), that's international conflict.
> Palestine is either a separate state from Israel or it isn't
I don’t believe the ICC’s jurisdiction is limited to state-on-state conflicts. The more-curious question is how the ICC is claiming jurisdiction over non-signatory nations.
I don’t believe the ICC’s jurisdiction is limited to state-on-state conflicts. The more-curious question is how the ICC is claiming jurisdiction over non-signatory nations.
They aren't: they are asserting jurisdiction over individuals:
- who are alleged to have committed crimes on the territory of the signatory nation, or
- who are nationals of the signatory nation
- who are alleged to have committed crimes on the territory of the signatory nation, or
- who are nationals of the signatory nation
Oh interesting, TIL [1].
[1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p... page 3, paragraph 9
[1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p... page 3, paragraph 9
Except Isreal isn't a signatory nation, and all of the land in question is part of Israel. That's not a judgement either way, there have been some attempts to change that, but the ICC doesn't actually have any jurisdiction here.
Apparently "Palestine" (which is not a state/country) signed on and due to that the court ruled (in some other case) that it does have jurisdiction. Also the "Palestine" side of the warrants are against Hamas which also feels weird (Hamas is also not a signatory nation and many suggest that Hamas != Palestine). Given Palestine is a signatory does it mean they have to take action to extradite the Hamas leadership to face trial? What consequences do they face if they fail to do that?
Generally when states sign treaties it applies to the de jure state, not just what it de facto controls.
> Given Palestine is a signatory does it mean they have to take action to extradite the Hamas leadership to face trial? What consequences do they face if they fail to do that?
Almost certainly nothing. They are obligated to help, but realistically if the palestine authority had the ability to capture hamas leadership i imagine they would have done so a long time ago, as the two sides fought what was essentially a civil war a while back.
> Given Palestine is a signatory does it mean they have to take action to extradite the Hamas leadership to face trial? What consequences do they face if they fail to do that?
Almost certainly nothing. They are obligated to help, but realistically if the palestine authority had the ability to capture hamas leadership i imagine they would have done so a long time ago, as the two sides fought what was essentially a civil war a while back.
The only UN approved borders are the 1967 ones I think. Interesting to see that it would apply to a lot of the settler colonies in the West Bank as well.
>Also the "Palestine" side of the warrants are against Hamas which also feels weird (Hamas is also not a signatory nation and many suggest that Hamas != Palestine).
The ICC prosecutes individuals not states, so there's no contradiction here.
>Given Palestine is a signatory does it mean they have to take action to extradite the Hamas leadership to face trial?
Yes
>What consequences do they face if they fail to do that?
There's no penalties built into the statute. It tends to have diplomatic blowback. See [1] for a prior example.
[1]: https://press.un.org/en/2018/sc13623.doc.htm
The ICC prosecutes individuals not states, so there's no contradiction here.
>Given Palestine is a signatory does it mean they have to take action to extradite the Hamas leadership to face trial?
Yes
>What consequences do they face if they fail to do that?
There's no penalties built into the statute. It tends to have diplomatic blowback. See [1] for a prior example.
[1]: https://press.un.org/en/2018/sc13623.doc.htm
> all of the land in question is part of Israel
Gaza isn't actually part of Israel, though, is it? Even Israel says it's not, if I understand correctly.
Gaza isn't actually part of Israel, though, is it? Even Israel says it's not, if I understand correctly.
I'm wondering the same, but also wonder if the situation off the coast of Yemen and Iran's recent response to Israel bombing their embassy made the conflict partially international?
The conflict cannot be not considered international simply because Palestine's recognition is blocked by the US on Israel's behalf.
Nor can it be not international due to the vagueness of Israel's borders. Israel has internationally legally recognized borders (the Green Line) and is acting outside them.
This conflict is international.
Nor can it be not international due to the vagueness of Israel's borders. Israel has internationally legally recognized borders (the Green Line) and is acting outside them.
This conflict is international.
In fact Palestine’s recognition is not blocked by the US. What is blocked by the US is Palestine becoming a full member of the UN.
The two things are different. Switzerland did not join the UN until 2002. I’m sure that we can all agree that Switzerland was recognized as a state prior to 2002.
Becoming a full member of the UN is a sufficient but not necessary condition for recognition. The other way is simply to get as many other states as possible to recognize you.
Arguably Palestine’s recognition by the UN General Assembly is also sufficient.
The two things are different. Switzerland did not join the UN until 2002. I’m sure that we can all agree that Switzerland was recognized as a state prior to 2002.
Becoming a full member of the UN is a sufficient but not necessary condition for recognition. The other way is simply to get as many other states as possible to recognize you.
Arguably Palestine’s recognition by the UN General Assembly is also sufficient.
None of the charges are related to those incidents so i doubt that is relavent.
"Hellish flamewars in deep subthreads are not ok...please don't do this. If you're hotly indignant, step away from the keyboard until that changes. Nobody 'wins' on the internet anyway, and it's not worth destroying this community for. Not to mention your heart." that should be a permanent "required reading"/prologue on every forum (if that forum might be contentious). I guess part of the issue is "who decides what is 'contentious'?" Anyway, thanks for that refreshing reminder.
> I guess part of the issue is "who decides what is 'contentious'?"
You can write "russia is genociding ukrainians". You can write 'china is genociding muslims". That isn't hellish flamewar. Guess what is hellish flamewar?
You can write "russia is genociding ukrainians". You can write 'china is genociding muslims". That isn't hellish flamewar. Guess what is hellish flamewar?
Why haven’t Hamas returned the hostages ? See the differences between the examples you gave ?
Hamas haven’t retuned the hostages because they believe their own people are dying for the glory of God as martyrs.
Don’t forget the government of Palestine waged war on Israel though ? I mean what did they think was going to happen after October 7 ? A picnic ?
The government of Palestine, who had a responsibility to take care of its people believed every Jew should be wiped off the face for the earth. So I’m not sure what Israel is left to do besides basically demolish the country to ensure its own security.
I actually can see the difference between Russia, China and this personally. It would be like Taiwan attacking China. Which they won’t do because they’re not insane fanatics.
What do you think Israelites should do instead ? Go back to Europe ? Ceasefire so their enemy can regroup and kill more?
Hamas haven’t retuned the hostages because they believe their own people are dying for the glory of God as martyrs.
Don’t forget the government of Palestine waged war on Israel though ? I mean what did they think was going to happen after October 7 ? A picnic ?
The government of Palestine, who had a responsibility to take care of its people believed every Jew should be wiped off the face for the earth. So I’m not sure what Israel is left to do besides basically demolish the country to ensure its own security.
I actually can see the difference between Russia, China and this personally. It would be like Taiwan attacking China. Which they won’t do because they’re not insane fanatics.
What do you think Israelites should do instead ? Go back to Europe ? Ceasefire so their enemy can regroup and kill more?
Another interesting question is, will it end Netanyahu's career if it goes through? It seems like a major deficit for a PM to be unable to travel to the majority of relevant states. Most of his international trips have been to central Europe so far, and I think Europe is too invested in the ICC to circumvent it, even if some member states were to criticize this decision.
His career was already over. Nearly all Israelis would support exchanging Netanyahu for hostages, again.
As a former Israeli, I cannot say this enough: please take Netanyahu, dig the deepest hole you can, throw him in there, lock it up and throw away the key.
You claiming to have been Israeli in the past (what does that even mean?) does not give you any greater validity in criticizing Netanyahu.
A majority of Israelis voted for this government's representatives, including Netanyahu, some specifically voting for him (his party has almost x2 as many votes as the second-biggest voted party).
Democracy doesn't work only when the representatives that you like are elected.
A majority of Israelis voted for this government's representatives, including Netanyahu, some specifically voting for him (his party has almost x2 as many votes as the second-biggest voted party).
Democracy doesn't work only when the representatives that you like are elected.
I would strongly suggest handing him over to the ICC and signing the Rome treaty. Let the ICC deal with what to do with him exactly.
Very strongly doubt it - decisions like these probably only benefit Netanyahu's rally around the flag effect. If it feels like the whole world is against you, you rally to your leaders.
Nethanyahu is survivalist but he faces uphill battle as time passes.
The fact that Hamas attack was so successful under his watch has not disappeared.
His career is full of scandals and corruption. He is still going to have domestic charges in near future.
His war cabinet is going to collapse soon if he continues without any plans for the future of Gaza.
The fact that Hamas attack was so successful under his watch has not disappeared.
His career is full of scandals and corruption. He is still going to have domestic charges in near future.
His war cabinet is going to collapse soon if he continues without any plans for the future of Gaza.
But he's in power, still. His career has been "over" for years now.
On the other hand, half of Israelis disapprove of Nethanyahu. The "warrant" would also be >something< all opposition would have agaisnt him
https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/artic...
https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/artic...
(grain of salt)Significant portions of those disapproving are people who want to intensify the war in Gaza, so I doubt an ICC warrant would make them more opposed to Netanyahu.
Think it is easy in the US to think Israeli public opinion somehow mirrors the US but the vast majority of people in Israel right now are pro-war (similar to the US post-9/11) and anti-two state
e: not sure why I'm downvoted for something that can easily be confirmed by googling polls
Think it is easy in the US to think Israeli public opinion somehow mirrors the US but the vast majority of people in Israel right now are pro-war (similar to the US post-9/11) and anti-two state
e: not sure why I'm downvoted for something that can easily be confirmed by googling polls
> Significant portions of those disapproving are people who want to intensify the war in Gaza, so I doubt an ICC warrant would make them more opposed to Netanyahu.
Israel has a multi-party legislature. Netanyahu can be outflanked on the right.
Israel has a multi-party legislature. Netanyahu can be outflanked on the right.
> Netanyahu can be outflanked on the right
He was outflanked by the right in 2019 when Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu and Lapid's Yamina withdrew it's support for Likud and joined Bennett's and Lapid's anti-Netanyahu coalition in 2021, but Bibi was able to leverage fringe Kahanist and Mizrahi parties to reclaim the top seat.
Hell, Bibi would make a coalition with the Arab List/Ra'am (the Islamist Party in Israel) if it meant remaining PM (and thus retaining immunity)
Traditionally, the hard right Jewish parties would always win around 20 seats in Knesset but would never be a major part of any coalition - but Bibi has alienated just about every single faction in Israel at this point trying to extend his rule.
He was outflanked by the right in 2019 when Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu and Lapid's Yamina withdrew it's support for Likud and joined Bennett's and Lapid's anti-Netanyahu coalition in 2021, but Bibi was able to leverage fringe Kahanist and Mizrahi parties to reclaim the top seat.
Hell, Bibi would make a coalition with the Arab List/Ra'am (the Islamist Party in Israel) if it meant remaining PM (and thus retaining immunity)
Traditionally, the hard right Jewish parties would always win around 20 seats in Knesset but would never be a major part of any coalition - but Bibi has alienated just about every single faction in Israel at this point trying to extend his rule.
Certainly, but if he is outflanked on the right it won't be because of the ICC arrest warrant. If anything, that might help prevent him from being outflanked on the right.
> half of Israelis disapprove of Nethanyahu
Yeah but part of that half probably supports Gallant, who has split with Netanyahu, but is also charged alongside him.
Yeah but part of that half probably supports Gallant, who has split with Netanyahu, but is also charged alongside him.
[deleted]
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40419037. (Nothing wrong with the reply, but I'm trying to prune the top-heaviest subthreads.)
His career is already in a bad place as far as i understand. If anything it might help him because he could cry that they are unfairly (regardless of if true) out to get him.
The current political situation in the US gives me every indication that the US would provide Netanyahu asylum if these warrants to through. The US has withdrawn from the Rome Statute and therefore has no obligation to arrest him.
Why would he need US asylum? Israel isn't an ICC signatory.
Neither is the US nor most countries in the World.
The only major countries/blocs that are ICC members are the EU/EFTA/EU ascension candidates, UK, Canada, Mercusor (lowkey surprised Venezuela's still a signatory), Mexico, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and NZ.
Edit:
Yes. 124 nations did initially sign the Rome Statute.
I meant regional powers/countries that matter.
The only major countries/blocs that are ICC members are the EU/EFTA/EU ascension candidates, UK, Canada, Mercusor (lowkey surprised Venezuela's still a signatory), Mexico, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and NZ.
Edit:
Yes. 124 nations did initially sign the Rome Statute.
I meant regional powers/countries that matter.
If anyone here is from the US and doesn't like Israel scoffing at the ICC, they should read up on the American Service-Members' Protection Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...
> The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Act authorizes the president of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the president to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of the Netherlands, where The Hague is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.
It was introduced in 2002 when the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and hasn't been rescinded. So if the US ever committed war crimes in those countries, or any other ones; too bad. The US so totally and completely doesn't recognise the ICC's jurisdiction that it will literally invade the Netherlands in order to not be bound by it in any way, shape or form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...
> The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Act authorizes the president of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the president to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of the Netherlands, where The Hague is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.
It was introduced in 2002 when the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and hasn't been rescinded. So if the US ever committed war crimes in those countries, or any other ones; too bad. The US so totally and completely doesn't recognise the ICC's jurisdiction that it will literally invade the Netherlands in order to not be bound by it in any way, shape or form.
Is this all that weird? The ICC is fairly Eurocentric. India and China aren't signatories either.
The "Hague Invasion Act" is performative silliness enacted in the immediate wake of September 11. The truth is that no major European country is going to arrest an American, Indian, Philipino or Israeli politician. There's kind of a deus ex machina thing happening with the ICC; you still have to do standard-issue diplomacy.
The "Hague Invasion Act" is performative silliness enacted in the immediate wake of September 11. The truth is that no major European country is going to arrest an American, Indian, Philipino or Israeli politician. There's kind of a deus ex machina thing happening with the ICC; you still have to do standard-issue diplomacy.
What do you mean they wouldn't arrest? Israel's foreign minister Tsipy Livny had arrest warrants issued against her by courts in the UK and in Belgium.
What's frustrating about that is that a lot of the US's early efforts to not get involved in the ICC was to protect Henry Kissinger from prosecution, who, most objective observers tend to agree did commit or authorize multiple war crimes, from assassinations of Chilean leaders, to the carpet bombing of Indochina, particularly Cambodia, and others.
> What's frustrating about that is that a lot of the US's early efforts to not get involved in the ICC was to protect Henry Kissinger from prosecution
No, it wasn't; the ICC (which the US had a lead role in negotiating and initially signed despite never ratifying it) was never going to have retroactive authority, and the US knew that was not an issue long before it “unsigned” the Rome Statute.
Both the unsigning and the “Hague invasion act” were in 2002, during the runup to the 2003 Iraq War; it was about protecting people then in office from consequences in the war of aggression they were about to launch, to the extent it was about protecting specific people and not just the broad idea of American exceptionalism and opposition of the US government of the time to the idea of international institutions not fully subordinated to the US.
No, it wasn't; the ICC (which the US had a lead role in negotiating and initially signed despite never ratifying it) was never going to have retroactive authority, and the US knew that was not an issue long before it “unsigned” the Rome Statute.
Both the unsigning and the “Hague invasion act” were in 2002, during the runup to the 2003 Iraq War; it was about protecting people then in office from consequences in the war of aggression they were about to launch, to the extent it was about protecting specific people and not just the broad idea of American exceptionalism and opposition of the US government of the time to the idea of international institutions not fully subordinated to the US.
> No, it wasn't; the ICC (which the US had a lead role in negotiating and initially signed despite never ratifying it) was never going to have retroactive authority, and the US knew that was not an issue long before it “unsigned” the Rome Statute.
The ICC was formed out of the ICJ, to tackle matters that rose beyond 'dispute' between states. The ICJ came out of the IMT, which was the Nuremburg trials, which defined war crimes and crimes against humanity for the first time, so it would not have been really retroactive. These things were already crimes, there just wasn't a body capable of prosecuting them.
The ICC was formed out of the ICJ, to tackle matters that rose beyond 'dispute' between states. The ICJ came out of the IMT, which was the Nuremburg trials, which defined war crimes and crimes against humanity for the first time, so it would not have been really retroactive. These things were already crimes, there just wasn't a body capable of prosecuting them.
> The ICC was formed out of the ICJ
No, it wasn't. In any sense.
It was a permanent successor to ad hoc criminal tribunals like the International Military Tribunal, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
> The ICJ came out of the IMT, which was the Nuremburg trials
No, it didn't, it was the UN system's successor to the League of Nations system's Permanent International Court of Justice (the ICJ statute is modelled on that of the PICJ, the PICJ transferred irs assets and archives to the ICJ on its dissolution, the ICJ was headquartered in the Peace Palace that had held the HQ of the PICJ, and the ICJ even adopted the PICJ seal.)
The ICJ—like the PICJ, a court for disputes between nations—was in no respect a successor to International Military Tribunal, which dealt with crimes by individuals (and, indeed had most of its lifespan during that of the ICJ, starting work only a few months before the ICJ.)
No, it wasn't. In any sense.
It was a permanent successor to ad hoc criminal tribunals like the International Military Tribunal, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
> The ICJ came out of the IMT, which was the Nuremburg trials
No, it didn't, it was the UN system's successor to the League of Nations system's Permanent International Court of Justice (the ICJ statute is modelled on that of the PICJ, the PICJ transferred irs assets and archives to the ICJ on its dissolution, the ICJ was headquartered in the Peace Palace that had held the HQ of the PICJ, and the ICJ even adopted the PICJ seal.)
The ICJ—like the PICJ, a court for disputes between nations—was in no respect a successor to International Military Tribunal, which dealt with crimes by individuals (and, indeed had most of its lifespan during that of the ICJ, starting work only a few months before the ICJ.)
> nor most countries in the World.
Wikipedia says there are 124 states party to the Rome Statute and there are 193 sovereign states that are members of the united nations. Thats 64%, which is most countries.
Wikipedia says there are 124 states party to the Rome Statute and there are 193 sovereign states that are members of the united nations. Thats 64%, which is most countries.
The State of Palestine is a State Party of the Rome Statute but only a non-member observer state of the UN, so treating the parties to the Rone Statute as a subset of the UN members is not quite right.
There are 124 state parties to the Rome Statute, which is more than a majority, counting standardly.
And? It's not a vote. Pick a person from the world out at random; it's a coin flip whether they live in a country that has or hasn't ratified Rome.
I did a quick tally with my calculator and tallied up the population of each country above 10 million which isn’t among the 137 countries which are current signatories to the Rome Statute. My final tally was 4,6 billion which is around 57% of the world, leaving around 43% of the world population living in a country which is at least a signatory to the Rome Statute.
Non-signatories are overwhelmingly represented by a handful of countries with very large populations. None of the 5 most populated countries in the world are signatories, and out of the 10 most populated, only 4 are signatories (Nigeria, Brazil, Bangladesh, and Mexico). Out of the top 20 most populated countries, 10 are signatories.
Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey have all previously expressed intentions of signing the Rome Statute, if only these countries would do so, it would bring over 60% of the world’s population under it.
Non-signatories are overwhelmingly represented by a handful of countries with very large populations. None of the 5 most populated countries in the world are signatories, and out of the 10 most populated, only 4 are signatories (Nigeria, Brazil, Bangladesh, and Mexico). Out of the top 20 most populated countries, 10 are signatories.
Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey have all previously expressed intentions of signing the Rome Statute, if only these countries would do so, it would bring over 60% of the world’s population under it.
>Neither is the US nor most countries in the World.
The standard semantics of ‘most countries’ counts countries, not the people in them. Of course the related claim that the majority of /people/ do not live in state parties to the Rome Statute has different truth conditions.
The standard semantics of ‘most countries’ counts countries, not the people in them. Of course the related claim that the majority of /people/ do not live in state parties to the Rome Statute has different truth conditions.
Considering China, India, and the US didn’t sign it, the odds are considerably in favour of not being in a country that ratified it.
When the horror of what Israel has done dawns on them they might want to hand him over themselves.
I genuinely don’t understand this opinion. Israel was viscously attacked unprovoked (regardless what you think of the history of the two orgs) by the organization that governs the province. They’re states goal is to demilitarize the area while their enemy insists on playing out the war in highly populated urban areas.
This isn’t a guerilla war either, it’s the actual official government party. One who has actively promised sequels of the attack.
What would you do in such a situation?
This isn’t a guerilla war either, it’s the actual official government party. One who has actively promised sequels of the attack.
What would you do in such a situation?
I don't understand why you say "unprovoked". Gaza has been under occupation for decades (yes, it's technically an occupation, regardless of whether there are settlers or not). It's been periodically bombed, each time with as many victims as an October 7th. It's been under a complete blockade for 16 years. The fact that everything was fine in Israel on October 6th doesn't mean that there was a peace- it just means that they weren't expecting their victims to be able to fight back.
> What would you do in such a situation?
The situation is that Israel is an oppressor and an occupier, so what should it do? Well, first of all it should have made different choices in the past, honest and fair and peaceful choices. Which it didn't make, and it's its fault. But it's never too late. It should have made honest, fair and peaceful choices also in this occasion- mourned its deads, vowed to bring those responsible to justice, and engaged with Palestinian counterparts to withdraw within the 1967 borders and promote the birth of a Palestinian state.
Of course, it didn't do any of those things. It did exactly what Hamas expected.
> What would you do in such a situation?
The situation is that Israel is an oppressor and an occupier, so what should it do? Well, first of all it should have made different choices in the past, honest and fair and peaceful choices. Which it didn't make, and it's its fault. But it's never too late. It should have made honest, fair and peaceful choices also in this occasion- mourned its deads, vowed to bring those responsible to justice, and engaged with Palestinian counterparts to withdraw within the 1967 borders and promote the birth of a Palestinian state.
Of course, it didn't do any of those things. It did exactly what Hamas expected.
And, as a result, Hamas has been gone from a rent-extracting governing authority with 16 combat-effective brigades, deep connections to the IRGC, and ongoing funding not just from the Gulf States but from Israel itself(!) to an international pariah with military leadership hiding in tunnels and its last 2 allegedly combat-effective brigades preparing to make a valiant last stand behind a wall of civilian refugees in Rafah.
Yes: Israel did exactly what Hamas expected. The problem for Hamas is twofold:
* Hamas thought the urban combat to root them out of Gaza City and Khan Younis would be a Vietnam-scale bloodbath that would tie the IDF up indefinitely until they were forced to make a truce.
* Hamas's messianic nutbag leader genuinely believed that he was ushering in the end of days, and that the IRGC's other assets would immediately commit to full scale combat operations against the IDF. Instead: Hezbollah noped the hell out, and Iran launched a large scale drone attack that ended up providing a Boeing and Lockheed-style fireworks display in which other Arab states, even as Israel was massacring Palestinian civilians, pitched in to help. Then Iran "declared the matter resolved". Gulp.
Sometimes, if only strategically, it makes sense to do what your enemy wants you to, because your enemy is stupid.
Yes: Israel did exactly what Hamas expected. The problem for Hamas is twofold:
* Hamas thought the urban combat to root them out of Gaza City and Khan Younis would be a Vietnam-scale bloodbath that would tie the IDF up indefinitely until they were forced to make a truce.
* Hamas's messianic nutbag leader genuinely believed that he was ushering in the end of days, and that the IRGC's other assets would immediately commit to full scale combat operations against the IDF. Instead: Hezbollah noped the hell out, and Iran launched a large scale drone attack that ended up providing a Boeing and Lockheed-style fireworks display in which other Arab states, even as Israel was massacring Palestinian civilians, pitched in to help. Then Iran "declared the matter resolved". Gulp.
Sometimes, if only strategically, it makes sense to do what your enemy wants you to, because your enemy is stupid.
Hamas was designated a terrorist organisation and the Gaza strip was subject to a total blockade since 18 years because of Hamas having won regular elections (at the time). So much for becoming an international pariah.
No, the real news here is of course the news: the ICC seeks to arrest Israeli top leaders as much as the Hamas leaders. The subject that is going from being everyone's darling to international pariah is Israel, absolutely no doubt about this. This is a massive win for Palestine and those who claim to fight for it, including Hamas- with the potential for historical consequences.
My take is that this was the intention behind the October 7th attack- to drive Israel to such a violent retaliation as to force the world to take notice and to condemn Israel. I might be wrong and the victory might be entirely an unintended consequence. However your interpretation essentially requires Hamas to have zero knowledge of the real ratio of military force between Hamas/ Iran and Israel, and zero knowledge of the fact that the US have always been ready to commit their entire military for Israel. And even your imagined "win" scenario for Hamas is Israel committing to "a truce"- which is what they already had before Oct 7.
* Iran's fireworks display is the result of Israel, not Hamas, trying to drag Iran into the war.
No, the real news here is of course the news: the ICC seeks to arrest Israeli top leaders as much as the Hamas leaders. The subject that is going from being everyone's darling to international pariah is Israel, absolutely no doubt about this. This is a massive win for Palestine and those who claim to fight for it, including Hamas- with the potential for historical consequences.
My take is that this was the intention behind the October 7th attack- to drive Israel to such a violent retaliation as to force the world to take notice and to condemn Israel. I might be wrong and the victory might be entirely an unintended consequence. However your interpretation essentially requires Hamas to have zero knowledge of the real ratio of military force between Hamas/ Iran and Israel, and zero knowledge of the fact that the US have always been ready to commit their entire military for Israel. And even your imagined "win" scenario for Hamas is Israel committing to "a truce"- which is what they already had before Oct 7.
* Iran's fireworks display is the result of Israel, not Hamas, trying to drag Iran into the war.
> My take is that this was the intention behind the October 7th attack
I see very strong parallels between this and the Dublin 1916 rising. I don't believe the leaders of the Irish rebels could beat the British - it was seen as a "blood sacrifice" and a way to show the world the brutality of British colonial power. The Brits duly obliged and brutally put down the rising and set the wheels of an independent Ireland in motion.
I have to say though, that the 1916 rebels didn't go out of their way to kill civilians like Hamas clearly did on the 7th ...
I see very strong parallels between this and the Dublin 1916 rising. I don't believe the leaders of the Irish rebels could beat the British - it was seen as a "blood sacrifice" and a way to show the world the brutality of British colonial power. The Brits duly obliged and brutally put down the rising and set the wheels of an independent Ireland in motion.
I have to say though, that the 1916 rebels didn't go out of their way to kill civilians like Hamas clearly did on the 7th ...
> Hamas's messianic nutbag leader genuinely believed that he was ushering in the end of days
This is more or less why Israel has so much support between Evangelical Christians. A relatively large number of these people actually want the world to end because they really believe in the Rapture and that they’ll be saved.
This is more or less why Israel has so much support between Evangelical Christians. A relatively large number of these people actually want the world to end because they really believe in the Rapture and that they’ll be saved.
People overindex on this. Israel enjoys overwhelming support in both parties, and, for those unfamiliar with US politics, evangelicals belong overwhelmingly to just one of them.
In the US, not supporting Israel is political suicide.
That said, a lot of evangelicals do believe the world is about to end and are willing to pay to hasten the process.
That said, a lot of evangelicals do believe the world is about to end and are willing to pay to hasten the process.
Telling a pollster you support Israel isn't political suicide, and Americans consistently do that. It's political suicide for a politician to oppose Israel, because Americans like Israel.
There’s an immense gap between supporting Israel and a two-state solution and supporting Netanyahu and those positions should be confused. I fully support the two-state solution, but I don’t support Netanyahu and his genocidal policies.
It has not been "technically" occupied. There's no such thing. Either a place is occupied, or it's not, and Gaza was not. What is true is that most in the international community refused to accept Israel's withdrawal from Gaza as the end of Israel's occupation. That's a political statement.
You're missing an important part about tens of thousands of rockets and mortars being fired from Gaza at Israel and terrorism originating from Gaza at Israel. Israel didn't just randomly attack Gaza.
Here's what really happened in Gaza: Israel completely withdrew in 2005 and was not occupying Gaza any more. It handed the entire Gaza strip to the Palestinian Authority. There was even an agreement for safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_freedom_of_movemen...
Not to mention that even before 2005 Israel handed control of most of the Gaza strip to the PA as part of the Oslo accords (and agreement to hand Gaza and Jericho over to the Palestinians predates the Oslo accords).
In 2007 following Palestinian elections Hamas took control of the Gaza strip by force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007) Israel only imposed a full blockade of Gaza as a result of this change because Hamas' stated goal is/was the destruction of Israel. Despite Israel's blockade Gaza has a border with Egypt and had no shortage of goods (and weaponry) through smuggling and other means. There was also plenty of travel in and out of the Gaza strip (both towards Israel and the West Bank and towards Egypt) and there were plenty of good going into Gaza through Israel. Gazans also worked in Israel. Gaza also had a power station and a water desalination plant. It has billions of dollars of aid and investment flowing into it (Ismail Hanyah needs to be a billionaire after all).
So Israel was neither an oppressor nor an occupier in Gaza. It took actions to try and prevent Hamas from arming itself.
The other part wrong with your premise is that Palestinians want to live in peace with Israel within the 1967 borders. They do not. Maybe some of them do. But many do not. When the Oslo peace process was accelerating towards that goal Palestinians started a suicide bombing campaign against Israeli civilians which results in the killing of Rabin, the rise of the right, and the termination of the peace process.
EDIT:
Bombings by Hamas starting 1993: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_at...
Rabin's assassination 1995: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin
1993: Oslo accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords
2007: Blockade of Gaza: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip
2005: Disengagement from Gaza: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaz...
Rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_...
Gaza-Israel barrier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_barrier
You're missing an important part about tens of thousands of rockets and mortars being fired from Gaza at Israel and terrorism originating from Gaza at Israel. Israel didn't just randomly attack Gaza.
Here's what really happened in Gaza: Israel completely withdrew in 2005 and was not occupying Gaza any more. It handed the entire Gaza strip to the Palestinian Authority. There was even an agreement for safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_freedom_of_movemen...
Not to mention that even before 2005 Israel handed control of most of the Gaza strip to the PA as part of the Oslo accords (and agreement to hand Gaza and Jericho over to the Palestinians predates the Oslo accords).
In 2007 following Palestinian elections Hamas took control of the Gaza strip by force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007) Israel only imposed a full blockade of Gaza as a result of this change because Hamas' stated goal is/was the destruction of Israel. Despite Israel's blockade Gaza has a border with Egypt and had no shortage of goods (and weaponry) through smuggling and other means. There was also plenty of travel in and out of the Gaza strip (both towards Israel and the West Bank and towards Egypt) and there were plenty of good going into Gaza through Israel. Gazans also worked in Israel. Gaza also had a power station and a water desalination plant. It has billions of dollars of aid and investment flowing into it (Ismail Hanyah needs to be a billionaire after all).
So Israel was neither an oppressor nor an occupier in Gaza. It took actions to try and prevent Hamas from arming itself.
The other part wrong with your premise is that Palestinians want to live in peace with Israel within the 1967 borders. They do not. Maybe some of them do. But many do not. When the Oslo peace process was accelerating towards that goal Palestinians started a suicide bombing campaign against Israeli civilians which results in the killing of Rabin, the rise of the right, and the termination of the peace process.
EDIT:
Bombings by Hamas starting 1993: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_at...
Rabin's assassination 1995: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin
1993: Oslo accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords
2007: Blockade of Gaza: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip
2005: Disengagement from Gaza: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaz...
Rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_...
Gaza-Israel barrier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_barrier
> It has not been "technically" occupied. There's no such thing. Either a place is occupied, or it's not, and Gaza was not.
Gaza is considered an occupied territory by all international bodies with the power and authority to make such a determination, for excellent reasons that you can look up. End of the story. What you do (and Israel does, for propaganda purposes) is to confuse the civilian settlement with the military occupation, or to pretend that since soldiers are not inside Gaza but just all around its borders, Gaza is free. Which is like saying that a prison camp is free if the guards are all outside the fence.
Gaza is considered an occupied territory by all international bodies with the power and authority to make such a determination, for excellent reasons that you can look up. End of the story. What you do (and Israel does, for propaganda purposes) is to confuse the civilian settlement with the military occupation, or to pretend that since soldiers are not inside Gaza but just all around its borders, Gaza is free. Which is like saying that a prison camp is free if the guards are all outside the fence.
It's not technically occupied. Israel just controls their border with Gaza. And their coastline. And their airspace, also bombed their airport. Oh and the border to Egypt as nobody can visit Gaza without Israels approval.
Israels continued denial of a Palestinian state and the basic rights of statehood, like the control of their own borders, is what makes it an occupation.
Netanyahu has supported Hamas long before 2005 as part of a divide and conquer strategy. The elections were pushed by Bush at a time when PA were seen as corrupt. When they lost Bush tried to get them to coup and Hamas took over and kicked them out as a reaction to that.
>In July 1995, Netanyahu led a mock funeral procession featuring a coffin and hangman's noose at an anti-Rabin rally where protesters chanted, "Death to Rabin"
Should tell is everything we need to know about the people in power now.
Maybe the Palestinians were not happy with the deal, them losing their land. Not to forget previous atrocities perpetrated by Jewish terrorists and the nakba.
Netanyahu has supported Hamas long before 2005 as part of a divide and conquer strategy. The elections were pushed by Bush at a time when PA were seen as corrupt. When they lost Bush tried to get them to coup and Hamas took over and kicked them out as a reaction to that.
>In July 1995, Netanyahu led a mock funeral procession featuring a coffin and hangman's noose at an anti-Rabin rally where protesters chanted, "Death to Rabin"
Should tell is everything we need to know about the people in power now.
Maybe the Palestinians were not happy with the deal, them losing their land. Not to forget previous atrocities perpetrated by Jewish terrorists and the nakba.
Israel does not control the Egypt border and almost all of this is opinion through implication not fact. This type of post does not belong on this message board.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing
> Under a 2007 agreement between Egypt and Israel, Egypt controls the crossing but imports through the Rafah crossing require Israeli approval.
> Under a 2007 agreement between Egypt and Israel, Egypt controls the crossing but imports through the Rafah crossing require Israeli approval.
This is Egypt's choice. Egypt has the control. If they choose to let Israel have a say it's their choice. Their making an agreement with Israel != Israel controls the border. Plenty of tunnels too but that's besides the point.
> This is Egypt's choice.
Doubly untrue today; Israel took complete control of it on May 6.
Doubly untrue today; Israel took complete control of it on May 6.
[deleted]
Are you even able to criticise Israel for anything?
YZF(1)
As a fairly emotionally disinterested party: greater specificity of strikes, focus on Hamas leadership. It seems to me that Israel (and the west more generally) will be facing a generation of motivated terrorists in about 15-20 years, as the young people who went through this come of age.
People say this a lot, for obvious and fair reasons, but it's worth noting that a rational policy person in Israel could look at Hamas as a distinct and unlikely form of militant nationalism: overtly Islamist, funded and trained by the IRGC, and led (since 2017) by a messianic lunatic.
I've been saying, only kind of jokingly, that a more likely outcome than arrest or Israel-directed assassination of Sinwar is Haniya (or his successor) taking him out to a field to talk about the alfalfa they're going to plant, and how Sinwar will get to feed the rabbits. Sinwar really fucked Hamas over here. Easy to lose sight of how good a thing they had going! It had tacit Israeli government support and was making a bunch of Hamas people fairly rich.
Anyways, from that point of view: yes, killing tens of thousands of civilians is certainly going to radicalize people and drive them into militant groups. But those groups might look more like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades than the Al-Qassam Brigades.
I've been saying, only kind of jokingly, that a more likely outcome than arrest or Israel-directed assassination of Sinwar is Haniya (or his successor) taking him out to a field to talk about the alfalfa they're going to plant, and how Sinwar will get to feed the rabbits. Sinwar really fucked Hamas over here. Easy to lose sight of how good a thing they had going! It had tacit Israeli government support and was making a bunch of Hamas people fairly rich.
Anyways, from that point of view: yes, killing tens of thousands of civilians is certainly going to radicalize people and drive them into militant groups. But those groups might look more like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades than the Al-Qassam Brigades.
After having signed the Abraham Accords, Israel could have gone a long way to keeping their hands clean by pursuing Hamas through a joint effort with Egypt, UAE, KSA, and other states in the region. Israel has a long history working with Egypt regarding Gaza. Several actors in the region that already receive tacit US support are opposed to perceived Islamic dictatorships due to various complicated reasons. There are complicated reasons why Israel didn't and continue not to, a lot of which comes down to having a direct line to US support, but this option was something they could have done and chose not to. Though full disclosure, I'm not an unbiased party here, but I can view this situation from a realpolitik lens as well.
I mean, I agree. I'm a 2-stater. Netanyahu and his governing coalition have for a decade now been redlining "culpability" as far as I'm concerned!
(I'll say again though that Hamas in 2018 is a different entity than Hamas in 2016. They're both very bad organizations, but only one of them was literally working to bring about the end of days.)
(I'll say again though that Hamas in 2018 is a different entity than Hamas in 2016. They're both very bad organizations, but only one of them was literally working to bring about the end of days.)
IMO Israel is digging its own grave in the region by being so unwilling to work with their neighbors. KSA and UAE are brutal to opponents and KSA's own meddling in the region shows that they'd do anything to keep militant Islamism from gaining a larger foothold in the region. All they had to do was to open up a dialogue with their neighbors, it would have stopped Muslims from unifying around this issue, probably normalized relations even further between these states, and would have given Israel significant leverage in the region as a bulwark of diplomatic stewardship. Now even though the US is doing everything they can to tow the line between supporting Israel and stopping a bloodbath, Israel itself has probably lost any and all support from its neighbors sans maybe Egypt, and the US will be hard-pressed to offer support in further instances of aggression against Israel.
I'm less sure. I think the most salient conflict in MENA is between the Arab states and Iran, not Israel and Palestine (look no further than the grim track record of the surrounding states at actually helping Palestinians for evidence).
It's hard to look at October 7th and its aftermath as anything but a setback for literally every party in the region. Even Iran seems to have been caught flat footed.
It's hard to look at October 7th and its aftermath as anything but a setback for literally every party in the region. Even Iran seems to have been caught flat footed.
In one respect, October 7th was a success for Hamas. Before then, it looked likely that most of the Arab countries would have made peace with Israel without Israel having to concede an iota on the Palestinian issue. After the attack and Israel's response, Israel probably has to make visible progress on the issue before the current holdouts would move forward, or at least wait 10, 15 years before everything is forgotten.
It would end up in a proxy war, surely. Iran would back Hamas and a coalition of KSA, UAE, Egypt, and Israel would spearhead the Gaza situation from the other side. It's still a shitty outcome but IMO a better one. For one, regional actors are incentivized to deal with the situation in a way that spillover doesn't affect them (Lebanon and Egypt have both been vocal about not accepting refugees), but most importantly it wouldn't be as affected by the US political news cycle and the heart-rending imperialism that creates (essentially American domestic interests and politics affecting regional politics in the Middle East, meaning Palestinians have no say over their own politics in any meaningful way, unlike American college students.) The biggest risk would probably be Russian and Chinese interests coming into the region which would surely prompt a US reaction, but I'm not sure how much Russia or China would have to gain here if the US were not involved.
It would have probably ended in a civil war type situation but at least you wouldn't have widespread famine or the bombing of hospitals or further civilian atrocities. Also forcing regional states to allocate their own resources to the conflict means there's a direct incentive to wind it down since their resources are a lot smaller than the resources of the US. Israel would eventually face domestic pushback over wartime spending and the autocratic states in the region would have to balance their funding of the proxy conflict against their own ambitions and budgets. Iran is somewhat democratic and they too could only fund Hamas so far before looking after their own affairs. A civil war would also create a generation fatigued by conflict and more open to compromise. The unilateral nature of this conflict will guarantee that Palestinians and dissidents in the region will hold this as a grudge over Israel and the US for decades and might even open the possibility of further terrorism against the US.
The US's own nation building efforts in the Middle East after 9/11 flagged due to outrageous spending that materialized in minimal results. The same effect with poorer governments would naturally circumscribe the conflict in the area.
It would have probably ended in a civil war type situation but at least you wouldn't have widespread famine or the bombing of hospitals or further civilian atrocities. Also forcing regional states to allocate their own resources to the conflict means there's a direct incentive to wind it down since their resources are a lot smaller than the resources of the US. Israel would eventually face domestic pushback over wartime spending and the autocratic states in the region would have to balance their funding of the proxy conflict against their own ambitions and budgets. Iran is somewhat democratic and they too could only fund Hamas so far before looking after their own affairs. A civil war would also create a generation fatigued by conflict and more open to compromise. The unilateral nature of this conflict will guarantee that Palestinians and dissidents in the region will hold this as a grudge over Israel and the US for decades and might even open the possibility of further terrorism against the US.
The US's own nation building efforts in the Middle East after 9/11 flagged due to outrageous spending that materialized in minimal results. The same effect with poorer governments would naturally circumscribe the conflict in the area.
> Easy to lose sight of how good a thing they had going!
Some millions from Qatar with no political engagement towards 2SS isn't good by any measure. It was most certainly good for the Israelis: the Abraham Accords and recognition of the Western Golan Heights + Jerusalem by the US, with practically no opposition.
Sinwar may be a lunatic, but we'd be lunatics just the same to assume Hamas were happy with the status quo. They are not PA for a reason.
Some millions from Qatar with no political engagement towards 2SS isn't good by any measure. It was most certainly good for the Israelis: the Abraham Accords and recognition of the Western Golan Heights + Jerusalem by the US, with practically no opposition.
Sinwar may be a lunatic, but we'd be lunatics just the same to assume Hamas were happy with the status quo. They are not PA for a reason.
> but it's worth noting that a rational policy person in Israel could look at Hamas as a distinct and unlikely form of militant nationalism: overtly Islamist, funded and trained by the IRGC, and led (since 2017) by a messianic lunatic.
Funded and trained by Mossad and others too, at times. In fact, Netanyahu was approving tens of millions a month to Hamas to stay militant and provide a more extremist opposition to Arafat and the PLO who were calming down and more peaceable in their old age.
This is the thing that really gets frustrating.
Israel's hard right is as opposed to a two state system as Hamas is. People point to "from the river to the sea" as "proof" of Hamas' genocidal intent (and I won't pretend they haven't said other things to that end, either), ignoring that it was literally Likud's platform slogan since the 1970s.
Funded and trained by Mossad and others too, at times. In fact, Netanyahu was approving tens of millions a month to Hamas to stay militant and provide a more extremist opposition to Arafat and the PLO who were calming down and more peaceable in their old age.
This is the thing that really gets frustrating.
Israel's hard right is as opposed to a two state system as Hamas is. People point to "from the river to the sea" as "proof" of Hamas' genocidal intent (and I won't pretend they haven't said other things to that end, either), ignoring that it was literally Likud's platform slogan since the 1970s.
>...Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades than the Al-Qassam Brigades.
Can you tell me more about the difference here?
Can you tell me more about the difference here?
The former is the former armed wing of Fatah, the latter of Hamas. Fatah is a (notoriously corrupt) secular nationalist organization. The story goes that Netanyahu tacitly supported and helped fund Hamas for many years as a check against Fatah consolidating power into a coherent Palestinian state.
The first is Fatah/PLO, who are in many ways much closer to, eg, the IRA (also nominally religiously inspired) than what we understand as modern Islamist terrorist groups.
Yea,but the thing that changed was Saudi flipping more western recently. It meant that directionally the region was going have a much bigger problem with this kind of behavior in the future and it seems like (as an amateur) they saw the writing on the wall and thought the more messy the region gets the longer it would take to move toward a capitalist ideals motivated region.
This statement about Israel creating a new generation of terrorists is said a lot but I think we have pretty strong counterexamples. Germans didn't become motivated terrorists after WW-II despite great devastation and killing of civilians by the Allies. Neither did Japan. I'm sure there are similar WW-I examples. One might argue that not fighting this war until the enemy surrenders is a much stronger motivation for terrorism. A more recent example might be Russia's campaign against Chechnya or Sri Lanka's campaign against the Tamil Tigers, both fought until the enemy was crushed and both seemingly have for now resolved the terrorism issue.
With respect to your proposal. Can you be more specific about how Israel is supposed to target Hamas leadership when they are in tunnels underground below civilian populations and holding hostages? That Hamas leadership is not dead is not due to lack of Israel trying to target them specifically. I don't think it's possible to get at Hamas without taking over the entire Gaza strip which leads me to repeat the OP's question of what would you do. Another question is whether you're suggesting to give free pass to the Oct 7'th attackers and kidnappers (which seems to be implied by saying "focus on Hamas leadership").
With respect to your proposal. Can you be more specific about how Israel is supposed to target Hamas leadership when they are in tunnels underground below civilian populations and holding hostages? That Hamas leadership is not dead is not due to lack of Israel trying to target them specifically. I don't think it's possible to get at Hamas without taking over the entire Gaza strip which leads me to repeat the OP's question of what would you do. Another question is whether you're suggesting to give free pass to the Oct 7'th attackers and kidnappers (which seems to be implied by saying "focus on Hamas leadership").
> Germans didn't become motivated terrorists after WW-II despite great devastation and killing of civilians by the Allies. Neither did Japan. I'm sure there are similar WW-I examples.
Heh this is funny because this was an explicit concern for the US after WWII. This is the reason behind the creation of the Marshal Plan and directly the reason why the US occupied both Germany and Japan and assisted in nation building there. The idea that losing a war leads to radicalism is as old as WWII, but probably even older, as the UK came to a similar conclusion when divesting its colonies in South Asia.
For more recent cases on how political instability and sectarian conflict leads to a rise in terrorism, look at what happened in Iraq after the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the dissolution of the Baathist party.
Heh this is funny because this was an explicit concern for the US after WWII. This is the reason behind the creation of the Marshal Plan and directly the reason why the US occupied both Germany and Japan and assisted in nation building there. The idea that losing a war leads to radicalism is as old as WWII, but probably even older, as the UK came to a similar conclusion when divesting its colonies in South Asia.
For more recent cases on how political instability and sectarian conflict leads to a rise in terrorism, look at what happened in Iraq after the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the dissolution of the Baathist party.
An absolutely wild video from the time about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=821R0lGUL6A
If you've never seen "Your Job In Germany", bookmark and it and make sure you do at some point. It is pretty unreal.
Of course, the counterpoint here is: the reason we worried about German terrorism but didn't see it is because we trained our forces with videos like this, and we were the nice guys about it compared to the Soviets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=821R0lGUL6A
If you've never seen "Your Job In Germany", bookmark and it and make sure you do at some point. It is pretty unreal.
Of course, the counterpoint here is: the reason we worried about German terrorism but didn't see it is because we trained our forces with videos like this, and we were the nice guys about it compared to the Soviets.
Right. But first the Germans were defeated totally. They were forced to surrender. Imagine if the war was halted with massive German casualties but with the Nazis still in power. Which option results in more radicalization?
Not if they win decisively and eradicate not just the terrorists, but the terrorist indoctrination as well.
Note: there hasn't been a "generation of motivated terrorists" coming out of Japan and Germany after WWII, those populations were entirely subdued.
Note: there hasn't been a "generation of motivated terrorists" coming out of Japan and Germany after WWII, those populations were entirely subdued.
Having your parents, or your children, “eradicated” by someone is a powerful motivator.
> Having your parents, or your children, “eradicated” by someone is a powerful motivator
But again, Japanese and Germans aren’t blowing up Americans and Indians aren’t blowing up London. Claiming this will create more terrorists is saying the Palestinians are irredeemably violent. I don’t think that’s right.
But again, Japanese and Germans aren’t blowing up Americans and Indians aren’t blowing up London. Claiming this will create more terrorists is saying the Palestinians are irredeemably violent. I don’t think that’s right.
Both Japan and Germany were left with their home countries and were given substantial aid to rebuild after the war. That aid was given by their former enemies.
Unfortunately I don't see it as very likely that Israel will give back all the territory in Gaza and provide aid to the Palestinians to rebuild.
Unfortunately I don't see it as very likely that Israel will give back all the territory in Gaza and provide aid to the Palestinians to rebuild.
This has been the case for the past decade - Israel has been financing Gaza and providing it with resources (e.g. electricity) as well as jobs.
Gaza was quite beautiful! And given its prime location on the mediterranean sea, I don't see why it couldn't be built up again.
https://twitter.com/InsiderWorld_1/status/178854608101537840...
But of course the massive mistake was not eradicating the evil terrorist genocidal mentality of its nominal leadership, Hamas. Israel (and the world) shouldn't make that mistake again.
Gaza was quite beautiful! And given its prime location on the mediterranean sea, I don't see why it couldn't be built up again.
https://twitter.com/InsiderWorld_1/status/178854608101537840...
But of course the massive mistake was not eradicating the evil terrorist genocidal mentality of its nominal leadership, Hamas. Israel (and the world) shouldn't make that mistake again.
Is it true that the Likud was helping to finance Hamas’ opposition to the Fatah as a way to ensure a two-state solution would remain non-viable?
Israel was financing Gaza but not providing Gazan Palestinians political representation. Germans and Japanese were "given" a state where they had full rights as citizens. Political representation is an important way to defuse tensions and provide political legitimacy to a new regime. Even autocratic governments like China or Iran are beholden to the whims of their people, even if they can afford to ignore some. Israelis don't have to care about Palestinians at all. They can turn the strip into a tourist destination and no matter how much the Palestinians protest they have no representation to affect the government's course.
Gazan Palestinians don't even have limited local rule the way Chinese autonomous regions or Puerto Rico do.
Note that despite aid and the occupation, Japan had significant unrest following the war. The Communist Party of Japan's candidate Inejirou Asanuma was assassinated by an imperial revanchist on Oct 12, 1960 [1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Inejir%C5%8D_...
Gazan Palestinians don't even have limited local rule the way Chinese autonomous regions or Puerto Rico do.
Note that despite aid and the occupation, Japan had significant unrest following the war. The Communist Party of Japan's candidate Inejirou Asanuma was assassinated by an imperial revanchist on Oct 12, 1960 [1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Inejir%C5%8D_...
> Israel [...] will be facing a generation of motivated terrorists in about 15-20 years
The Palestinians are taught from primary school to hate Jews[1] (books paid with western money). They couldn't possibly hate Jews more.
[1]: https://www.cfr.org/blog/teaching-palestinian-children-value...
The Palestinians are taught from primary school to hate Jews[1] (books paid with western money). They couldn't possibly hate Jews more.
[1]: https://www.cfr.org/blog/teaching-palestinian-children-value...
Well that’s what happens when you cowardly murder people in the middle of the night and turf them out of their ancestral homeland
Well if you believe it was unprovoked then I can understand why this point of view would be so confusing.
> Israel was viscously attacked unprovoked
Are you denying Nakba with 'unprovoked'? I recommend you read through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba_denial
Are you denying Nakba with 'unprovoked'? I recommend you read through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba_denial
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
As the other person stated, more targeted attacks. Israel is well known for their assassinations of Iranians. Why not Palestinians too?
I promise you, Israel does plenty of targeted assassinations in Palestine. For instance [0] (mildly graphic, shots are fired by Israeli assassination squad into car) - stuff like this is very common in WB and now Gaza.
[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/17p7mfx/bett...
[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/17p7mfx/bett...
> Israel was viscously attacked unprovoked
Unprovoked is a stretch.
Settlers have been given free rein to commit terror acts all throughout the Palestinian Territories.
And Hamas has been propped up by the Netanyahu government for years.
Unprovoked is a stretch.
Settlers have been given free rein to commit terror acts all throughout the Palestinian Territories.
And Hamas has been propped up by the Netanyahu government for years.
> Settlers have been given free rein to commit terror acts all throughout the Palestinian Territories.
Not quite:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_G...
This is not to say that Israel permitted Gaza to have any reasonable sort of economic development (as a simple example, it’s effectively a country with two not-very-open land borders and no port, which surely made trade rather challenging).
If you want an analogy, imagine roughly the population of San Francisco plus San Mateo County, but with under half the land area, hostile relations and extremely limited travel across the land border with Santa Clara County and points South, with no bridges and no port. Throw in a near-complete dependency on Santa Clara for water and electricity, and nowhere near enough agriculture. (At least San Mateo County has a decent amount of farming to the West.) Take out the hot tech scene as well, and the economic situation would not be awesome.
Not quite:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_G...
This is not to say that Israel permitted Gaza to have any reasonable sort of economic development (as a simple example, it’s effectively a country with two not-very-open land borders and no port, which surely made trade rather challenging).
If you want an analogy, imagine roughly the population of San Francisco plus San Mateo County, but with under half the land area, hostile relations and extremely limited travel across the land border with Santa Clara County and points South, with no bridges and no port. Throw in a near-complete dependency on Santa Clara for water and electricity, and nowhere near enough agriculture. (At least San Mateo County has a decent amount of farming to the West.) Take out the hot tech scene as well, and the economic situation would not be awesome.
Palestinians in Gaza were not provoked and there were no settlers in the Gaza strip. Not sure about your last statement there, Hamas being propped up by Netanyahu was how Israel provoked them to attack?
What was the total number of Palestinians killed by Settler terrorist attacks in 2022? Do you have that handy? What was the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorist attacks during that time?
What was the total number of Palestinians killed by Settler terrorist attacks in 2022? Do you have that handy? What was the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorist attacks during that time?
Gaza is under military occupation by most definitions, that is provocation.
167 Palestinians and 12 Israelis in the west bank. All deaths, not just by settlers etc.
167 Palestinians and 12 Israelis in the west bank. All deaths, not just by settlers etc.
Gaza was not under military occupation by any definition. That is a fact that anyone can verify for themselves. Gaza was put under a blockade in 2007 after Hamas came to power (still has a border with Egypt, maybe Egypt is actually occupying Gaza by your definition). A blockade is not an occupation.
Maybe by "is" you mean since Oct 7th. But again that's not provocation, that's after the fact. If you think Gaza was occupied how come the IDF needs to re-occupy it?
Maybe by "is" you mean since Oct 7th. But again that's not provocation, that's after the fact. If you think Gaza was occupied how come the IDF needs to re-occupy it?
>A blockade is not an occupation.
Killing people and children along the border is NOT a characteristic of occupation. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230513-gaza-israel-confe...
Counting calories of food consumed by Gazans is not occupation : https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE89G0NM/
Restricting water supply is most definitely not an act of occupying power : https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/11/the-occu...
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2021-0...
All these are before the Oct 7.
Killing people and children along the border is NOT a characteristic of occupation. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230513-gaza-israel-confe...
Counting calories of food consumed by Gazans is not occupation : https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE89G0NM/
Restricting water supply is most definitely not an act of occupying power : https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/11/the-occu...
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2021-0...
All these are before the Oct 7.
You're evading my question. For good reasons. It doesn't support your case.
If a Palestinian attempts to stab someone and is shot that's not the same situation as "settler" terrorist attacks.
I think you should answer my question.
Also please count Israelis in Israel killed by Palestinians from the west bank.
If a Palestinian attempts to stab someone and is shot that's not the same situation as "settler" terrorist attacks.
I think you should answer my question.
Also please count Israelis in Israel killed by Palestinians from the west bank.
Unprovoked, really?
60% of homes destroyed, 80% of schools, all universities, 31/35 hospitals.
What Israel [0] could have done was to not create this situation in the first place, but their goal was never solve it anyway.
[0] I mean the current government in power and right wing extremist settlers
60% of homes destroyed, 80% of schools, all universities, 31/35 hospitals.
What Israel [0] could have done was to not create this situation in the first place, but their goal was never solve it anyway.
[0] I mean the current government in power and right wing extremist settlers
I believe we're talking about the provocation for the Oct 7th attacks and you are giving us the outcome of the war that was a result of that attack? Is there time travel involved here?
Israel withdrew from Gaza. Is your proposal that Israel should not have withdrawn to "not create the situation in the first place"? Or re-taken Gaza when Hamas took it over from Fatah by force in 2007 after winning the elections?
Israel withdrew from Gaza. Is your proposal that Israel should not have withdrawn to "not create the situation in the first place"? Or re-taken Gaza when Hamas took it over from Fatah by force in 2007 after winning the elections?
The provocation is the continued blockade and military occupation of Gaza, as that is what most consider it to be. With the exception of the US and Israel of course.
Not to mention the continuation of apartheid in Israel itself and expansion of settlements in the west bank.
This situation was created because Netanyahu has supported Hamas for a long time, even before 2005, as a classic divide and conquer strategy, to not allow PA to control both territories. But the US also helped as Bush forced elections early when PA had a reputation of being corrupt, and when they lost the election they tried to get PA to do a coup and Hamas kicked them out from Gaza.
Not to mention the continuation of apartheid in Israel itself and expansion of settlements in the west bank.
This situation was created because Netanyahu has supported Hamas for a long time, even before 2005, as a classic divide and conquer strategy, to not allow PA to control both territories. But the US also helped as Bush forced elections early when PA had a reputation of being corrupt, and when they lost the election they tried to get PA to do a coup and Hamas kicked them out from Gaza.
You're mixing stuff up. Why are you looking at "what most consider it to be"? How can you be military occupying a place where your military is not and you are not. There is no way there was a military occupation of Gaza by any normal definition of this term. Gaza was under the authority and control of the government of Hamas. Not of Israel. The rest is politics.
There's no apartheid in Israel itself but let's not get into that.
Expansion of settlements in the west bank. True. I don't understand how that's a provocation to Gazans to rape and murder random Israeli civilians. It's also true that Netanyahu pursued a divide and conquer approach. Again you're trying to claim that Israel's support of Hamas' rule in Gaza is provocation for Hamas to launch attacks on Israel civilians which makes no sense.
EDIT: To be fair the legal question of "when does an occupation end" is complicated. Gaza was occupied from Egypt and Egypt does not want it back. The uni-lateral withdrawal of Israel without a peace agreement left Gaza in a weird legal situation. This is why despite Gaza being under Palestinian control and not occupied the legal state of occupation is perhaps not fully resolved. There's reality on the ground though (not occupied) and international law status (debated).
There's no apartheid in Israel itself but let's not get into that.
Expansion of settlements in the west bank. True. I don't understand how that's a provocation to Gazans to rape and murder random Israeli civilians. It's also true that Netanyahu pursued a divide and conquer approach. Again you're trying to claim that Israel's support of Hamas' rule in Gaza is provocation for Hamas to launch attacks on Israel civilians which makes no sense.
EDIT: To be fair the legal question of "when does an occupation end" is complicated. Gaza was occupied from Egypt and Egypt does not want it back. The uni-lateral withdrawal of Israel without a peace agreement left Gaza in a weird legal situation. This is why despite Gaza being under Palestinian control and not occupied the legal state of occupation is perhaps not fully resolved. There's reality on the ground though (not occupied) and international law status (debated).
I mean the UN, Amnesty, other organizations like them. Israel has controlled their land borders, even the one to Egypt, their water and airspace. They control what goes in and out, people and goods. They might have left but Gaza is not free.
No apartheid? I guess Palestinians enjoy the right to return then? https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-...
The west bank is part of the whole situation, of course it matters to Gaza what happens there. It also shows exactly what would happen if Hamas did not exist, Israel would continue to allow settlers to take land and homes. I'm not saying that Hamas should exist, but its very much a situation created by Israel themselves and Hamas has support from Palestinians because of Israels actions.
May the hasbara be strong in you.
No apartheid? I guess Palestinians enjoy the right to return then? https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-...
The west bank is part of the whole situation, of course it matters to Gaza what happens there. It also shows exactly what would happen if Hamas did not exist, Israel would continue to allow settlers to take land and homes. I'm not saying that Hamas should exist, but its very much a situation created by Israel themselves and Hamas has support from Palestinians because of Israels actions.
May the hasbara be strong in you.
Do Germans that were expelled from the Sudettes have a right to return? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudeten_Germans
Does this make the Czech Republic an Apartheid state?
Is Russia an Apartheid state? Can Ukranian refugees return to their homes? What about the millions of other refugees from random places?
There is zero connection between the right of return (which does not exist, refugees have no right to return after they lost a war) and Apartheid.
It's not "Hasbara" (which means explaining in Hebrew, so yes, I'm explaining). It's just common sense.
Does this make the Czech Republic an Apartheid state?
Is Russia an Apartheid state? Can Ukranian refugees return to their homes? What about the millions of other refugees from random places?
There is zero connection between the right of return (which does not exist, refugees have no right to return after they lost a war) and Apartheid.
It's not "Hasbara" (which means explaining in Hebrew, so yes, I'm explaining). It's just common sense.
> Do Germans that were expelled from the Sudettes have a right to return?
With both the Cezchs and the Germans being in the EU, they very much do, yes.
> Is Russia an Apartheid state?
Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagestan, etc. are explicitly set up as ethnostates within Russia.
With both the Cezchs and the Germans being in the EU, they very much do, yes.
> Is Russia an Apartheid state?
Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagestan, etc. are explicitly set up as ethnostates within Russia.
>which does not exist, refugees have no right to return after they lost a war
Really? The entire point of the Aliyah for return to Israel is that they lost against Romans, and they expelled them. Or is it selective injustice to the Palestinians?
Really? The entire point of the Aliyah for return to Israel is that they lost against Romans, and they expelled them. Or is it selective injustice to the Palestinians?
They killed and raped kids at a concert. If calling that unprovoked terror is too far across the aisle, it’s hard to imagine an intellectually honest conversation, no?
Its not unprovoked because its an ongoing conflict and occupation, it cannot be viewed in isolation no matter how horrible it was.
What? They targeted innocents at a music festival, the people you’re talking about are dying during war time in the actual theatre of war. Can you seriously not agree that the target and method of killing is very different?
input_sh(4)
"How far will the US and/or Israel go to threaten or discredit the ICC leadership?"
I think the US would not comment on the matter. Candidates for Office (Trump) would loudly comment about it.
The US has deep political and geopolitical ties with Israel. It will never go agaisnt Israel (the country) when it matters.
I think the US would not comment on the matter. Candidates for Office (Trump) would loudly comment about it.
The US has deep political and geopolitical ties with Israel. It will never go agaisnt Israel (the country) when it matters.
I could see the US pulling back on Israel if it starts to cost them soft power elsewhere, but you're fundamentally correct. Israel is the primary instrument of US hegemony in the middle east, and they aren't going to risk losing that.
Biden has already started drawing lines though. He has been actively been distinguishing between defensive and offensive use cases and basically saying that US aid isn’t for the latter
Likely just political nonsense to help stop the (supposed) bleeding from the swing states. As it stands, if the election were held today polls show a massive loss for him.
What even is his plan anymore? Keep beating the "im better than Trump" drum and hope for the best?
What even is his plan anymore? Keep beating the "im better than Trump" drum and hope for the best?
Yes, that appears to be his plan.
Personally I'm no fan of the two party duopoly and 2020 was my first time voting for a mainstream party in a national election (after decades of voting). Lest we forget, the last Trump term had a paralyzed federal government incapable (unwilling?) to respond to national or international crises, the polar opposite of leadership with the bully pulpit used to divide as if still campaigning, and culminated in an economic catastrophe of massive inflation that we're still reeling from today. And that was all before the chode embraced wholesale-reality-rejecting big lies, and grew a massive chip on his shoulder indicating a desire for straight revenge on his political opponents. So at least to me, affirmatively supporting the conservative option of Biden simply so we continue to have a country to criticize, despite all of the abhorrent status quo military industrial surveillance complex shit continuing to go on, has a pretty strong appeal. If "I'm better than Trump" can't carry the election on its own, then frankly we're doomed.
All of what you said basically indicated your elite status in a country where a majority of people are in so much trouble that they cant scrounge up 500$ for an emergency expense.
[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/31/63percent-of-workers-are-una...
There is an argument to be made that the country is not thinking about any of this stuff at all and they will base their vote on how they feel come election time.
On the flipside, there is also evidence to indicate that Trump has completely lost the independent vote which you need to win the election.
You know what would help save the country? If Biden did not seek re-election. After all, he originally called himself a 'transition' president in 2020. His selfish behavior is the reason we are even having a discussion. There still might be time to swap him out at the convention if things get really bad but there is an argument to be made that the large Muslim community in Michigan would rather punish him for Israel/Palestine and accept Trump than give him the satisfaction that he so desires of being a two term president.
Thats all Biden seems to really care about and by making him the president that lost the country to Trump, it will be a greater way to get payback than anything else they can try.
[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/31/63percent-of-workers-are-una...
There is an argument to be made that the country is not thinking about any of this stuff at all and they will base their vote on how they feel come election time.
On the flipside, there is also evidence to indicate that Trump has completely lost the independent vote which you need to win the election.
You know what would help save the country? If Biden did not seek re-election. After all, he originally called himself a 'transition' president in 2020. His selfish behavior is the reason we are even having a discussion. There still might be time to swap him out at the convention if things get really bad but there is an argument to be made that the large Muslim community in Michigan would rather punish him for Israel/Palestine and accept Trump than give him the satisfaction that he so desires of being a two term president.
Thats all Biden seems to really care about and by making him the president that lost the country to Trump, it will be a greater way to get payback than anything else they can try.
I certainly do understand that dynamic of economic stress causing poor decisions. It's just a terrible setup when a president/party can trash the economy, and then pin the results on their opponent-successor as the effects play out over several years. See also the ongoing Trump income tax increases that were baked into law in 2017. To the extent voters are gullible enough to fall for this, as I said, we're doomed.
In general I don't see why the Israel situation should be laid at Biden's feet specifically, as opposed to the Israeli lobby that has had a stranglehold on US politics for quite some time. Short of waiting for generational change, the only way to sidestep that would be to paralyze the US government's foreign policy, but that also means the end of US hegemony, USD as a reserve currency, and the generally high standard of living we take for granted. Frankly it's odd to attack such conservatism as a "privileged" position, when the fact of the matter is that people with wealth will be generally fine regardless of what happens.
As for Biden, his personal aspirations, and internal party jockeying, I've got little opinion. Swap in another not-Trump candidate and I'll vote for them instead. Personally at this point I'd likely support someone even if they were a blue-flavored extremist, because the incumbent power structure would be inherently set to resist them, whereas at this point a reelection of criminal Trump would essentially be throwing in the towel on our system of government. But obviously another extremist would turn a lot of people off, and let so called "conservatives" maintain their cognitive dissonance that Trumpism is about conserving anything at all.
Ultimately I think if we want to throw off the chains of the military industrial surveillance complex, we've got to take that bottom-up from the grassroots (eg decentralized communications tech) rather than thinking a power vacuum at the top will lead to anything good.
In general I don't see why the Israel situation should be laid at Biden's feet specifically, as opposed to the Israeli lobby that has had a stranglehold on US politics for quite some time. Short of waiting for generational change, the only way to sidestep that would be to paralyze the US government's foreign policy, but that also means the end of US hegemony, USD as a reserve currency, and the generally high standard of living we take for granted. Frankly it's odd to attack such conservatism as a "privileged" position, when the fact of the matter is that people with wealth will be generally fine regardless of what happens.
As for Biden, his personal aspirations, and internal party jockeying, I've got little opinion. Swap in another not-Trump candidate and I'll vote for them instead. Personally at this point I'd likely support someone even if they were a blue-flavored extremist, because the incumbent power structure would be inherently set to resist them, whereas at this point a reelection of criminal Trump would essentially be throwing in the towel on our system of government. But obviously another extremist would turn a lot of people off, and let so called "conservatives" maintain their cognitive dissonance that Trumpism is about conserving anything at all.
Ultimately I think if we want to throw off the chains of the military industrial surveillance complex, we've got to take that bottom-up from the grassroots (eg decentralized communications tech) rather than thinking a power vacuum at the top will lead to anything good.
I don't see evidence of any lines drawn
> I think the US would not comment on the matter.
Sitting US officials, up to and including the President, have already strongly condemned the pursuit of the warrants.
> The US has deep political and geopolitical ties with Israel.
Which is fine as a basis for opposing things like this as long as the US doesn't ever want anyone to believe any of its claims that its policies are based on principals beyond bloc interest.
Sitting US officials, up to and including the President, have already strongly condemned the pursuit of the warrants.
> The US has deep political and geopolitical ties with Israel.
Which is fine as a basis for opposing things like this as long as the US doesn't ever want anyone to believe any of its claims that its policies are based on principals beyond bloc interest.
Rather relevant: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
>Statement from President Joe Biden on the Warrant Applications by the International Criminal Court
>The ICC prosecutor’s application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous. And let me be clear: whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.
>Statement from President Joe Biden on the Warrant Applications by the International Criminal Court
>The ICC prosecutor’s application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous. And let me be clear: whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.
> The ICC prosecutor’s application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous. And let me be clear: whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.
This is the hypocrisy of the West, when the same court issued a warrant for Putin, it was praised but when it involves a U.S. ally, it's labeled as "outrageous". This only fuels the sentiment prevalent in many Global South countries about us (the west) "rules for thee but not for me".
This is the hypocrisy of the West, when the same court issued a warrant for Putin, it was praised but when it involves a U.S. ally, it's labeled as "outrageous". This only fuels the sentiment prevalent in many Global South countries about us (the west) "rules for thee but not for me".
Not sure why it’s hypocritical just because you praise one action by a group but not another. It’s not as if the circumstances are identical.
Some actors in the "West" might have some credibility but certainly not the USA. In recent decades our state department has been openly Machiavellian, which I wouldn't have minded if they weren't also utterly incompetent.
I think motives matter. Putin and Hamas decided to rape and kill for the sake of it.
Seems unlikely that Israel would be causing this much destruction if the group that they were seeking to retaliate against wasn't using civilians as shields (which is a war crime in itself).
Seems weird to put all responsibility on Israel here.
But in general I agree that a world government criminal court is a political joke that nobody takes seriously
Seems unlikely that Israel would be causing this much destruction if the group that they were seeking to retaliate against wasn't using civilians as shields (which is a war crime in itself).
Seems weird to put all responsibility on Israel here.
But in general I agree that a world government criminal court is a political joke that nobody takes seriously
It didn’t end Putins career to have arrest warrants issued for him. So I doubt it would effect Netanyahu
dang, perhaps updating link to the official ICC statement would be ideal: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-... ?
Edit to add: I tried submitting that link to submit it myself, and can't?
Edit to add: I tried submitting that link to submit it myself, and can't?
[deleted]
Forgive me if I misremember, but I believe the US refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC over it's own citizens and soldiers, and continues to require that its forces have effective indemnification against actions in economies they are invited into.
They state that actual crimes will be dealt with by JAG, but I think the Okinawan community disputes that they were taken seriously when it comes to domestic violence and sexual assault.
They state that actual crimes will be dealt with by JAG, but I think the Okinawan community disputes that they were taken seriously when it comes to domestic violence and sexual assault.
Yes. See the Invade The Hague Act[1]. Here's a new thread on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40428730
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
[deleted]
Is Israel a signatory of the ICC treaty? Does the ICC have universal jurisdiction?
Israel is not, however Palestine - as a UN observer state - is. This was enough for the ICC to declare jurisdiction.
To my knowledge, this is also the grounds on which the US and UK dispute jurisdiction: They say, no country in this conflict that they recognise is ICC signatory, so the ICC does not have jurisdiction.
(Not a lawyer, but this seems a pretty spurious and self-referential legal argument to me and in any case the UN accepted Palestine as an observer state, so I doubt that it would fly.)
To my knowledge, this is also the grounds on which the US and UK dispute jurisdiction: They say, no country in this conflict that they recognise is ICC signatory, so the ICC does not have jurisdiction.
(Not a lawyer, but this seems a pretty spurious and self-referential legal argument to me and in any case the UN accepted Palestine as an observer state, so I doubt that it would fly.)
Does Palestine, as recognized by the UN, include the West Bank?
Because from what I hear, that “Palestine” doesn’t really exist.
There’s Gaza, and there’s the West Bank.
Because from what I hear, that “Palestine” doesn’t really exist.
There’s Gaza, and there’s the West Bank.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_t... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_the_State_of_P... .
Most countries which recognise Palestine as a state seem to recognise it in the 1967 borders, i.e. Gaza + West Bank + East Jerusalem.
Not sure about the UN though.
Most countries which recognise Palestine as a state seem to recognise it in the 1967 borders, i.e. Gaza + West Bank + East Jerusalem.
Not sure about the UN though.
[deleted]
From the NYT:
> For now, the announcement is largely symbolic. Israel is not a member of the court and does not recognize its jurisdiction in Israel or Gaza, meaning that Israeli leaders would face no risk of arrest at home.
The US is also not a member
> For now, the announcement is largely symbolic. Israel is not a member of the court and does not recognize its jurisdiction in Israel or Gaza, meaning that Israeli leaders would face no risk of arrest at home.
The US is also not a member
international law, courts, treaties etc. don't really work like that
Like there is no such thing as a "universal" right, law, lawful action or anything. There is just "agreements/policies" countries enforce by the power of their military/economical/geopolitical might not by jurisdiction, through for practical reasons most times there is a _self imposed_ jurisdiction of some form.
Through in most cases (i.e. not war, special military operation) this "upholding" is limited to their territories.
The jurisdiction the ICC has imposed on themself is, more or less, to judge war crimes and genocide by anyone anywhere internationally.
In practice this means anyone anywhere as long as the power of the ICC member states allow them to do so (in a for the member reasonable way).
Practically the only place in which countries can reliable enforce such things is in their territory/people. E.g. this means they don't enforce it when the person committing the crime is an US Citizen because they are not powerful enough to force the US to allow them to do so.
What that means in this case is, that assuming a warrant is issued, they will be arrested iff they step into member state territory. And even then it might depend on the individual power of the member state and the context under which they stepped into the member state.
Through iff ICC members would be far more powerful and united, things could be very different.
E.g. the US imprisoning no US Citizens arrested outside of US territory in Guantanamo was a case of "having enough power to enforce their rules outside of their territory". (But it's also a terrible example given such arrests in general didn't follow the procedure you would expect from a state of law (or the ICC) and we know today involved more then just one or two innocents. Heck if the ICC had the power they would likely have judged that to be a war crime and issued an arrest for the people responsible for it.)
Like there is no such thing as a "universal" right, law, lawful action or anything. There is just "agreements/policies" countries enforce by the power of their military/economical/geopolitical might not by jurisdiction, through for practical reasons most times there is a _self imposed_ jurisdiction of some form.
Through in most cases (i.e. not war, special military operation) this "upholding" is limited to their territories.
The jurisdiction the ICC has imposed on themself is, more or less, to judge war crimes and genocide by anyone anywhere internationally.
In practice this means anyone anywhere as long as the power of the ICC member states allow them to do so (in a for the member reasonable way).
Practically the only place in which countries can reliable enforce such things is in their territory/people. E.g. this means they don't enforce it when the person committing the crime is an US Citizen because they are not powerful enough to force the US to allow them to do so.
What that means in this case is, that assuming a warrant is issued, they will be arrested iff they step into member state territory. And even then it might depend on the individual power of the member state and the context under which they stepped into the member state.
Through iff ICC members would be far more powerful and united, things could be very different.
E.g. the US imprisoning no US Citizens arrested outside of US territory in Guantanamo was a case of "having enough power to enforce their rules outside of their territory". (But it's also a terrible example given such arrests in general didn't follow the procedure you would expect from a state of law (or the ICC) and we know today involved more then just one or two innocents. Heck if the ICC had the power they would likely have judged that to be a war crime and issued an arrest for the people responsible for it.)
Isn't this politics and therefore off topic? Or is it something I missed.
"More than four months ago, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court asked me to assist him with evaluating evidence of suspected war crimes and crimes against humanity in Israel and Gaza. I agreed and joined a panel of international legal experts to undertake this task. Together we have engaged in an extensive process of evidence review and legal analysis including at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
The Panel and its academic advisers are experts in international law, including international humanitarian law and international criminal law. Two Panel members are appointed as expert 'Special Advisers' by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Two Panel members are former judges at criminal tribunals in The Hague.
Despite our diverse personal backgrounds, our legal findings are unanimous. We have unanimously determined that the Court has jurisdiction over crimes committed in Palestine and by Palestinian nationals. We unanimously conclude that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, including hostage-taking, murder and crimes of sexual violence. We unanimously conclude that there are raasonable grounds to believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant have commited war crimes and crimes against humanity including starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution and extermination.
I served on this Panel because I believe in the rule of law and the need to protect civilian lives. The law that protects civilians in war was developed more than 100 years ago and it applies in every country in the world regardless of the reasons for a conflict. As a human rights laywer, I will never accept that one child's life has less value than another's. I do not accept that any conflict should be beyond the reach of the law, nor that any perpetrator should be above the law. So I support the historic step that the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has taken to bring justice to victims of atrocities in Israel and Palestine.
Today, my colleagues and I have published an oped and a detailed legal report of the Panel's findings. My approach is not to provide a running commentary of my work but to let the work speak for itself. I hope that witnesses will cooperate with the ongoing investigation. And I hope that justice will prevail in a region that has already suffered too much."
- Amal Clooney
The Panel and its academic advisers are experts in international law, including international humanitarian law and international criminal law. Two Panel members are appointed as expert 'Special Advisers' by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Two Panel members are former judges at criminal tribunals in The Hague.
Despite our diverse personal backgrounds, our legal findings are unanimous. We have unanimously determined that the Court has jurisdiction over crimes committed in Palestine and by Palestinian nationals. We unanimously conclude that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, including hostage-taking, murder and crimes of sexual violence. We unanimously conclude that there are raasonable grounds to believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant have commited war crimes and crimes against humanity including starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution and extermination.
I served on this Panel because I believe in the rule of law and the need to protect civilian lives. The law that protects civilians in war was developed more than 100 years ago and it applies in every country in the world regardless of the reasons for a conflict. As a human rights laywer, I will never accept that one child's life has less value than another's. I do not accept that any conflict should be beyond the reach of the law, nor that any perpetrator should be above the law. So I support the historic step that the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has taken to bring justice to victims of atrocities in Israel and Palestine.
Today, my colleagues and I have published an oped and a detailed legal report of the Panel's findings. My approach is not to provide a running commentary of my work but to let the work speak for itself. I hope that witnesses will cooperate with the ongoing investigation. And I hope that justice will prevail in a region that has already suffered too much."
- Amal Clooney
[deleted]
The optics of equating a terrorist organization on the one hand with a democratic state with functioning judicial system and accountability for any crimes committed on the other hand by putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the court.
I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion. On the other side you have what's a pretty clear case of a large scale terror attack against innocent civilians.
In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion. On the other side you have what's a pretty clear case of a large scale terror attack against innocent civilians.
In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
Israel administers multiple territories, some of them democratically (e.g. Israel proper, where Arabs are citizens with equal legal rights), and some of them undemocratically (e.g. the West Bank).
In other words, if by "Israel" you mean only within the borders of its sovereign territory, yes it's a democracy. If by "Israel" you mean all territory controlled by the State of Israel, it's clearly not.
So, they at best get partial credit for being "a democracy". If they wanted to get full credit, they would have to either relinquish control over the West Bank (and Gaza for that matter), or grant the people living there equal citizenship and voting rights.
> In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
Nobody has to let foreigners into their country if they don't want to. Israel has every right to limit what goes over their border with Gaza, too. What bothers me is that they also restrict Gaza's territorial waters and airspace (and have been doing so since long before Oct. 7th), which AFAIK Egypt isn't involved in.
In other words, if by "Israel" you mean only within the borders of its sovereign territory, yes it's a democracy. If by "Israel" you mean all territory controlled by the State of Israel, it's clearly not.
So, they at best get partial credit for being "a democracy". If they wanted to get full credit, they would have to either relinquish control over the West Bank (and Gaza for that matter), or grant the people living there equal citizenship and voting rights.
> In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
Nobody has to let foreigners into their country if they don't want to. Israel has every right to limit what goes over their border with Gaza, too. What bothers me is that they also restrict Gaza's territorial waters and airspace (and have been doing so since long before Oct. 7th), which AFAIK Egypt isn't involved in.
> Israel administers multiple territories, some of them democratically (e.g. Israel proper, where Arabs are citizens with equal legal rights), and some of them undemocratically (e.g. the West Bank).
This is one aspect of the whole conflict that has always seriously irked me.
The West effectively treats Israel as if it were the legal guardian of the Palestinians: Israel controls the entire territory, controls the tax revenue, population registry, borders, airspace, energy and water supply, can precisely restrict what (is allowed to) go in and out, can construct or demolish buildings at will, can arrest people at will, or even shoot them, can arbitrarily set the rules for court proceedings, etc. Western and neighbor countries fully support this view, to the point where, if Palestinians import or export goods into their own territories without Israel's authorisation, this is called "smuggling".
Yet at the same time, Israel seems to have no obligation to actually consider or represent the interests of the Palestinians: They are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections; they don't have any representation in the Knesset; laws can be passed that arbitrarily disadvantage them without loss of democratic status; Israeli politicians openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies".
In any situation where any individual person were the legal guardian of another person and at the same time called them "their bitter enemy", we'd be deeply alarmed and suspect an abusive relationship. Yet in the case of Israel and the Palestinians, that's "how things are supposed to be" and everyone who tries to change that status quo is the problem.
This feels extremely wrong to me.
(The UN is clearer here: They give Israel the specific legal role of "occupation force" and point to various obligations towards the occupied population that come with that role. However, the western countries somehow both deny that any occupation even takes place and demand that Israel must continue to have full control over the territories - which is contradictory in itself)
This is one aspect of the whole conflict that has always seriously irked me.
The West effectively treats Israel as if it were the legal guardian of the Palestinians: Israel controls the entire territory, controls the tax revenue, population registry, borders, airspace, energy and water supply, can precisely restrict what (is allowed to) go in and out, can construct or demolish buildings at will, can arrest people at will, or even shoot them, can arbitrarily set the rules for court proceedings, etc. Western and neighbor countries fully support this view, to the point where, if Palestinians import or export goods into their own territories without Israel's authorisation, this is called "smuggling".
Yet at the same time, Israel seems to have no obligation to actually consider or represent the interests of the Palestinians: They are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections; they don't have any representation in the Knesset; laws can be passed that arbitrarily disadvantage them without loss of democratic status; Israeli politicians openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies".
In any situation where any individual person were the legal guardian of another person and at the same time called them "their bitter enemy", we'd be deeply alarmed and suspect an abusive relationship. Yet in the case of Israel and the Palestinians, that's "how things are supposed to be" and everyone who tries to change that status quo is the problem.
This feels extremely wrong to me.
(The UN is clearer here: They give Israel the specific legal role of "occupation force" and point to various obligations towards the occupied population that come with that role. However, the western countries somehow both deny that any occupation even takes place and demand that Israel must continue to have full control over the territories - which is contradictory in itself)
Everything you say is true. The only reason Western nations tolerate it, in my view, is because they have witnessed the alternative.
To continue your analogy, Israel tried to "graduate" Gaza to adulthood in 2005. The army removed all Jewish settlers and settlements, and all military presence, and left the Gazans to form their own government. Gaza held elections that were judged to be free and fair by international observers.
Unfortunately, Gazans elected a Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Don't get me wrong, I can understand if Palestinians feel sore about the creation of Israel on some of the land that they desired for an undivided Palestinian state. But 10 million people live there now, including generations of Jews who have no other home, many of whom were expelled from other Arab countries when Israel was founded. A settlement between Israel and Palestinians will require compromise, but Hamas is not interested in compromise. Hamas dedicates every available resource towards an absolutist goal of destroying Israel.
Moreover, Hamas does not see itself as having any responsibility towards the people of Gaza. It builds tunnels to protect its fighters, but considers it the UN's responsibility (through UNRWA) to protect its civilians. In this sense it operates differently from almost any government in the world, in that it is not actually trying to build a society and govern it. In the eyes of Hamas Palestinians are in a war that has been going since 1948, and this war will continue until Israel is destroyed. It considers all of its people refugees and wards of the UN until Israel is destroyed.
I have plenty of criticism for Israel, primarily that it builds settlements in the West Bank, sabotaging prospects for a future Palestinian state. But it's hard for me to fault Israel for acting as the legal guardians of the Palestinians when I witness the Palestinian's disinterest in actually building a state that could coexist with Israel, not to mention the means by which they enact their resistance.
To continue your analogy, Israel tried to "graduate" Gaza to adulthood in 2005. The army removed all Jewish settlers and settlements, and all military presence, and left the Gazans to form their own government. Gaza held elections that were judged to be free and fair by international observers.
Unfortunately, Gazans elected a Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Don't get me wrong, I can understand if Palestinians feel sore about the creation of Israel on some of the land that they desired for an undivided Palestinian state. But 10 million people live there now, including generations of Jews who have no other home, many of whom were expelled from other Arab countries when Israel was founded. A settlement between Israel and Palestinians will require compromise, but Hamas is not interested in compromise. Hamas dedicates every available resource towards an absolutist goal of destroying Israel.
Moreover, Hamas does not see itself as having any responsibility towards the people of Gaza. It builds tunnels to protect its fighters, but considers it the UN's responsibility (through UNRWA) to protect its civilians. In this sense it operates differently from almost any government in the world, in that it is not actually trying to build a society and govern it. In the eyes of Hamas Palestinians are in a war that has been going since 1948, and this war will continue until Israel is destroyed. It considers all of its people refugees and wards of the UN until Israel is destroyed.
I have plenty of criticism for Israel, primarily that it builds settlements in the West Bank, sabotaging prospects for a future Palestinian state. But it's hard for me to fault Israel for acting as the legal guardians of the Palestinians when I witness the Palestinian's disinterest in actually building a state that could coexist with Israel, not to mention the means by which they enact their resistance.
>But it's hard for me to fault Israel for acting as the legal guardians of the Palestinians when I witness the Palestinian's disinterest in actually building a state that could coexist with Israel, not to mention the means by which they enact their resistance.
I suspect this is an aspect of the collapse of support for Israel in the US along demographic lines. For many of young Americans' adult lives, Israel's 'guardianship' has been somewhere between anti-democratic and outright oppressive, and certainly not a context in which a people could be expected to 'build a state' for themselves.
I suspect this is an aspect of the collapse of support for Israel in the US along demographic lines. For many of young Americans' adult lives, Israel's 'guardianship' has been somewhere between anti-democratic and outright oppressive, and certainly not a context in which a people could be expected to 'build a state' for themselves.
Why can they build a war machine (tunnels, rockets, etc) but not a civil society?
I really am curious what young Americans expect Israel to do.
I really am curious what young Americans expect Israel to do.
>what young Americans expect Israel to do.
Stop bombing hospitals and churches. Even if hamas "built tunnels" under them.
Stop bombing hospitals and churches. Even if hamas "built tunnels" under them.
I think this is a great example of what I was talking about upthread.
If your position is that it's Israel's responsibility to protect and value Gaza's civil and religious infrastructure more than Hamas itself does, then you are treating Gaza as a dependent state that needs legal guardianship.
If Israel is expected to work around Hamas's militarizing of civilian infrastructure, that more than justifies Israel's blockade in my mind.
If your position is that it's Israel's responsibility to protect and value Gaza's civil and religious infrastructure more than Hamas itself does, then you are treating Gaza as a dependent state that needs legal guardianship.
If Israel is expected to work around Hamas's militarizing of civilian infrastructure, that more than justifies Israel's blockade in my mind.
>Hamas's civil and religious infrastructure
When you call Palestine "Hamas" like this, it becomes obvious what you're doing ideologically. Come on.
>your position is that it's Israel's responsibility to protect and value
What a way to frame "please stop bombing hospitals and churches"
>you are treating Hamas as a dependent state that needs legal guardianship
I am not treating Hamas as a state of any kind, I'm treating them as a hostile political party that currently holds power in a country that has been dealing with a literal genocide for decades.
>A real state would not militarize hospitals and churches
I guess Israel isn't a real state then, giving how they use hospitals and churches as military targets...
>or if it did, it would accept the consequences for having done so.
Oh yeah? Those hospitals were really asking for it by "letting" Hamas operate? That's callous.
When you call Palestine "Hamas" like this, it becomes obvious what you're doing ideologically. Come on.
>your position is that it's Israel's responsibility to protect and value
What a way to frame "please stop bombing hospitals and churches"
>you are treating Hamas as a dependent state that needs legal guardianship
I am not treating Hamas as a state of any kind, I'm treating them as a hostile political party that currently holds power in a country that has been dealing with a literal genocide for decades.
>A real state would not militarize hospitals and churches
I guess Israel isn't a real state then, giving how they use hospitals and churches as military targets...
>or if it did, it would accept the consequences for having done so.
Oh yeah? Those hospitals were really asking for it by "letting" Hamas operate? That's callous.
> What a way to frame "please stop bombing hospitals and churches"
Hospitals and churches that are militarized. I don't think you are interested in understanding or fairly representing what I'm actually saying, so I'm not interested in discussing this further with you.
> When you call Palestine "Hamas" like this, it becomes obvious what you're doing ideologically. Come on.
That was unintentional actually. I was trying to edit for clarity and conciseness, but this is not what I meant. I changed it to "Gaza's".
Hospitals and churches that are militarized. I don't think you are interested in understanding or fairly representing what I'm actually saying, so I'm not interested in discussing this further with you.
> When you call Palestine "Hamas" like this, it becomes obvious what you're doing ideologically. Come on.
That was unintentional actually. I was trying to edit for clarity and conciseness, but this is not what I meant. I changed it to "Gaza's".
The IDF's claims as to the extent to which its targets are "militarized" are of course widely disputed (by journalists, government bodies, NGOs, etc). The raids on Al-Shifa, the bombings of mosques and the destruction of cemeteries most notably.
In this context -- it seems clear enough that the commenter above understands what you're saying, and is not making any distortions of it. They simply do not see any reason accept, at face value, the IDF's attempts to spin and obfuscate these horrific incidents. As seems to be the IDF's expectation from the world at large.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara
In this context -- it seems clear enough that the commenter above understands what you're saying, and is not making any distortions of it. They simply do not see any reason accept, at face value, the IDF's attempts to spin and obfuscate these horrific incidents. As seems to be the IDF's expectation from the world at large.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara
>That was unintentional actually
Freudian slip? Hehehe
Freudian slip? Hehehe
I think young Americans have learned all their lives that ethnostates are bad, especially those based on religion. I think they (we) want a one state solution where Palestinians are full Israeli citizens who can move, work, and vote freely.
This is by far the worst way to think about this conflict. It comes from a good place, but it's advocating for something that is:
1. Not even remotely likely to happen.
2. Not what almost any of the parties on the ground want to happen.
3. If implemented, would almost certainly lead to atrocities.
4. The opposite of what most people who have studied this issue think is a good option.
It is the essence of not being really engaged with the problem, and trying to fit it into a mold that doesn't make any sense, and therefore coming up with solutions that will leave everyone worse off.
I highly suggest that if you want to better the lives of people in the region, especially the Palestinians (since they're currently the worst off), you advocate for some form of 2-state solution, just like almost every other peace advocate in the region.
(I'm happy to elaborate on any of the points above, if you'd like.)
1. Not even remotely likely to happen.
2. Not what almost any of the parties on the ground want to happen.
3. If implemented, would almost certainly lead to atrocities.
4. The opposite of what most people who have studied this issue think is a good option.
It is the essence of not being really engaged with the problem, and trying to fit it into a mold that doesn't make any sense, and therefore coming up with solutions that will leave everyone worse off.
I highly suggest that if you want to better the lives of people in the region, especially the Palestinians (since they're currently the worst off), you advocate for some form of 2-state solution, just like almost every other peace advocate in the region.
(I'm happy to elaborate on any of the points above, if you'd like.)
I don't think Hamas wants to be citizens of Israel, the western-style democracy. Its charter (even the softened 2017 version) unambiguously rejects recognition of Israel: "There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity."
Hamas wants an Arab Islamic state to rule Palestine from the river to the sea. It doesn't want equal rights and seats in the Knesset, it wants Arab Muslims to govern the land under Islamic law. This is all spelled out explicitly in their charter.
Hamas wants an Arab Islamic state to rule Palestine from the river to the sea. It doesn't want equal rights and seats in the Knesset, it wants Arab Muslims to govern the land under Islamic law. This is all spelled out explicitly in their charter.
I don't think Hamas wants to be citizens of Israel, the western-style democracy.
Acknowledged.
[The 2017 charter] unambiguously rejects recognition of Israel: "There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity."
By itself this statement certainly sounds unambiguous. But it comes into clear conflict with the language that immediately follows:
However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
Taken together -- I would not call this an "unambiguous" formulation of their position. There's obviously a very clear surface-level conflict between the two passages.
Holistically -- the most reasonable paraphrase seems to be: "Hamas rejects the moral legitimacy of the Zionist state. However as a practical matter, it will support the 2SS (along June 4 1967 borders) if this is determined the be the national consensus (among Palestinians), and provided the Right of Return is also granted."
The fact that it mentions "borders" is extremely significant, in that this means at least de facto, if not de jure recognition of the State of Israel.
Acknowledged.
[The 2017 charter] unambiguously rejects recognition of Israel: "There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity."
By itself this statement certainly sounds unambiguous. But it comes into clear conflict with the language that immediately follows:
However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
Taken together -- I would not call this an "unambiguous" formulation of their position. There's obviously a very clear surface-level conflict between the two passages.
Holistically -- the most reasonable paraphrase seems to be: "Hamas rejects the moral legitimacy of the Zionist state. However as a practical matter, it will support the 2SS (along June 4 1967 borders) if this is determined the be the national consensus (among Palestinians), and provided the Right of Return is also granted."
The fact that it mentions "borders" is extremely significant, in that this means at least de facto, if not de jure recognition of the State of Israel.
I agree that the 2017 charter hints at acceptance of 1967 borders, and that its formulation is ambiguous in this sense (my "unambiguous" comment was in the context of analyzing whether Hamas would want to be citizens of Israel -- I think their rejection of this idea is unambiguous).
I think your reading is consistent with what the document says. On its face, the document hints at accepting a two-state solution under the 1967 borders. The most charitable interpretation would be that Hamas is willing to consider a two state solution an ultimate settlement of the conflict, with the two states living side-by-side in peace and harmony indefinitely.
However, another possible interpretation is that Hamas is willing to accept 1967 borders in order to secure statehood, but after securing it (including lifting of the blockade, etc) it primarily intends to use its state as a base to attack Israel with more vigor and resources until Israel is destroyed. "As a practical matter" could easily be read as "as a short-term solution."
When I observe Hamas's behavior, the second interpretation seems far more likely to me. Even as the document was announced, they said "We shall not waive an inch of the Palestinian home soil, no matter what the recent pressures are and no matter how long the occupation." The formulation of the document seems designed to legitimize future attacks on Israel once the two states are established. And Hamas shows little interest in developing Gaza as a permanent home for any of its people, as you would expect if they truly see it as a core part of their future state, preferring instead to preserve refugee status for as many people as possible.
I think your reading is consistent with what the document says. On its face, the document hints at accepting a two-state solution under the 1967 borders. The most charitable interpretation would be that Hamas is willing to consider a two state solution an ultimate settlement of the conflict, with the two states living side-by-side in peace and harmony indefinitely.
However, another possible interpretation is that Hamas is willing to accept 1967 borders in order to secure statehood, but after securing it (including lifting of the blockade, etc) it primarily intends to use its state as a base to attack Israel with more vigor and resources until Israel is destroyed. "As a practical matter" could easily be read as "as a short-term solution."
When I observe Hamas's behavior, the second interpretation seems far more likely to me. Even as the document was announced, they said "We shall not waive an inch of the Palestinian home soil, no matter what the recent pressures are and no matter how long the occupation." The formulation of the document seems designed to legitimize future attacks on Israel once the two states are established. And Hamas shows little interest in developing Gaza as a permanent home for any of its people, as you would expect if they truly see it as a core part of their future state, preferring instead to preserve refugee status for as many people as possible.
I think we're on the same basic page about Hamas. They could very well have ulterior motives, and could just be going along with a 2SS process in order to buy time for future offensive strategies.
My only point is that it's important to come to an objective view of what the language of the document says, on its own terms (even if we suspect it's all on the surface and their real intentions may be entirely different). And even if the language is only surface-level -- it at least opens a door to some kind of a pathway towards a solution based on negotiation and international law, without outside observers and verified inspections of their offensive capabilities, verified elections and national referenda at regular intervals, and so forth.
Which is the only viable route out of the current state of the conflict, in my view.
My only point is that it's important to come to an objective view of what the language of the document says, on its own terms (even if we suspect it's all on the surface and their real intentions may be entirely different). And even if the language is only surface-level -- it at least opens a door to some kind of a pathway towards a solution based on negotiation and international law, without outside observers and verified inspections of their offensive capabilities, verified elections and national referenda at regular intervals, and so forth.
Which is the only viable route out of the current state of the conflict, in my view.
I appreciate your point of view. I'd be happy to see a "internationalist" future that involves a two-state solution along with verified inspections of militarization, UN governance of Jerusalem, etc.
Unfortunately I don't see a Palestinian state accepting international limitations on its offensive militarization. I imagine they would consider that an unacceptable limit on their sovereignty.
I also think the "right of return" is an unfortunate stumbling block that will prevent this kind of settlement. Palestinians want to turn the clock back to a time before their allies launched a war to destroy Israel, and a time before the Mizrahi were expelled from the Arab world. Practically speaking, it's asking Israel to accept an unspecified number of people who are likely to be hostile to its existence. It's hard to imagine how this doesn't lead to a sharp increase in the amount of terror attacks inside Israel.
I want to believe that you are right, and that recognizing/encouraging small steps towards agreement from both sides will ultimately lead to a lasting peace. But my fear is that it is just a ruse to gain advantage, and that accepting it at face value will lead the West to give concessions that will ultimately aid future wars that seek to destroy Israel.
Unfortunately I don't see a Palestinian state accepting international limitations on its offensive militarization. I imagine they would consider that an unacceptable limit on their sovereignty.
I also think the "right of return" is an unfortunate stumbling block that will prevent this kind of settlement. Palestinians want to turn the clock back to a time before their allies launched a war to destroy Israel, and a time before the Mizrahi were expelled from the Arab world. Practically speaking, it's asking Israel to accept an unspecified number of people who are likely to be hostile to its existence. It's hard to imagine how this doesn't lead to a sharp increase in the amount of terror attacks inside Israel.
I want to believe that you are right, and that recognizing/encouraging small steps towards agreement from both sides will ultimately lead to a lasting peace. But my fear is that it is just a ruse to gain advantage, and that accepting it at face value will lead the West to give concessions that will ultimately aid future wars that seek to destroy Israel.
It's a little odd to see discussions of Hamas centering on the 2017 charter. That document was written by Khaled Mishal, who led the Hamas political wing (the "politburo", I guess?) from Doha. It was announced just as Mishal was forced from power by the hardline Gaza-based Al-Qassam wing of Hamas, which rejects that charter.
People go back and forth on how much evidence there is or isn't for Sinwar and Gaza-based Hamas's rejection of the 2017 charter, but read reporting and analysis from the time, untainted by what happened on October 7, about what the objectives were for updating the charter (significantly: easing Egypt's longstanding blocade of Gaza, repairing political relationships, working around Egypt's post-Arab-Spring, post-Sisi coup suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas's parent organization). Then look what happened on October 7. Like, there isn't much doubt that the 2017 document was unserious at this point?
This is purely a nerd point and not something I expect would change anybody's mind about what's happening in Gaza or what the outcomes should be.
People go back and forth on how much evidence there is or isn't for Sinwar and Gaza-based Hamas's rejection of the 2017 charter, but read reporting and analysis from the time, untainted by what happened on October 7, about what the objectives were for updating the charter (significantly: easing Egypt's longstanding blocade of Gaza, repairing political relationships, working around Egypt's post-Arab-Spring, post-Sisi coup suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas's parent organization). Then look what happened on October 7. Like, there isn't much doubt that the 2017 document was unserious at this point?
This is purely a nerd point and not something I expect would change anybody's mind about what's happening in Gaza or what the outcomes should be.
The biggest mistake in the last 20 years was when Hamas took power and Netanyahu took an immediate hardline, imposing a crushing blockade, full demonization propaganda, "mowing the lawn" policy, and refused to even try to work with Hamas from day one. But Netanyahu has never wanted peace.
How do you work with an organization that is explicitly dedicated to destroying your state and killing your people?
Do you just hope they didn't mean the things they wrote in their charter?
Do you just hope they didn't mean the things they wrote in their charter?
You mean asking for 1967 armistice lines? Maybe you should read the Likid party charter too and understand what they want as their borders?
Even though it didn't prevent him working with them to alienate PA though.
Even though it didn't prevent him working with them to alienate PA though.
I don’t think you’re correct in saying “the Western forces deny that any occupation takes place” considering the US State Department regards them as occupied https://www.state.gov/reports/2016-report-on-international-r...
> Israeli politicians openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies" ... This feels extremely wrong to me
Wait till you find how in response to white nationalist attacks, the US political elite instead end up making laws to ban Palestinian groups.
An issue involving 14m peoples shouldn't be this international and should have never shaped the West's domestic policy (let alone foreign policy) as much as it has.
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/instruments-of-dehuman... / https://archive.ph/BWrzw
Wait till you find how in response to white nationalist attacks, the US political elite instead end up making laws to ban Palestinian groups.
An issue involving 14m peoples shouldn't be this international and should have never shaped the West's domestic policy (let alone foreign policy) as much as it has.
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/instruments-of-dehuman... / https://archive.ph/BWrzw
> Yet at the same time, Israel seems to have no obligation to actually consider or represent the interests of the Palestinians: They are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections; they don't have any representation in the Knesset...
Doesn't the US have a bunch of territories that don't have representation? Like Puerto Rico. It seems like this sort of arrangement is not alien even to Western politicians, although the treatment of people certainly differs.
Doesn't the US have a bunch of territories that don't have representation? Like Puerto Rico. It seems like this sort of arrangement is not alien even to Western politicians, although the treatment of people certainly differs.
> Israeli politicians openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies".
I don't think this is really true or at the very least it's nuanced. There are some extreme right politicians that say very questionable things but Palestinians (including Israeli Arabs, Palestinians in the west bank, and Palestinians in Gaza) are not generally, as a whole, thought of as bitter enemies. The Hamas maybe. People on both sides generally get along in many situations (e.g. Palestinians that are Israeli citizens, Palestinians working in Israel, Israelis shopping in the West Bank, even most settlers in the West Bank with their Palestinian neighbours).
I don't think this is really true or at the very least it's nuanced. There are some extreme right politicians that say very questionable things but Palestinians (including Israeli Arabs, Palestinians in the west bank, and Palestinians in Gaza) are not generally, as a whole, thought of as bitter enemies. The Hamas maybe. People on both sides generally get along in many situations (e.g. Palestinians that are Israeli citizens, Palestinians working in Israel, Israelis shopping in the West Bank, even most settlers in the West Bank with their Palestinian neighbours).
One of those "far right wing" politicians happens to be the President of the country, who has repeatedly claimed that "[Gazans are] an entire nation out there that is responsible… This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved [in the October 7 onslaught] — it's absolutely not true." [0]
Even in his denial that these claims are basically holding all (or at least most) of the people of Gaza responsible for October 7th, he has actually reiterated the same claim:
"But the reality cannot be ignored, a reality which we all saw with our own eyes as published by Hamas on that cursed day, and that was the involvement of many residents of Gaza in the slaughter, in the looting, and in the riots of October 7. How the crowds in Gaza cheered at the sight of Israelis being slaughtered and their bodies mutilated. At the sight of hostages — God knows what they did to them — wounded and bleeding being dragged through the streets. In view of such terrible crimes, it is appropriate that the honorable court investigate them in depth, and not casually in passing."
He then goes on to say that despite this, they are of course not targeting civilians. But it's hard to see any way to interpret both of these statements other than as claims that the people of Gaza, collectively, deeply hate Israelis.
And other figures of power (members of the Knesset certainly, even some minsters I believe) have said much more explicit, and more heinous, things. I can search for quotes if you haven't seen them.
Quotes taken from
[0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-blood-libel-herzog-says-icj-...
Even in his denial that these claims are basically holding all (or at least most) of the people of Gaza responsible for October 7th, he has actually reiterated the same claim:
"But the reality cannot be ignored, a reality which we all saw with our own eyes as published by Hamas on that cursed day, and that was the involvement of many residents of Gaza in the slaughter, in the looting, and in the riots of October 7. How the crowds in Gaza cheered at the sight of Israelis being slaughtered and their bodies mutilated. At the sight of hostages — God knows what they did to them — wounded and bleeding being dragged through the streets. In view of such terrible crimes, it is appropriate that the honorable court investigate them in depth, and not casually in passing."
He then goes on to say that despite this, they are of course not targeting civilians. But it's hard to see any way to interpret both of these statements other than as claims that the people of Gaza, collectively, deeply hate Israelis.
And other figures of power (members of the Knesset certainly, even some minsters I believe) have said much more explicit, and more heinous, things. I can search for quotes if you haven't seen them.
Quotes taken from
[0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-blood-libel-herzog-says-icj-...
But your quotes do not support your statement. They do not refer to Israeli Arabs which are also Palestinians or to Palestinians in the west bank.
Your statement is incorrect but you're doubling down on it.
I think the sentiment of Gazans towards Israelis is a topic we can look at via surveys if you want to go that way.
It's also a matter of fact that some Gazan civilians were aware and did indeed participate in the Oct 7th attack. The first wave was combatants but random people followed that pillaging, killing, taking hostages. The statement about cheering in Gaza at slaughtered Israelis is also true. Neither of those truths support the idea that in general Israelis view all Gazans or all Palestinians (your original claim) as "bitter enemies". I can find you many quotes of Israelis saying their war is not against all Gazans. Those opinions outnumbers by 2 orders of magnitude. You can't just cherry pick, you need to look at the entire picture. Even Netanyahu clatified many times that Israel's war is not on Gaza's civilians (despite the truth of some of them participating in Oct 7th).
Your statement is incorrect but you're doubling down on it.
I think the sentiment of Gazans towards Israelis is a topic we can look at via surveys if you want to go that way.
It's also a matter of fact that some Gazan civilians were aware and did indeed participate in the Oct 7th attack. The first wave was combatants but random people followed that pillaging, killing, taking hostages. The statement about cheering in Gaza at slaughtered Israelis is also true. Neither of those truths support the idea that in general Israelis view all Gazans or all Palestinians (your original claim) as "bitter enemies". I can find you many quotes of Israelis saying their war is not against all Gazans. Those opinions outnumbers by 2 orders of magnitude. You can't just cherry pick, you need to look at the entire picture. Even Netanyahu clatified many times that Israel's war is not on Gaza's civilians (despite the truth of some of them participating in Oct 7th).
I said nothing about Israeli Arabs or even Palestinians in general (though I'm sure I can find statements about Palestinians in general).
But these are clearly statements about Gazans in general, not some specific subset of Gazans. Mr Herzog is clearly saying, or at the very least heavily implying, that Gazans in general are bitter enemies of Israel. Not every single Gazan, but Gazans in general. He could have said "there was some small group of Gazans that [...]". He could have said "There are some X thousand Gazans that [...]". But he didn't: he chose to say "Gazan civilians", without any other discriminant.
But these are clearly statements about Gazans in general, not some specific subset of Gazans. Mr Herzog is clearly saying, or at the very least heavily implying, that Gazans in general are bitter enemies of Israel. Not every single Gazan, but Gazans in general. He could have said "there was some small group of Gazans that [...]". He could have said "There are some X thousand Gazans that [...]". But he didn't: he chose to say "Gazan civilians", without any other discriminant.
Yes you did:
> "Israeli politicians openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies"."
As I said the bulk of statements from Israeli military, politicians, and government, in Hebrew and in English say that the war in Gaza is not against civilians but against Hamas. If you insist on cherry picking some statements and building your story on those then I would respectfully ask that you reconsider.
I would also urge you look at surveys and see what Gazans think about Israelis instead of obsessing with the (IMO not true) idea that Israelis consider Gazans their bitter enemy. Find me surveys before Oct 7th that show that Israelis had more negative opinions about Gazans than Gazans held about Israelis overall and I'm open to changing my position. I also urge you to see footage of Oct 7th and ask yourself a question about the mindset towards Israelis leading to these actions.
> "Israeli politicians openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies"."
As I said the bulk of statements from Israeli military, politicians, and government, in Hebrew and in English say that the war in Gaza is not against civilians but against Hamas. If you insist on cherry picking some statements and building your story on those then I would respectfully ask that you reconsider.
I would also urge you look at surveys and see what Gazans think about Israelis instead of obsessing with the (IMO not true) idea that Israelis consider Gazans their bitter enemy. Find me surveys before Oct 7th that show that Israelis had more negative opinions about Gazans than Gazans held about Israelis overall and I'm open to changing my position. I also urge you to see footage of Oct 7th and ask yourself a question about the mindset towards Israelis leading to these actions.
I did not, that was another poster. I specifically talked about Gazans.
> As I said the bulk of statements from Israeli military, politicians, and government, in Hebrew and in English say that the war in Gaza is not against civilians but against Hamas. If you insist on cherry picking some statements and building your story on those then I would respectfully ask that you reconsider.
They say they are not fighting against the civilians through one corner of their mouth, and say the civilians are bitter monsters that cheered as Israelis were slaughtered (as you are claiming as well) through the other corner of their mouth. In the meantime, their hands are busy destroying hospitals, schools, universities, killing journalists, killing aid workers, killing doctors and nurses, killing children, preventing aid of any kind from entering the country, and so on.
Not to mention, for every video of one Palestinian or Gazan cheering on the Hamas crimes of October 7th you find, I'll find a similar video of an Israeli citizen or soldier cheering when a school is destroyed or a "terrorist" killed. Both are heinous, but a lot of people, like yourself apparently, pretend only Gaza has monsters that take pleasure in the killing of civilians.
And still it must be remembered that Gazans are being actively occupied by Israel, a state which has no intention whatsoever as recognizing them as an independent nation, nor allowing those of them that wish to to return to the homes they had to abandon in the fighting of only a few decades ago. I personally cut oppressed people some small amount of slack when they feel vindicated for their oppressors feeling some amount of the oppression they feel every day, as bad as it is to think like that (note that more than 200 Gazan civilians were being killed per year even before the current slaughter began).
> As I said the bulk of statements from Israeli military, politicians, and government, in Hebrew and in English say that the war in Gaza is not against civilians but against Hamas. If you insist on cherry picking some statements and building your story on those then I would respectfully ask that you reconsider.
They say they are not fighting against the civilians through one corner of their mouth, and say the civilians are bitter monsters that cheered as Israelis were slaughtered (as you are claiming as well) through the other corner of their mouth. In the meantime, their hands are busy destroying hospitals, schools, universities, killing journalists, killing aid workers, killing doctors and nurses, killing children, preventing aid of any kind from entering the country, and so on.
Not to mention, for every video of one Palestinian or Gazan cheering on the Hamas crimes of October 7th you find, I'll find a similar video of an Israeli citizen or soldier cheering when a school is destroyed or a "terrorist" killed. Both are heinous, but a lot of people, like yourself apparently, pretend only Gaza has monsters that take pleasure in the killing of civilians.
And still it must be remembered that Gazans are being actively occupied by Israel, a state which has no intention whatsoever as recognizing them as an independent nation, nor allowing those of them that wish to to return to the homes they had to abandon in the fighting of only a few decades ago. I personally cut oppressed people some small amount of slack when they feel vindicated for their oppressors feeling some amount of the oppression they feel every day, as bad as it is to think like that (note that more than 200 Gazan civilians were being killed per year even before the current slaughter began).
The actions of these politicians are more important than their words.
According to Amnesty International (which has a separate report detailing Palestinian war crimes), the politicians you are defending directly authorized the killing of 10,000’s of children, the maiming of 10,000’s more, torture of civilians (often to death, and including residents of Israel), created a famine that lead to a 93% starvation rate last winter, and also committed systematic violations of LGBTI’s rights in Israel.
There are many, many more war crimes enumerated in the report, and it also documents the connection to top Israeli officials.
The above is indefensible, as are the actions of Hamas.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-af...
According to Amnesty International (which has a separate report detailing Palestinian war crimes), the politicians you are defending directly authorized the killing of 10,000’s of children, the maiming of 10,000’s more, torture of civilians (often to death, and including residents of Israel), created a famine that lead to a 93% starvation rate last winter, and also committed systematic violations of LGBTI’s rights in Israel.
There are many, many more war crimes enumerated in the report, and it also documents the connection to top Israeli officials.
The above is indefensible, as are the actions of Hamas.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-af...
The UN has revised its estimate of the number of children killed to 7,797 admitting the "fog of war" makes it hard to know how many were killed. The definition of "child" is anyone under 18yo which can include combatants. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-69014893
The UN numbers come from Hamas, there is no independent verification of those numbers and Hamas is a side to the conflict.
Either way, your statement about "authorizing the killing of 10's of thousands of children" is false.
I'm not sure what systemic violation of LGBT right you're referring to. The LGBTQ+ community in Israel has no issues unlike anywhere else in the middle east (for example). Israel ranks above most countries in the world in LGBT legal rights and friendliness: https://www.equaldex.com/equality-index
I don't know what 93% starvation rate you're talking about. This is just an outright lie. Also straight from Hamas. This lie has been repeated endlessly since the war started but somehow the markets are still full of food. People (e.g. Hamas) are also stealing aid and re-selling it.
Everything happening in Gaza is a result of war. Yes, Israeli went to war after Oct 7th, which Israel's government has authorized. The goal of the war is to destroy Hamas something that is within Israel's legitimate right to self defense. These outcomes you're describing including civilian casualties, hunger, etc. are not just a function of Israel's decision, they're also a function of Hamas' decision to hold onto its hostages and continue fighting. The reason for the war is Hamas attacking Israel. Hamas, the government of Gaza, is responsible for the condition of the people it governs.
The UN numbers come from Hamas, there is no independent verification of those numbers and Hamas is a side to the conflict.
Either way, your statement about "authorizing the killing of 10's of thousands of children" is false.
I'm not sure what systemic violation of LGBT right you're referring to. The LGBTQ+ community in Israel has no issues unlike anywhere else in the middle east (for example). Israel ranks above most countries in the world in LGBT legal rights and friendliness: https://www.equaldex.com/equality-index
I don't know what 93% starvation rate you're talking about. This is just an outright lie. Also straight from Hamas. This lie has been repeated endlessly since the war started but somehow the markets are still full of food. People (e.g. Hamas) are also stealing aid and re-selling it.
Everything happening in Gaza is a result of war. Yes, Israeli went to war after Oct 7th, which Israel's government has authorized. The goal of the war is to destroy Hamas something that is within Israel's legitimate right to self defense. These outcomes you're describing including civilian casualties, hunger, etc. are not just a function of Israel's decision, they're also a function of Hamas' decision to hold onto its hostages and continue fighting. The reason for the war is Hamas attacking Israel. Hamas, the government of Gaza, is responsible for the condition of the people it governs.
> The UN numbers come from Hamas, there is no independent verification of those numbers and Hamas is a side to the conflict.
There are no other numbers for Palestinian casulaties. The Israeli state and military have continuously and vehemently refused to provide any numbers of their own (recently in a very embarrassing way on Piers Morgan's show, of all people). In contrast, the Gaza Ministry of Health numbers are considered very high quality by the UN and by all humanitarian organizations working in the region, and have been consistently confirmed for years. Sure, the ministry of health is run by Hamas, but that is only because they are the official ruling party in Gaza. Its not like trusting numbers reported by Al Quaida or ISIS.
Not to mention, those numbers represent a significant undercount of casulaties, since they only count confirmed deaths of people whom the health ministry could specifically identify. People lost in the rubble, small communities that were killed or starved and were not reported, etc are all not counted in these numbers. You can go and check the name and address of each and every one of those 7,797 children, and confirm that they are indeed dead.
Edit: If the IDF or Israel want to refute those numbers, it is extremely easy to do so: they can provide their own numbers, their own methodology, and allow independent experts to study them, like the ministry of health has. "Mysteriously", they have entirely failed to do so, just like they have failed to price that the hospitals they were bombing were Hamas control centers, and many other bogus claims they are making.
There are no other numbers for Palestinian casulaties. The Israeli state and military have continuously and vehemently refused to provide any numbers of their own (recently in a very embarrassing way on Piers Morgan's show, of all people). In contrast, the Gaza Ministry of Health numbers are considered very high quality by the UN and by all humanitarian organizations working in the region, and have been consistently confirmed for years. Sure, the ministry of health is run by Hamas, but that is only because they are the official ruling party in Gaza. Its not like trusting numbers reported by Al Quaida or ISIS.
Not to mention, those numbers represent a significant undercount of casulaties, since they only count confirmed deaths of people whom the health ministry could specifically identify. People lost in the rubble, small communities that were killed or starved and were not reported, etc are all not counted in these numbers. You can go and check the name and address of each and every one of those 7,797 children, and confirm that they are indeed dead.
Edit: If the IDF or Israel want to refute those numbers, it is extremely easy to do so: they can provide their own numbers, their own methodology, and allow independent experts to study them, like the ministry of health has. "Mysteriously", they have entirely failed to do so, just like they have failed to price that the hospitals they were bombing were Hamas control centers, and many other bogus claims they are making.
I would disagree with you. Those numbers are exactly like numbers that would come from ISIS or Al Qaeda. Hamas uses violence including torture and summary executions to force compliance in Gaza. Nobody in Gaza will work against Hamas or disobey an order from Hamas. There is no "independent health department" as some would like to portray. No such thing. The same methods are used towards UN or humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza and the people employed by those organizations are mostly Gazans.
Even according to Hamas officials many of the the casualties are based on "self reporting" and/or so called "media reports". Even they do not claim that the count is as accurate as you claim.
Nobody can check the "names and addresses" of those Hamas declared to be dead. For one thing there has been huge movement of people and even Hamas doesn't know who is where, for another there's no way for anyone to independently check on this.
The IDF released plenty of evidence of fighting Hamas in hospitals by the way. It also released interrogation videos where Hamas operatives describe their use of hospitals. Probably not in the news you choose to consume.
I think the IDF simply does not know. I think Netanyahu said something like 14,000 combatants and 16,000 civilians is the estimate.
Even according to Hamas officials many of the the casualties are based on "self reporting" and/or so called "media reports". Even they do not claim that the count is as accurate as you claim.
Nobody can check the "names and addresses" of those Hamas declared to be dead. For one thing there has been huge movement of people and even Hamas doesn't know who is where, for another there's no way for anyone to independently check on this.
The IDF released plenty of evidence of fighting Hamas in hospitals by the way. It also released interrogation videos where Hamas operatives describe their use of hospitals. Probably not in the news you choose to consume.
I think the IDF simply does not know. I think Netanyahu said something like 14,000 combatants and 16,000 civilians is the estimate.
It's more complicated than that. Israel did not administer Gaza nor does it administer PA controlled territories in the West Bank.
Last I checked the question of democracy didn't expand to occupied territories. When the US occupied Afghanistan or Iraq (or German or Japan) those countries did not get a vote in the US elections. Puerto Rico also don't get a vote in the US?
Handing over the west bank to Palestinians isn't an option because: a) the world would not recognize that as the end of Israel's occupation just like it didn't accept Israel's handing Gaza over as the end of the occupation. b) That area would be taken over by Hamas just like Gaza was taken over and would be staging ground for launching attacks into Israel just like Oct 7th or the rocket barrages that came from Gaza over the years since Israel's withdrawal. The West Bank has a significantly longer border with Israel which would put most major Israeli cities minutes of driving and within rocket/mortar range. c) The option of annexing the West Bank and Gaza and making everyone citizens is also not acceptable to either the Palestinians or the international community.
This really answers your unasked question of why is this area under military occupation for so long (IIRC Germany and Japan were also controlled for a pretty long time but anyways). Initially Israel needed the area so Arab armies aren't sitting 10 minutes from its population centers (when the entire Arab world was still at war with Israel). Now that there's peace with Jordan and Egypt it's more of a Palestinians aren't willing to make peace in exchange for this land, they don't want to become Israelis, and there's no realistic option that ensures both the safety of Israelis and their rights and the rights of Palestinians.
After all this you might be right to complain about e.g. settlements in the west bank. And there I'd finally agree with you. Israel should not allow Israelis to live in the west bank before it's final status is determined. That said, it wouldn't really make the problem that easier to solve, if anything it is taking us closer to a day where that area is annexed and Palestinians do become Israeli citizens.
Last I checked the question of democracy didn't expand to occupied territories. When the US occupied Afghanistan or Iraq (or German or Japan) those countries did not get a vote in the US elections. Puerto Rico also don't get a vote in the US?
Handing over the west bank to Palestinians isn't an option because: a) the world would not recognize that as the end of Israel's occupation just like it didn't accept Israel's handing Gaza over as the end of the occupation. b) That area would be taken over by Hamas just like Gaza was taken over and would be staging ground for launching attacks into Israel just like Oct 7th or the rocket barrages that came from Gaza over the years since Israel's withdrawal. The West Bank has a significantly longer border with Israel which would put most major Israeli cities minutes of driving and within rocket/mortar range. c) The option of annexing the West Bank and Gaza and making everyone citizens is also not acceptable to either the Palestinians or the international community.
This really answers your unasked question of why is this area under military occupation for so long (IIRC Germany and Japan were also controlled for a pretty long time but anyways). Initially Israel needed the area so Arab armies aren't sitting 10 minutes from its population centers (when the entire Arab world was still at war with Israel). Now that there's peace with Jordan and Egypt it's more of a Palestinians aren't willing to make peace in exchange for this land, they don't want to become Israelis, and there's no realistic option that ensures both the safety of Israelis and their rights and the rights of Palestinians.
After all this you might be right to complain about e.g. settlements in the west bank. And there I'd finally agree with you. Israel should not allow Israelis to live in the west bank before it's final status is determined. That said, it wouldn't really make the problem that easier to solve, if anything it is taking us closer to a day where that area is annexed and Palestinians do become Israeli citizens.
Israel has had complete control over Gaza's borders, even the Egyptian border side. And that's since the 1980s, before Hamas even was a thing. That means that Israel either was blockading or "administrated" the border if we want to sugarcoat it. I'm not sure about you but that sure sounds like either an act of war, or occupation.
Also, settlers in the west bank aren't just a "that sucks" type of thing. It shows exactly the intentions of Israel once any territory is pacified. Which is exactly what happened to the west bank since they stopped fighting back.
Also, settlers in the west bank aren't just a "that sucks" type of thing. It shows exactly the intentions of Israel once any territory is pacified. Which is exactly what happened to the west bank since they stopped fighting back.
Egypt is a sovereign nation with control over their borders. It is entirely within their power to facilitate as many border crossings as they see fit. The Egyptian side of the Rafah crossing is staffed by the Egyptian Border Guard Corps. The Philadephi Corridor is demilitarized as per the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty and is controlled by the Egyptian Border Guard Corps. Egypt has chosen to cooperate with Israel on the security arrangements at the border, largely because the Egyptian government regards Israel as an ally and Hamas as a hostile power.
This is either not true or misleading. Palestinians can't move without Israeli consent. It doesn't matter that what the egyptians have chosen voluntarily (they haven't), when every other path in and out of Gaza is controlled by Israel and subject to force and threat of death. For any other territory or nation that would be considered a threat of war.
>Under the Agreed Principles for Rafah Crossing, part of the Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA) of 15 November 2005, EUBAM was responsible for monitoring the Border Crossing. The agreement ensured Israel authority to dispute entrance by any person.[14]
This was in 2005, before Hamas. Now if you can't get to Gaza from the sea, because of Israel. Or from Egypt, because of Israel. Or from Israel itself...
Again, any territory or nation would consider something like this as an act of war, or if we don't see them as nation then apartheid. But no, the Gaza strip was completely free otherwise I guess?
>Under the Agreed Principles for Rafah Crossing, part of the Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA) of 15 November 2005, EUBAM was responsible for monitoring the Border Crossing. The agreement ensured Israel authority to dispute entrance by any person.[14]
This was in 2005, before Hamas. Now if you can't get to Gaza from the sea, because of Israel. Or from Egypt, because of Israel. Or from Israel itself...
Again, any territory or nation would consider something like this as an act of war, or if we don't see them as nation then apartheid. But no, the Gaza strip was completely free otherwise I guess?
Well, Hamas and Israel are at war, and have been at war since Hamas came to power, so not sure why "act of war" matters here. Firing rockets at Israel surely is an act of war.
If Israel has such good control over the Egypt-Gaza border how do Hamas fighters get to train in Iran?
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-fighters-trained...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/09/...
How did they get all the rocket manufacturing technology? Weapons?
This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing says: "It is located on the Egypt–Palestine border. Under a 2007 agreement between Egypt and Israel, Egypt controls the crossing but imports through the Rafah crossing require Israeli approval."
There is no mention of controlling movement of people. Anyways, this is something Egypt agreed to and it's sovereign and free to agree to anything it wants to. What do you mean "Egypt has no chosen voluntarily"?
Do you have a reference to your claim that Palestinians can't move without Israel consent?
You're mentioning EUBAM but EUBAM hasn't been there since 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Border_Assistan...
If Israel has such good control over the Egypt-Gaza border how do Hamas fighters get to train in Iran?
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-fighters-trained...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/09/...
How did they get all the rocket manufacturing technology? Weapons?
This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing says: "It is located on the Egypt–Palestine border. Under a 2007 agreement between Egypt and Israel, Egypt controls the crossing but imports through the Rafah crossing require Israeli approval."
There is no mention of controlling movement of people. Anyways, this is something Egypt agreed to and it's sovereign and free to agree to anything it wants to. What do you mean "Egypt has no chosen voluntarily"?
Do you have a reference to your claim that Palestinians can't move without Israel consent?
You're mentioning EUBAM but EUBAM hasn't been there since 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Border_Assistan...
This was before Hamas took power. That's why I said 2005.
And yes, so between 2005 and 2007 Israel already had control over the border. That's before Hamas. Once Hamas got into power, Israel restricted the border policy even more, but Egypt just basically closed theirs.
I mean I'm not sure what's the debate here. Even Israel is very clear that they issue visas for entry to Gaza. That sure sounds like administering a border to me. In the west bank, they completely control every border point. In Gaza, it's de facto the same thing as Egypt doesn't open theirs for most of the year as they consider Israel the administrative authority that deals with Gaza borders. Which is something Israel acknowledges. Does your country emit visas for territories it doesn't administer?
https://www.gov.il/en/service/entry-to-gaza
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2016-03-10/ty-article/.p... https://www.btselem.org/freedom_of_movement/20170515_thousan...
Edit: as for Egyptian control of the border, here's a source that explains how it's in many ways nominal only, with a tacit agreement between Israel and Egypt about dual use materials.
https://features.gisha.org/red-lines-gray-lists/
Which I guess can make sense considering Hamas. But then one has to remember that this has been the case before Hamas took power too. So that catch all excuse doesn't hold water.
And yes, so between 2005 and 2007 Israel already had control over the border. That's before Hamas. Once Hamas got into power, Israel restricted the border policy even more, but Egypt just basically closed theirs.
I mean I'm not sure what's the debate here. Even Israel is very clear that they issue visas for entry to Gaza. That sure sounds like administering a border to me. In the west bank, they completely control every border point. In Gaza, it's de facto the same thing as Egypt doesn't open theirs for most of the year as they consider Israel the administrative authority that deals with Gaza borders. Which is something Israel acknowledges. Does your country emit visas for territories it doesn't administer?
https://www.gov.il/en/service/entry-to-gaza
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2016-03-10/ty-article/.p... https://www.btselem.org/freedom_of_movement/20170515_thousan...
Edit: as for Egyptian control of the border, here's a source that explains how it's in many ways nominal only, with a tacit agreement between Israel and Egypt about dual use materials.
https://features.gisha.org/red-lines-gray-lists/
Which I guess can make sense considering Hamas. But then one has to remember that this has been the case before Hamas took power too. So that catch all excuse doesn't hold water.
The debate is about the false claim that Israel has control over all of Gazas borders. Egypt has control over one border. That is a matter of fact. The Anti-Israeli crowd refuses to deal with facts.
Israel administers it's border with Gaza. That's not the debate.
Israel requires people to get a permit to enter Gaza from Israel. It does not control who goes into Gaza from Egypt.
Your claim: "Does your country emit visas for territories it doesn't administer?" is nonsense and factually incorrect.
Israel administers it's border with Gaza. That's not the debate.
Israel requires people to get a permit to enter Gaza from Israel. It does not control who goes into Gaza from Egypt.
Your claim: "Does your country emit visas for territories it doesn't administer?" is nonsense and factually incorrect.
So Israel does not administer the emission of visas? And does not have a gray list with Egypt on the Palestinian border? And there were no border agreements in the context of camp David and other related agreements with Egypt?
Israel has shown itself to basically have 0 regard for international law. It's not like they haven't shown that they will attack any way to cross the border that they don't have some sort of control on. I mean, why would they attack the Gaza flotilla and enforce a maritime blockade on Gaza if the border with Egypt was already "free" from their control?
Generally speaking, do you agree or disagree with the fact that enforcing a maritime blockade is usually an act of war and grounds for retaliation? Btw, you still haven't shown me a single example of a country that emits a visa of entry for a territory that isn't under occupation (or under blockade).
But sure, I guess Egypt totally has control over the crossing that is within shelling range from Israeli military outposts, in an area that they did shell in the past too.
So if we ignore the soft military threat on Egypt, the choking out of the border crossing opposite of the Egyptian side, the lists of goods that can't make it through due to israeli graylists, the fact that every other border crossing is controlled by Israel, and that they did control human passage before Hamas even at Rafah until 2007... oh and also the fact that Gaza has no rights to maritime traffic or air traffic.... then yes sure you're completely right.
I'm sure Palestinians should be glad that Israel gives them the privilege of being a notch more "open" than Warsaw ghettos. The few weeks per decade when Rafah is actually open, that is.
Israel has shown itself to basically have 0 regard for international law. It's not like they haven't shown that they will attack any way to cross the border that they don't have some sort of control on. I mean, why would they attack the Gaza flotilla and enforce a maritime blockade on Gaza if the border with Egypt was already "free" from their control?
Generally speaking, do you agree or disagree with the fact that enforcing a maritime blockade is usually an act of war and grounds for retaliation? Btw, you still haven't shown me a single example of a country that emits a visa of entry for a territory that isn't under occupation (or under blockade).
But sure, I guess Egypt totally has control over the crossing that is within shelling range from Israeli military outposts, in an area that they did shell in the past too.
So if we ignore the soft military threat on Egypt, the choking out of the border crossing opposite of the Egyptian side, the lists of goods that can't make it through due to israeli graylists, the fact that every other border crossing is controlled by Israel, and that they did control human passage before Hamas even at Rafah until 2007... oh and also the fact that Gaza has no rights to maritime traffic or air traffic.... then yes sure you're completely right.
I'm sure Palestinians should be glad that Israel gives them the privilege of being a notch more "open" than Warsaw ghettos. The few weeks per decade when Rafah is actually open, that is.
Gaza was under Israeli control until 2005. The Agreement on Movement and Access was made between Israel and the Palestinian Authority as part of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. That agreement collapsed in 2006 when Hamas took power. The PA had fled Gaza and were no longer able to uphold their side of the agreement; Hamas did not recognise the agreement and were unwilling to negotiate with the PA, Egypt or Israel on border security arrangements.
Egypt lost the six-day war and had to sign the Camp David accords and peace treaty to regain the Sinai peninsula. In return it gave up upon part of its sovereignty needing consent of Israel on topics like arming of the border guard or wares that are allowed the crossing.
Israel had no control of the Egyptian border to Gaza since it withdrew in 2005. That is a fact.
You got the settler vs. Palestinian violence in exactly the wrong order. Before the first Intifadah there were hardly any settlers in the west bank. The settlement movement is a response to Palestinian violence, not something that happened because the violence stopped. Palestinian violence against Israelis and Jews predates 1967 (when the west bank was occupied from Jordan) and predates 1948 (When the state of Israel was created).
You got the settler vs. Palestinian violence in exactly the wrong order. Before the first Intifadah there were hardly any settlers in the west bank. The settlement movement is a response to Palestinian violence, not something that happened because the violence stopped. Palestinian violence against Israelis and Jews predates 1967 (when the west bank was occupied from Jordan) and predates 1948 (When the state of Israel was created).
> Before the first Intifadah there were hardly any settlers in the west bank. The settlement movement is a response to Palestinian violence, not something that happened because the violence stopped.
Even if this is true, all it demonstrates is that Israel is willing to take any measure necessary to avoid giving Palestinians in the West Bank full legal and political rights. Mere military occupation was met with violence, so instead of taking it as a sign that they weren't welcome and letting the population govern itself, they resorted to civilian settlement on top of that to solidify their hold.
Even if this is true, all it demonstrates is that Israel is willing to take any measure necessary to avoid giving Palestinians in the West Bank full legal and political rights. Mere military occupation was met with violence, so instead of taking it as a sign that they weren't welcome and letting the population govern itself, they resorted to civilian settlement on top of that to solidify their hold.
Israel offered them full rights multiple times. During the Oslo peace process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords and later in the Camp David: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit
Many (IMO most) Palestinians don't want to govern themselves. They want Israel erased. Israel tried "govern themselves" in Gaza.
There is nobody representing Palestinians that will accept resolving the conflict in return to control over the west bank and Gaza. This is true in multiple ways, firstly the Palestinians are fractured and have no one representative. None of the different factions would accept this either. Find me one Palestinian leader that says that.
It's super naive (sorry) to think that this conflict would be over as soon as Israel withdrew from the West Bank and Gaza. Ariel Sharon wanted to withdraw from the West Bank if the withdrawal from Gaza proved successful. Most Israelis do not sympathize with the settlers (at least that's the way it used to be, public opinion shifted a lot with all the violence). What would happen is that Hamas would take over, just like it did in Gaza. The PA is relies on Israel's support right now which prevents that from happening. Then all of Israel would be bombarded with rockets, mortars, etc.
The Palestinians demand the right of return, that is any refugee from the war of 1948 and all their descendants should be allowed to return to Israel. This is a non-starter for Israel and something without precedent in any other war in history. What this means in practice is the destruction of Israel by killing or expelling all Israelis. The other point of contention is Jerusalem. Israeli maintains freedom of religion and access to all religions. When Jerusalem was under Jordanian control Jordan did not. It's unlikely that Jerusalem under Hamas control would maintain free access. Jersualem is the holiest city for Jews.
Many (IMO most) Palestinians don't want to govern themselves. They want Israel erased. Israel tried "govern themselves" in Gaza.
There is nobody representing Palestinians that will accept resolving the conflict in return to control over the west bank and Gaza. This is true in multiple ways, firstly the Palestinians are fractured and have no one representative. None of the different factions would accept this either. Find me one Palestinian leader that says that.
It's super naive (sorry) to think that this conflict would be over as soon as Israel withdrew from the West Bank and Gaza. Ariel Sharon wanted to withdraw from the West Bank if the withdrawal from Gaza proved successful. Most Israelis do not sympathize with the settlers (at least that's the way it used to be, public opinion shifted a lot with all the violence). What would happen is that Hamas would take over, just like it did in Gaza. The PA is relies on Israel's support right now which prevents that from happening. Then all of Israel would be bombarded with rockets, mortars, etc.
The Palestinians demand the right of return, that is any refugee from the war of 1948 and all their descendants should be allowed to return to Israel. This is a non-starter for Israel and something without precedent in any other war in history. What this means in practice is the destruction of Israel by killing or expelling all Israelis. The other point of contention is Jerusalem. Israeli maintains freedom of religion and access to all religions. When Jerusalem was under Jordanian control Jordan did not. It's unlikely that Jerusalem under Hamas control would maintain free access. Jersualem is the holiest city for Jews.
> Israel offered them full rights multiple times. During the Oslo peace process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords and later in the Camp David: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit
Oslo (which never included a firm promise of a Palestinian state in the first place, or even an end to the settlements) was sabotaged by the extremist fringe on both sides. If there is ever to be peace, those fringes can't be allowed to have a veto over the process. As for Camp David: https://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_m...
> Israel tried "govern themselves" in Gaza.
To be specific, Israel tried "govern themselves, but also help fund and bolster Hamas terrorists. And blockade Gaza by land, air, and sea (including bombing out their airport) so their economy has no possibility of ever growing. And shoot to kill civilians in wheelchairs if they dare protest this state of affairs." That's what the situation in Gaza has been for the past two decades. Any nation—any nation—subjected to such treatment for such a span of time would consider it casus belli.
> the Palestinians are fractured and have no one representative.
Yes, and that's because Netanyahu and co worked tirelessly for years to fracture them, so that they would be able to make this argument. https://original.antiwar.com/scott/2023/10/27/netanyahus-sup...
Barghouti perhaps could be a unifying figure if released, though maybe that wouldn't be a good thing… In any case, lack of unity between Gaza and the West Bank is no excuse to block work towards peace and ending the occupation in either locale. Israel could make separate deals with both factions.
> The Palestinians demand the right of return
They demand that RoR be acknowledged. In practice, their negotiators have admitted on several occasions that all of them returning would be impracticable. Instead, Israel could let only a small percentage in, and financially compensate the rest as restitution.
> Israeli maintains freedom of religion
Eh, they are trying to destroy the Armenian Christian quarter. But mostly true
Oslo (which never included a firm promise of a Palestinian state in the first place, or even an end to the settlements) was sabotaged by the extremist fringe on both sides. If there is ever to be peace, those fringes can't be allowed to have a veto over the process. As for Camp David: https://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_m...
> Israel tried "govern themselves" in Gaza.
To be specific, Israel tried "govern themselves, but also help fund and bolster Hamas terrorists. And blockade Gaza by land, air, and sea (including bombing out their airport) so their economy has no possibility of ever growing. And shoot to kill civilians in wheelchairs if they dare protest this state of affairs." That's what the situation in Gaza has been for the past two decades. Any nation—any nation—subjected to such treatment for such a span of time would consider it casus belli.
> the Palestinians are fractured and have no one representative.
Yes, and that's because Netanyahu and co worked tirelessly for years to fracture them, so that they would be able to make this argument. https://original.antiwar.com/scott/2023/10/27/netanyahus-sup...
Barghouti perhaps could be a unifying figure if released, though maybe that wouldn't be a good thing… In any case, lack of unity between Gaza and the West Bank is no excuse to block work towards peace and ending the occupation in either locale. Israel could make separate deals with both factions.
> The Palestinians demand the right of return
They demand that RoR be acknowledged. In practice, their negotiators have admitted on several occasions that all of them returning would be impracticable. Instead, Israel could let only a small percentage in, and financially compensate the rest as restitution.
> Israeli maintains freedom of religion
Eh, they are trying to destroy the Armenian Christian quarter. But mostly true
Alternatively, the settler movement has its own start, unrelated to violence, and will continue whether there's violence or peace.
Yes and Israeli violence against Palestinians also dates from 1948. In fact the Israelis killed much more Palestinians than the reverse.
Also I don't get your point. So they started settling because of the intifada? That doesn't make sense, and I've never seen settlers claim that it was related to anything expect that they see it as their god given land regardless of what happens to those who live there already.
I mean it's pretty simple, when the Fath ceased armed combat, the settlers came and Israel did nothing expect provide IDF protection to them. That's what the Palestinians got for trying to actually normalize the situation and create the PA and even fight their own little civil war against extremists (Fath vs Hamas): unrelenting settlement.
I'm sure the settlers wouldn't be so brazen if Hamas was also on the west bank. Funnily enough though, Israel ministers were also openly discussing allowing settlements again in last year in Gaza.
Still, it's very weird to see settlement as a "oh well that sucks but what can we do" when Israel could stop it any moment they want like they did in 2005. Oddly enough, only Israel gets to have literal conquest and blatant disregard for international law and even their allies marked as an oopsie.
Also I don't get your point. So they started settling because of the intifada? That doesn't make sense, and I've never seen settlers claim that it was related to anything expect that they see it as their god given land regardless of what happens to those who live there already.
I mean it's pretty simple, when the Fath ceased armed combat, the settlers came and Israel did nothing expect provide IDF protection to them. That's what the Palestinians got for trying to actually normalize the situation and create the PA and even fight their own little civil war against extremists (Fath vs Hamas): unrelenting settlement.
I'm sure the settlers wouldn't be so brazen if Hamas was also on the west bank. Funnily enough though, Israel ministers were also openly discussing allowing settlements again in last year in Gaza.
Still, it's very weird to see settlement as a "oh well that sucks but what can we do" when Israel could stop it any moment they want like they did in 2005. Oddly enough, only Israel gets to have literal conquest and blatant disregard for international law and even their allies marked as an oopsie.
The Israeli right wing is supports (to some extent) settlement in the west bank and the rise of the Israeli right is related to Palestinian violence. That's the correlation/connection. Israel's left wing, that used to support a two state solution and peace, has ceased to exist as a direct result of Palestinian terrorism.
You story doesn't jive with the facts. The period between 1967 and the mid eighties was the least violent period in the west bank. Palestinians worked in Israel. Israelies shopped in the west bank. That period also had virtually no settlement activity in the west bank.
The extreme right in Israel sees settlement as the "proper" answer to Palestinian violence. That's another thread connecting these things. But the government that enables this was literally brought into power by Hamas.
When did Fatah cease armed combat exactly according to you? Are you talking about the Oslo agreements and the return of Arafat to Ramallah? I'm not following you (and I used to live in Israel during those times so I'm not making stuff up).
Hamas is also in the west bank so your other statement doesn't compute either.
Israel has dismantled settlements in Sinai, and in Gaza, as part of an agreement. During the Oslo process there was support in Israel to dismantle those as part of a peace agreement. The Palestinians didn't want peace (Arafat thought he'd be murdered if he makes peace with the Israelis and anyways Hamas and the PIJ wouldn't abide which makes the whole thing moot).
You story doesn't jive with the facts. The period between 1967 and the mid eighties was the least violent period in the west bank. Palestinians worked in Israel. Israelies shopped in the west bank. That period also had virtually no settlement activity in the west bank.
The extreme right in Israel sees settlement as the "proper" answer to Palestinian violence. That's another thread connecting these things. But the government that enables this was literally brought into power by Hamas.
When did Fatah cease armed combat exactly according to you? Are you talking about the Oslo agreements and the return of Arafat to Ramallah? I'm not following you (and I used to live in Israel during those times so I'm not making stuff up).
Hamas is also in the west bank so your other statement doesn't compute either.
Israel has dismantled settlements in Sinai, and in Gaza, as part of an agreement. During the Oslo process there was support in Israel to dismantle those as part of a peace agreement. The Palestinians didn't want peace (Arafat thought he'd be murdered if he makes peace with the Israelis and anyways Hamas and the PIJ wouldn't abide which makes the whole thing moot).
> During the Oslo process there was support in Israel to dismantle those as part of a peace agreement.
I think murdering Rabin was also part of the Israeli support for peace?
I think murdering Rabin was also part of the Israeli support for peace?
Hamas is in the west bank? I'm sure they have a few militants but they literally are hunted down and killed by the Fatah. Also, I really wonder what happened in the 1980s that lead to more violence. Could it be that the IDF enabled and even caused the massacre of 3000 Palestinians in Lebanon?
I'm not sure I'm following though. You are saying that Palestinian terrorism caused the right wing to come in power and disregard international law. Sure, okay. I hope you realize that in the 1980s, most of said terrorism was happening in areas that Israel was already occupying. Also, again, you seem to imply that Israel's left wing actually gave the Palestinians more than apartheid and at best, a ghetto to live in semi undisturbed. That has never happened. Again, the poster child for that was 2005. What the Palestinians got was a a completely choked out, blockaded strip of land.
Like were the Palestinians supposed to be grateful and just accept that they will have to live in a state of semi servitude and protectorate because at least it wasn't the right wing in power? That's just completely irrelevant from the Palestinians pov. Again, who cares about the political climate of Israel as if it's some sort of actual excuse for settling and stealing land at gun point? Again, there's an incredible double standard here.
Palestinian motives and goals and politics don't matter, but Israel is always justified because it could've done worse. I mean sure? It reminds of Russian propaganda for the war: they have really tried to stay peaceful but NATO FORCED them to invade and steal land. It could've been worse though! They could've used nukes.
Yes, Israel wasn't doing settlement back then. But that's the point now isn't it? Back then, they already occupied the west bank. And the extremism and fascist inspired ideology of settlers didn't emerge yet. On both sides, extremism was less prominent. But again, the double standard is to excuse the Israeli settlers and their batshit insane ideology.
I'm not sure I'm following though. You are saying that Palestinian terrorism caused the right wing to come in power and disregard international law. Sure, okay. I hope you realize that in the 1980s, most of said terrorism was happening in areas that Israel was already occupying. Also, again, you seem to imply that Israel's left wing actually gave the Palestinians more than apartheid and at best, a ghetto to live in semi undisturbed. That has never happened. Again, the poster child for that was 2005. What the Palestinians got was a a completely choked out, blockaded strip of land.
Like were the Palestinians supposed to be grateful and just accept that they will have to live in a state of semi servitude and protectorate because at least it wasn't the right wing in power? That's just completely irrelevant from the Palestinians pov. Again, who cares about the political climate of Israel as if it's some sort of actual excuse for settling and stealing land at gun point? Again, there's an incredible double standard here.
Palestinian motives and goals and politics don't matter, but Israel is always justified because it could've done worse. I mean sure? It reminds of Russian propaganda for the war: they have really tried to stay peaceful but NATO FORCED them to invade and steal land. It could've been worse though! They could've used nukes.
Yes, Israel wasn't doing settlement back then. But that's the point now isn't it? Back then, they already occupied the west bank. And the extremism and fascist inspired ideology of settlers didn't emerge yet. On both sides, extremism was less prominent. But again, the double standard is to excuse the Israeli settlers and their batshit insane ideology.
> if anything it is taking us closer to a day where that area is annexed and Palestinians do become Israeli citizens
I doubt the current state of Israel would ever make the Palestinians full Israeli citizens, because then Israel would no longer be majority Jewish. Being known as the Jewish homeland is very important to Israel.
I doubt the current state of Israel would ever make the Palestinians full Israeli citizens, because then Israel would no longer be majority Jewish. Being known as the Jewish homeland is very important to Israel.
> then Israel would no longer be majority Jewish
It still would, as long as the Gaza strip is not also included (West Bank only).
It still would, as long as the Gaza strip is not also included (West Bank only).
They would. Even with the current numbers Israel still maintains Jewish majority and also the proponents of this annexation also say it'll come hand in hand with a "de-radicalization" program. There are other tools Israel can leverage (e.g. a constitution) to ensure Israel remains the Jewish homeland while making Palestinians full citizens. These don't have to contradict. Either way the Palestinians have no interest in being equal citizens in the country of Israel so it's more or less a moot point, for now.
Previous negotiations like the 2000 Camp David Summit have failed because (among other points) the right of return:
> Almost all Israeli Jews oppose a literal right of return for Palestinian refugees on the grounds that allowing such an influx of Palestinians would render Jews a minority in Israel, thus transforming Israel into an Arab-Muslim state. In addition to the right-wing and center, a majority of the Israeli left, including the far-left, opposes the right of return on these grounds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return
> Almost all Israeli Jews oppose a literal right of return for Palestinian refugees on the grounds that allowing such an influx of Palestinians would render Jews a minority in Israel, thus transforming Israel into an Arab-Muslim state. In addition to the right-wing and center, a majority of the Israeli left, including the far-left, opposes the right of return on these grounds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return
That is correct. My scenario of annexation does not include the right of return. Israel is never going to allow that.
> Nobody has to let foreigners into their country if they don't want to
Eh [1]. But not the ICC’s business.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_S...
Eh [1]. But not the ICC’s business.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_S...
> equating a terrorist organization on the one hand with a democratic state with functioning judicial system and accountability for any crimes committed on the other hand by putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the court
War crimes are war crimes, and these were committed in the same war. This is like complaining a corporation and an employee were charged in the same press release. They’re different, but not in the respect of the alleged crimes.
> why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
Refusing refugees isn’t a war crime and isn’t—to my knowledge—under the ICC’s jurisdiction.
War crimes are war crimes, and these were committed in the same war. This is like complaining a corporation and an employee were charged in the same press release. They’re different, but not in the respect of the alleged crimes.
> why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
Refusing refugees isn’t a war crime and isn’t—to my knowledge—under the ICC’s jurisdiction.
Furthermore, if Egypt did accept refugees, depending on how it was done, they could be implicated as an an accomplice to ethnic cleansing
In that sense, the UK and America (among others) were accomplices to the Holocaust, by accepting Jews who were fleeing Germany?
An interesting comparison. If they took in every Jew in Germany they would have been accomplices to an ethnic cleansing but would effectively have prevented an ethnic extermination. So while technically the answer would have been yes in that case it might have been a good thing anyways.
But the analogy breaks down here because (1) the UK and USA had strongly antisemitic attitudes at the time and imposed very small quotas on the number of Jews they accepted as refugees and (2) it appears that Israel is not pursuing extermination of Palestinians.
But the analogy breaks down here because (1) the UK and USA had strongly antisemitic attitudes at the time and imposed very small quotas on the number of Jews they accepted as refugees and (2) it appears that Israel is not pursuing extermination of Palestinians.
The point is that a law which would label people saving the victims of the holocaust as being complicit in a genocide then it's a stupid law.
The US and UK have a checkered record with respect to accepting people fleeing the Holocaust [1].
Saving them was not an objective of the war effort and was opposed by many due to domestic anti-Semitism and ethno-nationalism (Nazism had significant open sympathy in the US at the time).
Until the political tides changed in the US/UK, both countries definitely wasted time during which many perished in the Holocaust. Mostly people watched as the Nazis killed millions. There was no public uproar to intervene while the events were happening.
It's also not clear that either country would have ever accepted millions of Holocaust refugees, even though the US certainly had the space. The creation of the state of Israel after the war in a way helped them not have to face that question.
1. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-united...
Saving them was not an objective of the war effort and was opposed by many due to domestic anti-Semitism and ethno-nationalism (Nazism had significant open sympathy in the US at the time).
Until the political tides changed in the US/UK, both countries definitely wasted time during which many perished in the Holocaust. Mostly people watched as the Nazis killed millions. There was no public uproar to intervene while the events were happening.
It's also not clear that either country would have ever accepted millions of Holocaust refugees, even though the US certainly had the space. The creation of the state of Israel after the war in a way helped them not have to face that question.
1. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-united...
My reading of the history is that a not insignificant fraction of early Western support for Zionism was explicitly to avoid Jewish immigration to Western nations.
That was among the secular/ethno-nationalist rationales.
But there is also a religious rationale. In fundamentalist Christianity, the re-establishment of the state of Israel to its biblically described borders is a precondition for the return of the Messiah and Judgement Day, when the same Jewish people will supposedly be given a last chance to convert ... or else. So the policy is in part rooted in the anti-Semitism of Christian eschatology.
Those ideas had strong appeal after WW2, and they are a major policy motivator of the Christian religious right-wing in the US today.
But there is also a religious rationale. In fundamentalist Christianity, the re-establishment of the state of Israel to its biblically described borders is a precondition for the return of the Messiah and Judgement Day, when the same Jewish people will supposedly be given a last chance to convert ... or else. So the policy is in part rooted in the anti-Semitism of Christian eschatology.
Those ideas had strong appeal after WW2, and they are a major policy motivator of the Christian religious right-wing in the US today.
Just one minor note: these are parts of American Protestant fundamentalist Christianity, I don't think similar concepts can be found in even the more fundamentalist factions of Catholic, Orthodox, Calvinist, Lutheran, or Ethiopian Christian sects.
Yes, I don't generally include Catholicism, Orthodox, and several other Christian sects when I use the term fundamentalist Christianity (although I'm sure fundamentalists exist in any sect of any religion).
I suppose a better term would be "evangelical protestant fundamentalist Christianity", although I suspect that even there, some small number of them are not focused on politicizing Christian eschatology.
I suppose a better term would be "evangelical protestant fundamentalist Christianity", although I suspect that even there, some small number of them are not focused on politicizing Christian eschatology.
It's not a war crime but it is against the 1951 and 1967 refugee conventions, both of which Egypt is a signatory to. I wish more time was spent lambasting them for that.
How about Israel take them as refugees. After all, some of them still have the keys to their homes which were stolen in the Nakba.
I agree, you should be roughly 50-50 in terms of pressure.
You’re confused. The people of Gaza have always been in Gaza. You’re thinking about others who left Israel to go to Jordan, Syria or Lebanon.
I'm not sure that's historically accurate. Gaza was where a lot of Arabs fled during the Nakba and surrounding periods.
That cannot be true based on any logical thinking. It would be amazing if that were the case. That people fleeing in Nakba all said “we will go anywhere but the remaining unoccupied Palestinian territory”
That's absolutely false. Yes, there were Palestinians in Gaza before the Nakba, but the reason there are refugee camps and the reason UNWRA exists is to provide for the Palestinian refugees from the Nakba.
Palestine using human shields are not Israel's war crimes. They are Palestine's war crimes.
Israel is not at fault for trying to recover hostages from a population aiding and abetting terrorists. Have you even seen footage of a Hamas member in uniform being killed? They dress as civilians so their rightful killing is interpreted as "war crimes" by gullible American students.
Israel is not at fault for trying to recover hostages from a population aiding and abetting terrorists. Have you even seen footage of a Hamas member in uniform being killed? They dress as civilians so their rightful killing is interpreted as "war crimes" by gullible American students.
> gullible American students
The prosecutors at the ICC are neither gullible nor American.
> Palestine using human shields are not Israel's war crimes
Starvation as a war tactic ... can't be human shields? Dropping a bomb every 50secs for the first 2 weeks and now again in the past week killing 15k+ can't be human shields? Withholding aid, inciting genocide, destroying large swathes of infrastructure isn't merely human shields.
The prosecutors at the ICC are neither gullible nor American.
> Palestine using human shields are not Israel's war crimes
Starvation as a war tactic ... can't be human shields? Dropping a bomb every 50secs for the first 2 weeks and now again in the past week killing 15k+ can't be human shields? Withholding aid, inciting genocide, destroying large swathes of infrastructure isn't merely human shields.
There are many, many pieces of evidence I could cite to refute this argument, but the one I find the most compelling is the situation in the West Bank. Hamas does not control that area, there are no "human shields" there. And yet the IDF kills civilians and commits crimes there regularly (with reams of documentation from organizations like https://www.btselem.org/ and https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/). Why should I trust the IDF to be any less criminal in Gaza?
> gullible American students
I know one such student quite well. They are Jewish, right-wing, and all their life were taught (at the Jewish school they attended, and by their family) to support Israel. Then they went out into the world, and met some Palestinians. Now they are leading protests against the war
> gullible American students
I know one such student quite well. They are Jewish, right-wing, and all their life were taught (at the Jewish school they attended, and by their family) to support Israel. Then they went out into the world, and met some Palestinians. Now they are leading protests against the war
> War crimes are war crimes, and these were committed in the same war.
Some were committed 7 months ago, the other were allegedly committed a short time ago.
Putting them both in the same release is utterly repugnant.
Some were committed 7 months ago, the other were allegedly committed a short time ago.
Putting them both in the same release is utterly repugnant.
> I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion
The Panel's report is not based on "far fetched assumptions." It names the explicit acts that Israel is known to have committed (eg: mass starvation via blockade of food and shelter):
"based on a review of material presented by the Prosecutor, the Panel assesses that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant formed a common plan, together with others, to jointly perpetrate the crime of using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. The Panel has concluded that the acts through which this war crime was committed include a siege on the Gaza Strip and the closure of border crossings; arbitrary restrictions on entry and distribution of essential supplies; cutting off supplies of electricity and water, and severely restricting food, medicine and fuel supplies. This deprivation of objects indispensable to civilians’ survival took place in the context of attacks on facilities that produce food and clean water, attacks against civilians attempting to obtain relief supplies and attacks directed against humanitarian workers and convoys delivering relief supplies, despite the deconfliction and coordination by humanitarian agencies with Israel Defence Forces. These acts took place with full knowledge of the extent of Gazans’ reliance on Israel for essential supplies, and the adverse and inevitable consequences of such acts in terms of human suffering and deaths for the civilian population."
https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p...
The Panel's report is not based on "far fetched assumptions." It names the explicit acts that Israel is known to have committed (eg: mass starvation via blockade of food and shelter):
"based on a review of material presented by the Prosecutor, the Panel assesses that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant formed a common plan, together with others, to jointly perpetrate the crime of using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. The Panel has concluded that the acts through which this war crime was committed include a siege on the Gaza Strip and the closure of border crossings; arbitrary restrictions on entry and distribution of essential supplies; cutting off supplies of electricity and water, and severely restricting food, medicine and fuel supplies. This deprivation of objects indispensable to civilians’ survival took place in the context of attacks on facilities that produce food and clean water, attacks against civilians attempting to obtain relief supplies and attacks directed against humanitarian workers and convoys delivering relief supplies, despite the deconfliction and coordination by humanitarian agencies with Israel Defence Forces. These acts took place with full knowledge of the extent of Gazans’ reliance on Israel for essential supplies, and the adverse and inevitable consequences of such acts in terms of human suffering and deaths for the civilian population."
https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p...
Not sure if this is what OP was saying, but evidence of orders to directly target civilians would be an open and shut case.
The starvation charge could at least in theory fail (e.g., along the lines of intent - although Gallant's words in the beginning of the war certainly do not help Israel's case).
The starvation charge could at least in theory fail (e.g., along the lines of intent - although Gallant's words in the beginning of the war certainly do not help Israel's case).
Juxtaposition and equation are different. The press release makes very clear which charges apply to which parties—the charges against the Hamasnikim are quite different from those against Israeli leaders. It also makes clear that the principle of subsidiarity of course applies.
If you think the prima facie case against Bibi and Gallant is convincing, the Israeli AG is quite plausibly doing so little that subsidiarity is no longer engaged. If you think it is unconvincing, as you say, the problem is not some inappropriately symmetric ignoring of subsidiarity but that the charges themselves are unconvincing.
A final point is that the Rome Statute does not prohibit merely ‘orders of directly targeting civilians’, and so other potential crimes must be considered. These include ‘cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); [e]xtermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity; [and o]ther inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k)’. Of course, you may think that Khan has jumped the gun on each of these in that each of these charges is also implausible, but that is a stronger position than doubting that there were orders to directly target civilians.
(edit: I should add that Khan [I imagine] and I would say that while subsidiarity may not preclude proceedings against Israeli officials because of Israeli inaction, Hamasnikim are not subject to anything that remotely resembles a judicial system worth the name, so there is nothing comparable to even fail to act.)
If you think the prima facie case against Bibi and Gallant is convincing, the Israeli AG is quite plausibly doing so little that subsidiarity is no longer engaged. If you think it is unconvincing, as you say, the problem is not some inappropriately symmetric ignoring of subsidiarity but that the charges themselves are unconvincing.
A final point is that the Rome Statute does not prohibit merely ‘orders of directly targeting civilians’, and so other potential crimes must be considered. These include ‘cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); [e]xtermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity; [and o]ther inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k)’. Of course, you may think that Khan has jumped the gun on each of these in that each of these charges is also implausible, but that is a stronger position than doubting that there were orders to directly target civilians.
(edit: I should add that Khan [I imagine] and I would say that while subsidiarity may not preclude proceedings against Israeli officials because of Israeli inaction, Hamasnikim are not subject to anything that remotely resembles a judicial system worth the name, so there is nothing comparable to even fail to act.)
[deleted]
I realize that the charges are different and clearly attributed to each party they are brought against. The optics of this will still practically lead to people equating both parties and the charges. An alternative (ie seeking both warrants separated by time (ie a week) and space (different press releases)) would have been better.
Again I'm all for investigating whether war crimes have been committed by Israel. It's going to be a nuanced argument in any case to prove so that will probably involve how many civilian casualties are acceptable to achieve legitimate military aims.
The contrast must be pointed out by all who want nations and non state actors to be accountable for their actions.
Again I'm all for investigating whether war crimes have been committed by Israel. It's going to be a nuanced argument in any case to prove so that will probably involve how many civilian casualties are acceptable to achieve legitimate military aims.
The contrast must be pointed out by all who want nations and non state actors to be accountable for their actions.
The crux of the matter is not the casualties inflicted by Israel, not directly. If it were just numbers of casualties, then Hamas's horrific attack wouldn't even register at this point (2000 victims compared to 35000). Even if it were about percebtages, Hamas's brutal attack on October 7th wouldn't be far from Israel's operation (about 25-35% of the victims of Hamas's attack were IDF personnel, if I recall the numbers correctly; IDF is not giving any numbers about their Hamas VS civilian calculations, but comparing their published numbers of killed militants with the available casualty numbers suggests at best a 50% rate, though likely much worse).
Instead, the case is mostly about intent, and that can be gaged from public declarations and actions outside of mere combat. The case against Hamas is clear, they attacked in secret, with quite likely no military targets at all, and with a clear history of anti-civilian sentiments and declarations.
The case against Israel is also relatively simple from this point of view: numerous Israeli leaders, from the president to ministers to members of the Knesset have given public declarations about the collective guilt of Gaza's civilian population, and their actions in preventing aid from entering Gaza, attacking refugees, attacking journalists and international aid workers have been thoroughly documented.
Instead, the case is mostly about intent, and that can be gaged from public declarations and actions outside of mere combat. The case against Hamas is clear, they attacked in secret, with quite likely no military targets at all, and with a clear history of anti-civilian sentiments and declarations.
The case against Israel is also relatively simple from this point of view: numerous Israeli leaders, from the president to ministers to members of the Knesset have given public declarations about the collective guilt of Gaza's civilian population, and their actions in preventing aid from entering Gaza, attacking refugees, attacking journalists and international aid workers have been thoroughly documented.
If people are stupid enough to misread the current press release, they are stupid enough to misread two press releases separated by a week as if they were one press release.
I assumed the ICC named the two opposed leaders in the same press release because the ICC had concerns about both, and it is a politically charged situation.
(If they had named only one leader in that press release, perhaps quietly expecting to name the other later, I would think that would appear to be a judgment of the multiple obvious potential concerns, and a taking of sides.)
(If they had named only one leader in that press release, perhaps quietly expecting to name the other later, I would think that would appear to be a judgment of the multiple obvious potential concerns, and a taking of sides.)
Except only one of those organizations killed 30 000 civilians within 7 months.
And cut off water supplies and electricity, and killed international aid workers, and rained hellfire on hospitals, and killed workers from the UN, and wiped out entire Palestinian families, and razed Gaza to such an extent that it changed the colour of it as seen from space, and plunged Gaza into famine in the worst drop in nutritional status in recorded history.
How exactly do you expect a war in a dense urban area, where the enemy is not uniformed and is directly embedded in and under civilian populations, to transpire?
Not by targeting and intentionally murdering hundreds of entire extended families in their sleep during the night, just because they live in the same 3 story building as some low-level fighter?
That's why you see reports of 600 extended families being completely erased, just because they lived together. It's not random civilians here and there.
Or do you see this as some just warfare on Israel part? https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
That's why you see reports of 600 extended families being completely erased, just because they lived together. It's not random civilians here and there.
Or do you see this as some just warfare on Israel part? https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
You didn't answer the question at all: how do you prosecute a war when all the combatants are embedded in a dense urban civilian population? Are you going to send your soldiers into buildings door to door to face whatever booby traps and horrors the terrorists placed for them? Systematically using civilians as human shields is a war crime for precisely this reason, because it exposes civilians to a great deal of danger.
Actually I did. By excluding one particular category of things. I can provide many other exclusions. General exclusions + some obligations is pretty much how laws of warfare are defined. Which is how nations agreed to wage wars more "humanely" in the past, including Israel.
And I think Israel should not wage its extermination campaign at all, btw. So I simply don't agree with the premise of your question, personally.
And I think Israel should not wage its extermination campaign at all, btw. So I simply don't agree with the premise of your question, personally.
Well the Israel does have a history of door to door killings, please reference the 1948 Nakba massacres and Deir Yassin atrocities. IDF used Palestinians as literal human shield. No amount of whataboutery could erase the horrors IDF has committed in Gaza. Have you seen the videos IDF personnel posted themselves, looting homes, bombing any stone that is standing? Digging graves on cemetery? Mass graves around Al Shifa?
Those are the Gaza ministry of health's numbers for all killed, IIRC, not just civilians.
Hamas only makes up 40,000 of Palestine's 2.3M.
Unless you're trying to claim that Israel has decimated 75% of Hamas, and is almost done, let's not try to diminish this.
The number has also been largely substantiated by press and aid agencies, it's not just Gazan propaganda.
Unless you're trying to claim that Israel has decimated 75% of Hamas, and is almost done, let's not try to diminish this.
The number has also been largely substantiated by press and aid agencies, it's not just Gazan propaganda.
Not to mention that Israel is practically recruiting for Hamas since Oct. 7th. I don't know where the 40,000 number comes from, but if it's from before the war, I have to guess that the needle probably hasn't moved much, even if the # of Hamas killed are accurate.
And not just all who were killed but everyone who has died since Oct. 7
I suppose if Hamas was the larger one, those 30k would have been 30 days, but most likely 5 if given the same resources.
If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike.
Nothing but the truth from Gino. As usual.
Yeah still does not excuse Israel..
> The optics of equating a terrorist organization on the one hand with a democratic state with functioning judicial system and accountability for any crimes committed on the other hand by putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the court.
They aren't being equated by the fact that people associated with each are having charges sought. The five individuals charged are in the same press release because it is the outcome of one investigation of the conflict by the prosecutor's office.
> In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
Because, even if that were to constitute a crime within the general subject matter jurisdiction of the court, that's not an crime that took place on the territory of Palestine or any other State Party to the Rome Statute, or by nationals of Palestine or any other State Party to the Rome Statute, so the ICC, under Article 12 of the Rome Statute, lacks the ability to exercise jurisdiction over them.
They aren't being equated by the fact that people associated with each are having charges sought. The five individuals charged are in the same press release because it is the outcome of one investigation of the conflict by the prosecutor's office.
> In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
Because, even if that were to constitute a crime within the general subject matter jurisdiction of the court, that's not an crime that took place on the territory of Palestine or any other State Party to the Rome Statute, or by nationals of Palestine or any other State Party to the Rome Statute, so the ICC, under Article 12 of the Rome Statute, lacks the ability to exercise jurisdiction over them.
The better comparison is between Hamas and the current Israeli executive branch, not the state of Israel per se. Even so, I see no equating the two. The ICC is implicating both parties with war crimes, not claiming they are equal
Is it possible to conduct a lawful urban war?
I might not want to ever be on either side of such a war, but that seems to be the biggest, intellectually honest hole in the ICC's warrants.
After all they are supposed to be an alternative to the justice system of violence.
I might not want to ever be on either side of such a war, but that seems to be the biggest, intellectually honest hole in the ICC's warrants.
After all they are supposed to be an alternative to the justice system of violence.
The US fought in urban settings in Iraq without putting civilian populations under siege and starvation. By all appearances, Israel isn't even trying to conduct a lawful urban war.
Is it possible to win an urban war lawfully?
Iraq is kind of a terrible example.
Over a hundred thousand civilians died in Iraq. Maybe most of them died in urban combat settings.
Isn't the "Battle of Fallujah" a whitewash of the Siege of Fallujah? (https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2012/1/4/seven-years-afte...)
"Early Target of Offensive Is a Hospital" (https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/world/middleeast/early-ta...)
"US Admits Using White Phosphorus in Fallujah" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/16/iraq.usa)
This isn't whataboutism. War is horrible.
Iraq is kind of a terrible example.
Over a hundred thousand civilians died in Iraq. Maybe most of them died in urban combat settings.
Isn't the "Battle of Fallujah" a whitewash of the Siege of Fallujah? (https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2012/1/4/seven-years-afte...)
"Early Target of Offensive Is a Hospital" (https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/world/middleeast/early-ta...)
"US Admits Using White Phosphorus in Fallujah" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/16/iraq.usa)
This isn't whataboutism. War is horrible.
US fought a war with a well armed state.
Israel started by dropping bombs on hundreds of sleeping families, leveling entire neighborhoods and after a month of that, started fighting some ragtag scavenger fighters (non-state actor), who have almost no external support, while continuing to level everything remotely related to governance, culture, or other social institutions that came in their path for seemingly no reason but the desire to completely erase possiblity for Palestinians to live in Gaza.
Seems more like an extermination campaign, and no, you can't fight that lawfully.
Israel started by dropping bombs on hundreds of sleeping families, leveling entire neighborhoods and after a month of that, started fighting some ragtag scavenger fighters (non-state actor), who have almost no external support, while continuing to level everything remotely related to governance, culture, or other social institutions that came in their path for seemingly no reason but the desire to completely erase possiblity for Palestinians to live in Gaza.
Seems more like an extermination campaign, and no, you can't fight that lawfully.
> Is it possible to conduct a lawful urban war?
Yes.
> that seems to be the biggest, intellectually honest hole in the ICC's warrants.
No warrants have been issued nor have the specifics of any of the charges sought, beyond the names of the crimes, been made public. No oene can talk about what the holes in the charges that might ne issued in the future are, only of strawman charges that they have invented to argue against.
Yes.
> that seems to be the biggest, intellectually honest hole in the ICC's warrants.
No warrants have been issued nor have the specifics of any of the charges sought, beyond the names of the crimes, been made public. No oene can talk about what the holes in the charges that might ne issued in the future are, only of strawman charges that they have invented to argue against.
The arrest warrants are for individuals, some from Hamas and some from Likud. Where do you see an arrest warrant for Israel?
I spent a while trying to see what you wrote but am not finding it.
I spent a while trying to see what you wrote but am not finding it.
You're right, the optics are weird, but sufficient conditions that define criminal acts can be multiple and varied.
Egypt's non-involvement may violate some other principle, but probably not a "war crime".
Egypt's non-involvement may violate some other principle, but probably not a "war crime".
>In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
I see phrases like this tossed around in countless political debates - "Well, if they're investigating X, why the heck aren't they investigating Y!?".
To that, I ask - how are you 100% sure that that's not also happening?
I see phrases like this tossed around in countless political debates - "Well, if they're investigating X, why the heck aren't they investigating Y!?".
To that, I ask - how are you 100% sure that that's not also happening?
> a democratic state with functioning judicial system
The "functioning judicial system" is only relevant here if that judicial system is actively investigating the crimes that the ICC is looking into. If Gallant and Netanyahu were on trial inside Israel for war crimes, then the ICC would step back. But that's not the case.
I won't get into whether Israel is really democratic, given that it rules over several million non-citizens in the occupied territories, whom it deprives of even the most basic rights.
> I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion.
In Gaza, the IDF has targeted nearly every civilian apartment building, nearly every hospital, nearly every school, in fact nearly every building period. The IDF knows that civilians live in apartment buildings. It knows that hospitals are full of sick and wounded civilians, as well as medical staff, families of patients, and people seeking shelter from the bombing. When Israel decides to bomb a civilian apartment building or a civilian hospital, it is intentionally targeting civilians. Israel can claim that it is just going after Hamas operatives in a highly selective fashion, but that is implausible given the scale of the bombing campaign. It is also contradicted by leaks from inside the IDF, which show that Israel is intentionally targeting the personal homes of anyone suspected by an AI system of being connected to Hamas, and that the IDF is willing to kill up to hundreds of civilians just to hit one Hamas member.[0,1]
0. https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-cal...
1. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
The "functioning judicial system" is only relevant here if that judicial system is actively investigating the crimes that the ICC is looking into. If Gallant and Netanyahu were on trial inside Israel for war crimes, then the ICC would step back. But that's not the case.
I won't get into whether Israel is really democratic, given that it rules over several million non-citizens in the occupied territories, whom it deprives of even the most basic rights.
> I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion.
In Gaza, the IDF has targeted nearly every civilian apartment building, nearly every hospital, nearly every school, in fact nearly every building period. The IDF knows that civilians live in apartment buildings. It knows that hospitals are full of sick and wounded civilians, as well as medical staff, families of patients, and people seeking shelter from the bombing. When Israel decides to bomb a civilian apartment building or a civilian hospital, it is intentionally targeting civilians. Israel can claim that it is just going after Hamas operatives in a highly selective fashion, but that is implausible given the scale of the bombing campaign. It is also contradicted by leaks from inside the IDF, which show that Israel is intentionally targeting the personal homes of anyone suspected by an AI system of being connected to Hamas, and that the IDF is willing to kill up to hundreds of civilians just to hit one Hamas member.[0,1]
0. https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-cal...
1. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
If this was October 2023, sure. I'd agree with you. The problem is that, as the war has continued, Israel has engaged in a number of actions that, depending on how you spin it, are either catastrophic fuck-ups or deliberate attempts to starve out Gaza, including bombing a humanitarian aid convoy.
Furthermore, there's no way in hell Netanyahu gets his endgame (wiping Hamas off the face of the planet) without either exterminating all Palestinians in Gaza (which absolutely is a war crime, orders or no) or significantly backing down on several of the things Israel does to Palestine to make it mad. He also has no reason to simply snipe some of the higher-ups, patch up the holes in the Iron Dome, and declare victory. Netanyahu needs the war to continue so he can continue delaying his corruption trial long enough to declare himself above the law with a judicial reform.
To be clear, yes, Israel is more western and more liberal than Palestine, but that gap is closing faster than I think anyone would like to admit.
>In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
Because countries do not recognize migration as a human right. If the ICC did this and was consistent about it, they'd have to challenge basically every restrictive immigration policy ever. I'd personally love that, but given how many countries in the EU are making handbrake turns to the right wing specifically so they never have to take in another refugee ever again[2], the EU would rather just invade the Hague like Bush threatened to.
Furthermore, (one of) the reason(s) why the 'three state solution'[3] never really panned out is because Egypt and Jordan don't want to become hosts for further revaunchism. Hamas will set up shop in their new home and Israel will just invade them - like they did in the Yom Kippur War. For similar reasons Israel has never wanted to entertain the 'one state solution'[1] that would also have solved this conflict decades ago, because they (mostly correctly) think Hamas will never be satisfied until Palestine extends from the border to the sea and all the Jews have been deported.
[1] Just abolish the Palestine/Israel border and let people live and work wherever
[2] Which, to be clear, is also a travesty.
[3] Move Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan and let Israel take over the rest of the land
Furthermore, there's no way in hell Netanyahu gets his endgame (wiping Hamas off the face of the planet) without either exterminating all Palestinians in Gaza (which absolutely is a war crime, orders or no) or significantly backing down on several of the things Israel does to Palestine to make it mad. He also has no reason to simply snipe some of the higher-ups, patch up the holes in the Iron Dome, and declare victory. Netanyahu needs the war to continue so he can continue delaying his corruption trial long enough to declare himself above the law with a judicial reform.
To be clear, yes, Israel is more western and more liberal than Palestine, but that gap is closing faster than I think anyone would like to admit.
>In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
Because countries do not recognize migration as a human right. If the ICC did this and was consistent about it, they'd have to challenge basically every restrictive immigration policy ever. I'd personally love that, but given how many countries in the EU are making handbrake turns to the right wing specifically so they never have to take in another refugee ever again[2], the EU would rather just invade the Hague like Bush threatened to.
Furthermore, (one of) the reason(s) why the 'three state solution'[3] never really panned out is because Egypt and Jordan don't want to become hosts for further revaunchism. Hamas will set up shop in their new home and Israel will just invade them - like they did in the Yom Kippur War. For similar reasons Israel has never wanted to entertain the 'one state solution'[1] that would also have solved this conflict decades ago, because they (mostly correctly) think Hamas will never be satisfied until Palestine extends from the border to the sea and all the Jews have been deported.
[1] Just abolish the Palestine/Israel border and let people live and work wherever
[2] Which, to be clear, is also a travesty.
[3] Move Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan and let Israel take over the rest of the land
> or deliberate attempts to starve out Gaza
The Israeli defense minister went on TV on 9 October 2023 [0] and declared that he was going to starve Gaza:
"We are imposing a complete siege on the city of Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly."
I assume that this explicit admission of guilt is why he has been charged.
0. https://youtu.be/ZbPdR3E4hCk?si=Gx1Uf_jWeRVUNELr
The Israeli defense minister went on TV on 9 October 2023 [0] and declared that he was going to starve Gaza:
"We are imposing a complete siege on the city of Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly."
I assume that this explicit admission of guilt is why he has been charged.
0. https://youtu.be/ZbPdR3E4hCk?si=Gx1Uf_jWeRVUNELr
xdennis(4)
> Furthermore, there's no way in hell Netanyahu gets his endgame (wiping Hamas off the face of the planet)
Citation needed. When the PLO and Arafat were becoming less militant, and more diplomatic, that's when Netanyahu and Mossad started sending tens of millions a month to Hamas, to keep it as the "public enemy number one". But if Hamas goes away, then Netanyahu has to explain why he won't support a two party state (because "from the river to the sea" has also been Likud's platform and policy).
Citation needed. When the PLO and Arafat were becoming less militant, and more diplomatic, that's when Netanyahu and Mossad started sending tens of millions a month to Hamas, to keep it as the "public enemy number one". But if Hamas goes away, then Netanyahu has to explain why he won't support a two party state (because "from the river to the sea" has also been Likud's platform and policy).
>that's when Netanyahu and Mossad started sending tens of millions a month to Hamas
Wasn't this internationally donated Palestinian aid money?
Wasn't this internationally donated Palestinian aid money?
Aid money to Palestine is only "donations to Hamas" when it's politically convenient, apparently. I've heard many justify the bombing of convoys because the food would feed Hamas people.
Exactly - totally agree.
> why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee
Because Egypt believes this would amount to supporting ethnic cleansing:
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2024/02/27/why-e...
And given that many on the far-right in the Israel government want Palestinians out of Gaza it's a reasonable position.
Because Egypt believes this would amount to supporting ethnic cleansing:
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2024/02/27/why-e...
And given that many on the far-right in the Israel government want Palestinians out of Gaza it's a reasonable position.
Has anyone asked whether the Palestinians in Gaza want out of Gaza? That seems like a more important question.
They want to return to their homes from before the Nakba. They tried to march for this peacefully in 2018 and had snipers shoot their kneecaps out.
They tried to walk through a militarized border fence, which will get you shot. If they had got to the homes they meant to reclaim the 'march' would have been anything but peaceful.
Border guards usually just deny entry and turn them away without blasting out their kneecaps.
The real question is: why is there a militarized border fence and who is paying for it?
The real question is: why is there a militarized border fence and who is paying for it?
Many of them have demonstrable property ownership (or their parents/grandparents did) in Israel proper.
they don't, in general
but they also don't want to die, want flowing water, food, electricity, medical infrastructure etc.
but they also don't want to die, want flowing water, food, electricity, medical infrastructure etc.
Egypt may well believe that (and others have rightfully pointed out that not following UN conventions for refugees is outside of the jurisdiction of the ICC), but I don't think there is a plausible case to be made that refusing to help people wanting to flee from armed conflict can be considering "supporting ethnic cleansing".
[deleted]
It's an interesting question. Even if you believe Netanyahu is guilty he was elected in a functional democracy. His ruling coalition is tenuous but legal. But if the ICC is trying to prevent atrocities then the size of the constituency behind an atrocity is irrelevant. At least to the mission. It does make enforcement seem kinda impossible. The best outcome they can hope for is shaming the Israeli electorate into doing something different.
> The optics of equating a terrorist organization on the one hand with a democratic state with functioning judicial system and accountability for any crimes committed on the other hand by putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the court.
I don't think anyone is actually doing that, though. The leader of a terrorist group and the leader of a democratic state can both commit war crimes. We need not compare them directly or try to say which one of them is worse in order to acknowledge that fact. Putting them in the same press release (this isn't a press release, though; this is a CNN article) seems fairly natural to me, since both are actors in the same conflict, regardless of how it started.
> I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion.
You don't need direct orders to target civilians. You merely need negligence or a lack of care that causes civilian deaths in excess of what is "necessary" (ugh) to achieve the military objectives. I personally believe that Israeli forces have been indiscriminately killing civilians in Gaza in a way that would constitute war crimes, and apparently that just means I'm in agreement with the ICC.
> On the other side you have what's a pretty clear case of a large scale terror attack against innocent civilians.
Again, it is perfectly possible to acknowledge that two different parties have committed war crimes, even though they've done so in completely different ways, and the organizations they represent are completely different.
> In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
Because that's not against international law. Even if it was, your question here is just whataboutism.
I don't think anyone is actually doing that, though. The leader of a terrorist group and the leader of a democratic state can both commit war crimes. We need not compare them directly or try to say which one of them is worse in order to acknowledge that fact. Putting them in the same press release (this isn't a press release, though; this is a CNN article) seems fairly natural to me, since both are actors in the same conflict, regardless of how it started.
> I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion.
You don't need direct orders to target civilians. You merely need negligence or a lack of care that causes civilian deaths in excess of what is "necessary" (ugh) to achieve the military objectives. I personally believe that Israeli forces have been indiscriminately killing civilians in Gaza in a way that would constitute war crimes, and apparently that just means I'm in agreement with the ICC.
> On the other side you have what's a pretty clear case of a large scale terror attack against innocent civilians.
Again, it is perfectly possible to acknowledge that two different parties have committed war crimes, even though they've done so in completely different ways, and the organizations they represent are completely different.
> In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
Because that's not against international law. Even if it was, your question here is just whataboutism.
You are using characterisations there rather than facts. Or irrelevant facts, such as how the leader was elected. Think about who else in history has been democratically elected.
Courts can only deal in facts otherwise they are ineffective.
Courts that care about “optics” are ineffective. And there are no optics here that will please everyone. So just follow law.
Courts can only deal in facts otherwise they are ineffective.
Courts that care about “optics” are ineffective. And there are no optics here that will please everyone. So just follow law.
A terrorist organisation is what typically a government stamp on that group for using terror to gain political advantages, those against it. Such government may use terror tactics which it would stamp as national security, preemptive actions, necessary interventions, collateral damage. Anything to justify what could be qualified as brutal unjust "terrorism".
On that basis all of the targets of the ICC are leaders of terrorist organisations. Hamas is considered terrorist organisation by certain authorities, you bet the Israeli government is considered terrorist by other authorities.
The ICC is meant to act on the evidence of war crimes. The definition of war crimes is far more formal than the qualification of terrorism. Consider giving a definition of terrorism, you will find that any arm belligerent who happen to cause civilian casualties can be categorized as such.
Finally, it is also worth noting the french resistance to the country's occupation and Nazism was considered led by terrorist groups. Those did employ sabotage, kidnapping, bombing, instill terrors. The collaborating french authorities and the Wermacht put those resistants on their terrorists lists, back then.
The ICC is surely meant to be above the arguments in the lines "these terrorists and those aren't", or politically and some government's biases as arguments. It would look into the evidence and prosecute based on these.
On that basis all of the targets of the ICC are leaders of terrorist organisations. Hamas is considered terrorist organisation by certain authorities, you bet the Israeli government is considered terrorist by other authorities.
The ICC is meant to act on the evidence of war crimes. The definition of war crimes is far more formal than the qualification of terrorism. Consider giving a definition of terrorism, you will find that any arm belligerent who happen to cause civilian casualties can be categorized as such.
Finally, it is also worth noting the french resistance to the country's occupation and Nazism was considered led by terrorist groups. Those did employ sabotage, kidnapping, bombing, instill terrors. The collaborating french authorities and the Wermacht put those resistants on their terrorists lists, back then.
The ICC is surely meant to be above the arguments in the lines "these terrorists and those aren't", or politically and some government's biases as arguments. It would look into the evidence and prosecute based on these.
> The optics of equating a terrorist organization on the one hand with a democratic state with functioning judicial system and accountability for any crimes committed on the other hand by putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the court.
What's pretty bad is attempts to discredit the ICC by those who oppose it's decisions.
> I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion. On the other side you have what's a pretty clear case of a large scale terror attack against innocent civilians.
No you are not; Your pro-genocide stance is nauseating.
> In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
Whataboutism and deflection from the issue at hand must not and will not be tolerated.
What an unacceptable conduct.
What's pretty bad is attempts to discredit the ICC by those who oppose it's decisions.
> I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion. On the other side you have what's a pretty clear case of a large scale terror attack against innocent civilians.
No you are not; Your pro-genocide stance is nauseating.
> In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?
Whataboutism and deflection from the issue at hand must not and will not be tolerated.
What an unacceptable conduct.
Nice whataboutism
octopoc(4)
wesselbindt(3)
genman(1)
feedforward(1)
It's bad optics that the court didn't immediately move after 10/7.
A point. The reason a lot of countries want a two state solution is because they plan on deporting all their Palestinians once that happens.
A point. The reason a lot of countries want a two state solution is because they plan on deporting all their Palestinians once that happens.
I’ve never heard that before. Did you just make that up?
After the gulf war Kuwait kicked out 300,000 Palestinians giving them one month to leave.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus_from_Kuwait...
Lebanon has built walls around Palestinian refugee camps.
https://www.dw.com/en/lebanon-builds-wall-around-palestinian...
The moment Arab countries have a place they can deport Palestinians they'll do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus_from_Kuwait...
Lebanon has built walls around Palestinian refugee camps.
https://www.dw.com/en/lebanon-builds-wall-around-palestinian...
The moment Arab countries have a place they can deport Palestinians they'll do that.
>The optics of equating a terrorist organization on the one hand with a democratic state with functioning judicial system and accountability for any crimes committed on the other hand by putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the court.
It's obvious to all that the warrants for the Hamas leaders only exist in order to justify the warrants against Netanyahu and co.
It's obvious to all that the warrants for the Hamas leaders only exist in order to justify the warrants against Netanyahu and co.
I find it meaningful that they're mentioned in the same document/release. Newspeople will obviously shorten that gap even further and put them in the same sentence, separated only by comma (like the CNN article currently linked).
If that doesn't say "your're no better than the other side", I don't know what would. It might be especially disrespectful to the Israeli, who usually play moral high ground, but it's probably also true the other way around.
Titling the official release "... in the situation in the State of Palestine" is a cherry on the top. (https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-... — thanks to sibling comment)
If that doesn't say "your're no better than the other side", I don't know what would. It might be especially disrespectful to the Israeli, who usually play moral high ground, but it's probably also true the other way around.
Titling the official release "... in the situation in the State of Palestine" is a cherry on the top. (https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-... — thanks to sibling comment)
You find it meaningful, I find it disgusting, and furthermore it calls the entire "court" into question. It's pretty obvious this is not a real court, and it should be ignored by all.
Why did they wait 7 months?
If the Netherlands had any morals they would have ejected these clowns long ago.
Why did they wait 7 months?
If the Netherlands had any morals they would have ejected these clowns long ago.
> ...and furthermore it calls the entire "court" into question. It's pretty obvious this is not a real court, and it should be ignored by all.
Yeah, it's not a real court, it's just a bunch of "transnational" bureaucrats imitating the forms of a court, without the foundational basis [1], and at great remove from whatever situations they're pretending to judge. At best, it's a political prop.
[1] Which would include things like de-facto power over its claimed jurisdiction, and having law known and respected by the people there.
Yeah, it's not a real court, it's just a bunch of "transnational" bureaucrats imitating the forms of a court, without the foundational basis [1], and at great remove from whatever situations they're pretending to judge. At best, it's a political prop.
[1] Which would include things like de-facto power over its claimed jurisdiction, and having law known and respected by the people there.
A Biography of the prosecutor: Trained in the UK Legal system. He's also put Putin on the block
https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/may/20/iccs-kar...
https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/may/20/iccs-kar...
This is the statement of the panel of legal advisors to the prosecutor:
https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p...
One of them, incidentally, is Judge Theodor Meron CMG, a holocaust survivor.
One of them, incidentally, is Judge Theodor Meron CMG, a holocaust survivor.
The ICC document describes Israel as a "territory" and Palestine as a "State" (capitalised).
Their political bias couldn't be any more obvious.
Among the G20, countries like China and Russia consider Palestine as a "state" but the UK, US, Germany, France, Canada and others do not. Make of that what you will.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-...
Their political bias couldn't be any more obvious.
Among the G20, countries like China and Russia consider Palestine as a "state" but the UK, US, Germany, France, Canada and others do not. Make of that what you will.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-...
> The ICC document describes Israel as a "territory" and Palestine as a "State" (capitalised).
"...the territory of Israel and the State of Palestine" - the word and appears after the word territory. It means the territory of both. It is not just talking about the territory of Israel.
Also it refers to the names these countries use for themselves and which the UN uses as well. The official names of the countries are Israel and the State of Palestine. If Israel wants to be called the State of Israel as its official country name it would have to change its name to such, it has not.
> Among the G20, countries like China and Russia consider Palestine as a "state" but the UK, US, Germany, France, Canada and others do not.
143 countries recognize the State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is recognized by China and Russia along with other G20 members like Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey. Most of the countries in the world recognize the State of Palestine, the ones who don't are mainly in western Europe like the UK, Germany and France. As you say, make of that what you will.
"...the territory of Israel and the State of Palestine" - the word and appears after the word territory. It means the territory of both. It is not just talking about the territory of Israel.
Also it refers to the names these countries use for themselves and which the UN uses as well. The official names of the countries are Israel and the State of Palestine. If Israel wants to be called the State of Israel as its official country name it would have to change its name to such, it has not.
> Among the G20, countries like China and Russia consider Palestine as a "state" but the UK, US, Germany, France, Canada and others do not.
143 countries recognize the State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is recognized by China and Russia along with other G20 members like Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey. Most of the countries in the world recognize the State of Palestine, the ones who don't are mainly in western Europe like the UK, Germany and France. As you say, make of that what you will.
No, it refers to the territory of Israel, and the territory of the State of Palestine.
Did you read the text or just grab the talking point from someone else?
Did you read the text or just grab the talking point from someone else?
[deleted]
[deleted]
About time. Let's hope he's arrested quickly.
For a quick moment, I thought Netanyahu is wanted by the International Cricket Council for ball tampering.
I, for one, realized quite soon that this is well out of International Color Consortium‘s jurisdiction and capacity (however non-compliant the color profile implementations in Gaza might be).
> The decision puts Netanyahu in the company of the Russian President Vladimir Putin, for whom the ICC issued an arrest warrant over Moscow’s war on Ukraine
How's that working out? Until proven otherwise, my assumption is the outcome will be roughly the same in most of these cases, especially for Netanyahu and Sinwar.
How's that working out? Until proven otherwise, my assumption is the outcome will be roughly the same in most of these cases, especially for Netanyahu and Sinwar.
Putin wanted to visit South Africa for the BRICS summit. South Africa warned him that they would be obligated to attempt an arrest if he did.
> Khan’s office risks attracting criticism that it places a terror organization and an elected government on an equivalent footing
thats the point isnt it?
edit: although ICC has had plenty of opportunities to punish war crimes from various states in the past, wonder why they decided to make a move now. because of the scale?
thats the point isnt it?
edit: although ICC has had plenty of opportunities to punish war crimes from various states in the past, wonder why they decided to make a move now. because of the scale?
War criminal is war criminal. Nothing else factors in. And that they point both out at the same time makes it easier for them to avoid being seen one sided.
Ongoing attempted starvation of 2.4 million captive population and creation of conditions for famine. Attempted destruction of all means of civilized life for the entire population. I don't think there's been anything like that anytime since ICC was established. Pretty egregious.
This is an opportunity for Israel to reverse course. They can blame everything on Netanyahu, throw him out of office, stop all attacks into Gaza, stop depriving Gaza of food and water, and start deliberately working with respected members of the Gaza community to help build local businesses. They can make an international call to all successful Palestinians around the world to bring their business back to Gaza. Make it like when Israel was formed--a call to build something good for their ethnicity.
Honestly this could be a really great thing for the region. It could be an opportunity to shift blame from an entire ethnicity, the Jews, onto a single member of that ethnicity, in order to let the Jews and Palestinians be at peace with each other.
Honestly this could be a really great thing for the region. It could be an opportunity to shift blame from an entire ethnicity, the Jews, onto a single member of that ethnicity, in order to let the Jews and Palestinians be at peace with each other.
* There isn't blame on an entire ethnicity regardless of the outcome of this case. I don't think you want to open that pandora box.
* Ironically, Bibi will be temporarily strengthened. No sane Israeli leader would want to depose him and risk being seen as collaborating with the warrant or risk getting a warrant too later on. Over time Bibi will still inevitably be replaced (too many reasons for Israelis to hate him), but this may stretch to 2025.
* Israel allowed aid since the beginning and especially recently. Warrants will help focus the mind here.
* Result of US elections big key here.
* Ironically, Bibi will be temporarily strengthened. No sane Israeli leader would want to depose him and risk being seen as collaborating with the warrant or risk getting a warrant too later on. Over time Bibi will still inevitably be replaced (too many reasons for Israelis to hate him), but this may stretch to 2025.
* Israel allowed aid since the beginning and especially recently. Warrants will help focus the mind here.
* Result of US elections big key here.
> The U.N. says at least 500 trucks a day of aid and commercial goods need to enter Gaza. In April, an average of 189 trucks entered a day - the highest since the war started.[0]
0. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/aid-trucks-begin-m...
0. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/aid-trucks-begin-m...
'_and commercial goods_.'
There's no right for 'commercial goods'. The only issue in question is food, and trucks with food going in are twice the prewar level (the rest was mostly construction goods used for we know what exactly - that's not gonna go in).
There's no right for 'commercial goods'. The only issue in question is food, and trucks with food going in are twice the prewar level (the rest was mostly construction goods used for we know what exactly - that's not gonna go in).
What would clothes be categorised? Medical supplies? Only food? Sanitary napkins? Shoes? Israel doesn't need to provide this, just let what is needed for 2 million people to live given by the whole world.
Yeah, of course medical supplies count, I'm just saying there's no right for commercial traffic per se - the prewar count had a lot of stuff that's not relevant. The typical procedure is that Israel inspects the cargo and allows stuff not in a dual use list.
Who writes the list? Can their definition of dual use be relied upon to not be self serving?
Given the people in question are the ones with a vested interest in stamping out as much life as possible, I find it difficult to believe that this is even a tenable stop point for cognitive processing for anyone but someone who couldn't be bothered one way or the other.
Given the people in question are the ones with a vested interest in stamping out as much life as possible, I find it difficult to believe that this is even a tenable stop point for cognitive processing for anyone but someone who couldn't be bothered one way or the other.
I'm not sure that'd be enough to shift the blame from all members of the state of Israel to only the PM. There's just way too many videos floating around the social media of IDF soldiers actively and happily celebrating the genocide in a playful and careless manner, and Israeli civilians wishing only more starvation and pain upon the already starving residents of Gaza.
There were some suggestions in the past that the US’s unbridled support for Israel is harmful to the long term interests of Israel. Over the years I’ve seen less and less intelligent arguments coming from Israeli leadership, particularly in a world where smartphones can turn any citizen into a reporter.
Some days it is apparent that the wrath meted upon the Palestinians has turned into bloodlust. While I understand the grief and anger following such a massacre, there has long been a pattern of wilfully misplaced reaction against stone throwing kids and targeting of journalists and their families. These cannot be attributed to Oct 7.
Now with Israeli funds making its way back to US politics, the crazier the politician the better his chances. With time, the benevolence of the US will be questioned by their allies and make the world a less predictable place.
Some days it is apparent that the wrath meted upon the Palestinians has turned into bloodlust. While I understand the grief and anger following such a massacre, there has long been a pattern of wilfully misplaced reaction against stone throwing kids and targeting of journalists and their families. These cannot be attributed to Oct 7.
Now with Israeli funds making its way back to US politics, the crazier the politician the better his chances. With time, the benevolence of the US will be questioned by their allies and make the world a less predictable place.
>Now with Israeli funds making its way back to US politics, the crazier the politician the better his chances. With time, the benevolence of the US will be questioned by their allies and make the world a less predictable place.
What alternative do these other "partners" have? The Ukraine war has exposed how badly atrophied all their military might has become and lets be honest, post Ukraine, its clear that is the most important thing.
The EU still isn't meeting their minimum NATO commitments despite how far behind they are. It would take a massive amount of pain that the EU populations would have to bear in order to turn this around. I suspect all of a sudden EU population will become like the US population caring only about their own short term self interests more than what is "morally right". So the partnerships with the US will stay until the EU is willing to make that painful sacrifice to build out an alternative to the US military.
What alternative do these other "partners" have? The Ukraine war has exposed how badly atrophied all their military might has become and lets be honest, post Ukraine, its clear that is the most important thing.
The EU still isn't meeting their minimum NATO commitments despite how far behind they are. It would take a massive amount of pain that the EU populations would have to bear in order to turn this around. I suspect all of a sudden EU population will become like the US population caring only about their own short term self interests more than what is "morally right". So the partnerships with the US will stay until the EU is willing to make that painful sacrifice to build out an alternative to the US military.
A war only happens when the chances of winning or losing is indeterminate. Ukraine would have achieved a sane political outcome without loss of blood and treasure if the Russians managed to roll in their tanks and replaced the government with a Russian leaning one. This may sound unpalatable it would have restored status quo to the pre-western-funded coup against the Russian-friendly government that was in place.
Geopolitically, the NATO was heading towards obsolescence as Germany and Russian integrated their economies and achieve a lasting peace in the region. The US meddling in Ukraine weakens Europe and maintains the US status as the global hegemon.
Geopolitically, the NATO was heading towards obsolescence as Germany and Russian integrated their economies and achieve a lasting peace in the region. The US meddling in Ukraine weakens Europe and maintains the US status as the global hegemon.
and maintains the US status as the global hegemon.
The post-1945 globe evidently demands a hegemon. Which would you prefer, the US and its allies, or Russia and China? Those are your options. "None of the above" is not among them.
The post-1945 globe evidently demands a hegemon. Which would you prefer, the US and its allies, or Russia and China? Those are your options. "None of the above" is not among them.
It's called United Nations Organization. Although it hasn't been fully implemented. It was planned to have nuclear weapon monopoly and strong joint military forces to stop any aggression. Why didn't that happen? Because it's the US that gained the benefits out of both world wars. And its allies aren't allies but minions. Remember what happened to Charles de Gaulle?
Also note that no one has ever declared a war legally since WW II. Because of the UN and international conventions.
I'd also add that it's not entirely correct to consider countries equal top level actors in the historical process now and in the past. Nowadays so called political nations are technically subjects of international right, of course. But, for instance, in pre-Westphalian world that wasn't the case and these days there is plenty of evidence of transnational actors' influence. For example, Vatican dates back to that era I mentioned. And also who owns most the land in Europe? And how come these von Something German nazis avoided The Nuremberg Trials and ended up as board members in big industrial companies?
So no, the world doesn't need a hegemon in your sense. Taking into account the paralysis of the UN since 1991 it's more likely there will be another take on the ruins that.
Also note that no one has ever declared a war legally since WW II. Because of the UN and international conventions.
I'd also add that it's not entirely correct to consider countries equal top level actors in the historical process now and in the past. Nowadays so called political nations are technically subjects of international right, of course. But, for instance, in pre-Westphalian world that wasn't the case and these days there is plenty of evidence of transnational actors' influence. For example, Vatican dates back to that era I mentioned. And also who owns most the land in Europe? And how come these von Something German nazis avoided The Nuremberg Trials and ended up as board members in big industrial companies?
So no, the world doesn't need a hegemon in your sense. Taking into account the paralysis of the UN since 1991 it's more likely there will be another take on the ruins that.
Maybe so, maybe not, whatever. None of that changes my point: you'll get a 'hegemon' whether you want one or not, and no, it won't be the UN. It will either be a US-led alliance or one led by China. The world is becoming more polarized, not less, and I don't see how that trend can be reversed.
By the same token, at the national level, it's possible that dictatorship will emerge as the only stable model of governance. People everywhere seem to want it. The only principle that actually matters in politics turns out to be "Screw the other guy," and dictators are the best at that. If so, the US's ability to protest and resist its central government will turn out to be maladaptive, giving the advantage to the China-Russia alliance in the long run.
As for the church, they still own the land but not the hearts and minds. Or the nukes. Religion is irrelevant at the international scope. But of course it's still as useful to the rulers of individual nations as ever, because you can't maintain a cult of personality without exploiting the same mental bug that the church originally stumbled across.
By the same token, at the national level, it's possible that dictatorship will emerge as the only stable model of governance. People everywhere seem to want it. The only principle that actually matters in politics turns out to be "Screw the other guy," and dictators are the best at that. If so, the US's ability to protest and resist its central government will turn out to be maladaptive, giving the advantage to the China-Russia alliance in the long run.
As for the church, they still own the land but not the hearts and minds. Or the nukes. Religion is irrelevant at the international scope. But of course it's still as useful to the rulers of individual nations as ever, because you can't maintain a cult of personality without exploiting the same mental bug that the church originally stumbled across.
I believe that US has been an essential partner for a very long time. It demands great leadership but it is something sorely lacking over the past couple of decades.
The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact could also be considered an integration of German and Russian geo-political interests to achieve a lasting peace in the region. Just surrender.
You sure seem very eager to taste Putin's boot.
Apologies for the off topic discussion.
The eastern bloc countries suffered badly under soviet rule. When the Ukraine war started, I’m as eager as anyone to see that the Russians were dealt a black eye.
In retrospect, given the gas shortages that occurred in Europe, and the destruction of the German economy; the large number of deaths that occurred on both sides, and the war zone being turned into a weapons testing ground, I am left wondering who are the real winners and losers?
The eastern bloc countries suffered badly under soviet rule. When the Ukraine war started, I’m as eager as anyone to see that the Russians were dealt a black eye.
In retrospect, given the gas shortages that occurred in Europe, and the destruction of the German economy; the large number of deaths that occurred on both sides, and the war zone being turned into a weapons testing ground, I am left wondering who are the real winners and losers?
paxys(4)
mavili(2)
sigma5(12)
tomohawk(3)
If they also do putin, hamas (included), Xia etc … it is all good. But if it is just another one sided attack, then no.
The question really is … whilst it is not totally useless, is it more to demo how weak this is and so dictator can free to do as they are dare. Like bombing other people places or even yours (per claim) and flattening them; would it be more war crime than war fighting in disputed land.
The question really is … whilst it is not totally useless, is it more to demo how weak this is and so dictator can free to do as they are dare. Like bombing other people places or even yours (per claim) and flattening them; would it be more war crime than war fighting in disputed land.
While it mostly useless to actally prevent war crimes this hurt dictators freedom of movement as majority of countries in the world would arrest by warrant of ICC. E.g Putin dont really travel abroad much after getting his warrant.
Though Putin's warrant isn't for common war crimes, but for deporting / indoctrination of children as it's something that is super easy to prove.
Though Putin's warrant isn't for common war crimes, but for deporting / indoctrination of children as it's something that is super easy to prove.
Most interesting part is that Putin on that list for “kidnapping” children, while in fact just providing a temporary refuge.
While Netanyahu bombed and killed like 15,000 children and it’s not a war crime for some reason, huh.
The ICC just gave Netanyahu more strength. Israelis would likely rally around their leader. Netanyahu will be emboldened to do maximum damage on his way out. What more does he have to lose at this point?
Besides, the U.S. government is on Netanyahu's side, so he will never be arrested.
Besides, the U.S. government is on Netanyahu's side, so he will never be arrested.
> The ICC just gave Netanyahu more strength. Israelis would likely rally around their leader. Netanyahu will be emboldened to do maximum damage on his way out. What more does he have to lose at this point?
His support is waning on both sides of the political spectrum. Gantz is threatening to quit the war cabinet. I don't think the ICC decision will give Netanyahu much of a boost. If he goes crazy, the Knesset could oust him.
> Besides, the U.S. government is on Netanyahu's side, so he will never be arrested.
I don't think the US has that much influence in this case. They would have to push hard to threaten the Israeli president, and even then I am not sure what would happen. Netanyahu will not be arrested because he will just stay in Israel. Israel will probably not extradite him, even if they agree with the arguments, simply because it would look bad to allow an international court to arrest a former president. However, he could be arrested on corruption or other charges if he loses his position.
His support is waning on both sides of the political spectrum. Gantz is threatening to quit the war cabinet. I don't think the ICC decision will give Netanyahu much of a boost. If he goes crazy, the Knesset could oust him.
> Besides, the U.S. government is on Netanyahu's side, so he will never be arrested.
I don't think the US has that much influence in this case. They would have to push hard to threaten the Israeli president, and even then I am not sure what would happen. Netanyahu will not be arrested because he will just stay in Israel. Israel will probably not extradite him, even if they agree with the arguments, simply because it would look bad to allow an international court to arrest a former president. However, he could be arrested on corruption or other charges if he loses his position.
Unfortunately I think this is correct. All the people cited in this warrant request are fully guilty of the crimes of which they are accused—but a peace deal that lets the murderers off scot-free is preferable to more endless war.
The reputational damage to Israel, from being put on the same level as Putin, is significant though.
The reputational damage to Israel, from being put on the same level as Putin, is significant though.
There's tonnes of video evidence that Apartheid Israel is carrying out war crimes and genocide. Intentionally targeting and killing civilian groups and infrastructure, starving the population; the IDF hasn't allowed the aid trucks through and soldiers stand by as Israelis destroy the truck contents, doctors having to do amputations of multiple limbs without anaesthesia, 25 000 women and children killed; 10 000 unaccounted for. They targeted all infrastructure needed to live, be it hospitals, universities. Apartheid Israel is ethnically cleansing Gaza and the West Bank through terror.
Hamas would exist if not for the occupation. Or else there will inevitably be a Hamas 2.0
This is exactly like uMkhonto we Sizwe in Apartheid in South Africa, it doesn't exist without Apartheid. Or like Hamas isn't the West Bank.
Treat people like human animals, imprison them, occupy them and expect any other outcome is foolish. Apartheid Israel needs to make the first move that doesn't include killing civilians and stealing land.
Hamas would exist if not for the occupation. Or else there will inevitably be a Hamas 2.0
This is exactly like uMkhonto we Sizwe in Apartheid in South Africa, it doesn't exist without Apartheid. Or like Hamas isn't the West Bank.
Treat people like human animals, imprison them, occupy them and expect any other outcome is foolish. Apartheid Israel needs to make the first move that doesn't include killing civilians and stealing land.
The optics of equating a resistance organization on the one hand with a colonial and apartheid state with dysfunctional judicial system and no accountability for any crimes committed by settlers or its military on the other hand by putting them in the same press release is pretty bad for the court.
I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Palestinian resistance, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion.
On the other side you have what's a pretty clear case of a large scale terror attack against innocent civilians, indiscriminately bombing schools and hospitals.
In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into US and Germany conduct of delivering weapons enabling the genocide?
I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Palestinian resistance, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion.
On the other side you have what's a pretty clear case of a large scale terror attack against innocent civilians, indiscriminately bombing schools and hospitals.
In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into US and Germany conduct of delivering weapons enabling the genocide?
For comparison, the French resistance was called a terrorist organisation by the Germans, as Algerian FLN was called terrorist organisation by the French… etc. History would be kind of funny if it wasn’t tragic.
And this whole “terrorist” word was jeopardised by Bush. There’s no “terrorism” per se as an emanation of evil.
It’s just an asymmetrical and violent extension of political expression, where dialogue failed to reach a settlement.
Otherwise you’d need to explain the ideological similarities between Al Qaeda and eg. ETA.
And this whole “terrorist” word was jeopardised by Bush. There’s no “terrorism” per se as an emanation of evil.
It’s just an asymmetrical and violent extension of political expression, where dialogue failed to reach a settlement.
Otherwise you’d need to explain the ideological similarities between Al Qaeda and eg. ETA.
These aren't verdicts, so it goes to court-trial, and arguments will then be put forth.
We have the Nuremberg Code now, where people including propagandists were hung simply because they should have known better - even though there weren't yet specific laws in place yet.
It's been fascinating to see how fascism can rise so quickly, hidden by the veil of propaganda, different countries around the world at different stages of capture - some where turnkey authoritarianism has recently been executed on like in Canada, policies and infrastructure put in place that allows top down control so easily with so many succumbing to the fear mongering in part due to deep seeded programming.
The NaZi Germans were eventually suppressed, and with the internet this next attempt will hopefully be quickly stopped in its tracks globally - however there are arguably $ trillions in the war chest of the bad actors in the global establishment toeing the same line, of which people like Catherine Austin Fitts have been sounding the alarm for years now - who saw behind the scenes the financial markets et al aligning for this. Unfortunately because so many systems are centralized at the moment, it only takes a very small amount of people to cause chaos and mass destruction-death - whether that's manufacturing consent for people to believe power outages aren't planned and "out of our control - give us $ trillions to upgrade infrastructure [which actually will mostly go to our friends while we continue suffocate society financially and extract as much of the value of your labor-productivity as we can manufacture consent to get from you]" etc.
I hope, pray, that RFK in the US will win the next election - and that Pierre in Canada wins, and pray God is ready to cut the shit of these tyrant wannabes with totalitarian wet dreams - and will prevent their assassinations, etc; else the floodgates of hell are seemingly near ready to be unlatched.
We have the Nuremberg Code now, where people including propagandists were hung simply because they should have known better - even though there weren't yet specific laws in place yet.
It's been fascinating to see how fascism can rise so quickly, hidden by the veil of propaganda, different countries around the world at different stages of capture - some where turnkey authoritarianism has recently been executed on like in Canada, policies and infrastructure put in place that allows top down control so easily with so many succumbing to the fear mongering in part due to deep seeded programming.
The NaZi Germans were eventually suppressed, and with the internet this next attempt will hopefully be quickly stopped in its tracks globally - however there are arguably $ trillions in the war chest of the bad actors in the global establishment toeing the same line, of which people like Catherine Austin Fitts have been sounding the alarm for years now - who saw behind the scenes the financial markets et al aligning for this. Unfortunately because so many systems are centralized at the moment, it only takes a very small amount of people to cause chaos and mass destruction-death - whether that's manufacturing consent for people to believe power outages aren't planned and "out of our control - give us $ trillions to upgrade infrastructure [which actually will mostly go to our friends while we continue suffocate society financially and extract as much of the value of your labor-productivity as we can manufacture consent to get from you]" etc.
I hope, pray, that RFK in the US will win the next election - and that Pierre in Canada wins, and pray God is ready to cut the shit of these tyrant wannabes with totalitarian wet dreams - and will prevent their assassinations, etc; else the floodgates of hell are seemingly near ready to be unlatched.
The ICC is seeking arrest warrants from the ICC for people who don't care what the ICC says, and one of them isn't even in a country that's a member of the ICC?
What exactly are they going to be able to do once they manage to grant themselves these warrants?
What exactly are they going to be able to do once they manage to grant themselves these warrants?
Mere existence of arrest warrants for war crimes against a serving Israeli prime minister has great symbolic value. This will have big impact on media discourse not controlled by the Israeli lobby.
Also, one does not have to choose sides. We can condemn both sides as barbaric.
Also, one does not have to choose sides. We can condemn both sides as barbaric.
> We can condemn both sides as barbaric
I agree entirely but I'm not really trying to make any political statement here. I'm purely interested in the mechanical aspect of how this court works and how it can manage to accomplish anything in this situation. It seems to me that this story isn't much worth following, because nothing of consequence will happen if these warrants end up being served.
I agree entirely but I'm not really trying to make any political statement here. I'm purely interested in the mechanical aspect of how this court works and how it can manage to accomplish anything in this situation. It seems to me that this story isn't much worth following, because nothing of consequence will happen if these warrants end up being served.
It makes the people with arrest warrants much less welcome to visit other countries. While they still may not actually arrest a leader of state many countries would say no to a visit to not risk a media scandal by having an accused war criminal visit.
> It makes the people with arrest warrants much less welcome to visit other countries
Yeah, that's fair. I guess I'm just kind of unimpressed that that's the worst punishment something called the "International Criminal Court" can inflict on leaders that they've judged to be war criminals.
Yeah, that's fair. I guess I'm just kind of unimpressed that that's the worst punishment something called the "International Criminal Court" can inflict on leaders that they've judged to be war criminals.
Since this is an actual court, I’d say it’s important to differentiate between “has judged as being war criminals” and “has charged with being war criminals”. There are hopefully more penalties for someone who has been tried and found guilty.
I don't understand what you are looking for. There is no unified world government. There is no sovereign entity that controls all nations. That means any and all international interaction is roughly consensual.
If the US genocides a significant portion of their own populace, and nobody could muster up an army large enough to physically stop them, and nobody could blockade their trade enough to hurt them, then why would the US stop?
Accountability requires someone to execute the "punishment" or whatever. If you want international accountability, you REQUIRE an independent entity which all nations treat as a global government, one which as the ability to militarily slap anyone who doesn't fall in line. The UN isn't that, on purpose.
First problem: Where is the office for that world government? There is largely no land that is "outside" other countries.
The US literally experienced this "How do you get fiefdoms to cede their power to a common government" problem in 1787, and overcoming it took promising slave owners that they wouldn't outlaw slavery for at least 20 years, and hand out a massive power structure benefit to the states that had significant slavery. Of course the invention of the cotton gin just a few years later would destroy that possible outcome and set us on the path for the civil war.
If you invent a world government that could punish a country that was unruly, how do you convince the US or China to submit to it ENTIRELY? How do yo prevent this world government from simply being a tool of the US or China?
If the US genocides a significant portion of their own populace, and nobody could muster up an army large enough to physically stop them, and nobody could blockade their trade enough to hurt them, then why would the US stop?
Accountability requires someone to execute the "punishment" or whatever. If you want international accountability, you REQUIRE an independent entity which all nations treat as a global government, one which as the ability to militarily slap anyone who doesn't fall in line. The UN isn't that, on purpose.
First problem: Where is the office for that world government? There is largely no land that is "outside" other countries.
The US literally experienced this "How do you get fiefdoms to cede their power to a common government" problem in 1787, and overcoming it took promising slave owners that they wouldn't outlaw slavery for at least 20 years, and hand out a massive power structure benefit to the states that had significant slavery. Of course the invention of the cotton gin just a few years later would destroy that possible outcome and set us on the path for the civil war.
If you invent a world government that could punish a country that was unruly, how do you convince the US or China to submit to it ENTIRELY? How do yo prevent this world government from simply being a tool of the US or China?
you're trying to use mechanical thinking on a level where symbols are often more powerful than mechanisms
> This will have big impact on media discourse not controlled by the Israeli lobby.
It already has. Biden was quick to condemn it and further alienate his base: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/20/internatio...
It already has. Biden was quick to condemn it and further alienate his base: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/20/internatio...
This is a hot take these days. The world seems to need to take a side on everything and most of the Palestine supporters fail to condemn Hamas and the Israel supporters don't tend to criticize Israel.
Broadly I think Israel has the right ambition (the destruction of Hamas) but are going about it in a terrible manner and it will now backfire on them spectacularly.
Broadly I think Israel has the right ambition (the destruction of Hamas) but are going about it in a terrible manner and it will now backfire on them spectacularly.
The trouble is that Israel government does not really have the ambition to destroy Hamas. Their ambition under ultra conservative lobby is to grab more Palestinian land, using inevitable backlash as an excuse to dismiss any complaints.
If the whole world stepped in, captured every Hamas militant and left, it wouldn't take more than a couple of years and somebody else would take up the arms against the Israeli occupants.
We'd have to do that AND then protect the Palestinians from militant Zionists for half a century at least to actually have any chance to solve the situation.
And since EU doesn't give a shit, US is unable to stand up to antidefamation league, rest of the Islamic countries enjoys blaming Israel but don't actually do anything, Palestinians are good as dead.
If the whole world stepped in, captured every Hamas militant and left, it wouldn't take more than a couple of years and somebody else would take up the arms against the Israeli occupants.
We'd have to do that AND then protect the Palestinians from militant Zionists for half a century at least to actually have any chance to solve the situation.
And since EU doesn't give a shit, US is unable to stand up to antidefamation league, rest of the Islamic countries enjoys blaming Israel but don't actually do anything, Palestinians are good as dead.
> Broadly I think Israel has the right ambition (the destruction of Hamas)
Well a few months ago Netanyahu sent the head of the Mossad to Qatar asking them to fund Hamas ( https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q... ). So these endless massacres of Palestinian civilians by Israel (and effectively by the USA too) are happening for a pretty capricious reason, if that even is the reason, and I think it isn't.
Well a few months ago Netanyahu sent the head of the Mossad to Qatar asking them to fund Hamas ( https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q... ). So these endless massacres of Palestinian civilians by Israel (and effectively by the USA too) are happening for a pretty capricious reason, if that even is the reason, and I think it isn't.
> are going about it in a terrible manner
How could Israel defend itself against Hamas in a manner that wasn't "terrible"? What non-terrible options do they have?
How could Israel defend itself against Hamas in a manner that wasn't "terrible"? What non-terrible options do they have?
Counterterrorism is necessarily a difficult and fraught process. Ultimately, it's political; military force is useful only so far as it can convince people there is no better way than your political aims.
Looking at the example of successful counterterrorism conclusions, such as The Troubles in Northern Ireland or Colombia's efforts against FARC, the general pathway to success is to build up successful alternative political institutions that have the legitimacy to disarm the terrorist groups, which also means to a degree making some concessions towards the political aims of terrorists, and perhaps also requires co-opting the more moderate terrorists into legitimate political parties.
Notably not on that list is such things as targeting enemy leaders with artillery rounds. Indiscriminate damage is one of the best ways to fuel an upsurge in terrorist violence; what Israel is doing now looks in many ways like what the British did in Northern Ireland to start The Troubles rather than what it did to end them.
Looking at the example of successful counterterrorism conclusions, such as The Troubles in Northern Ireland or Colombia's efforts against FARC, the general pathway to success is to build up successful alternative political institutions that have the legitimacy to disarm the terrorist groups, which also means to a degree making some concessions towards the political aims of terrorists, and perhaps also requires co-opting the more moderate terrorists into legitimate political parties.
Notably not on that list is such things as targeting enemy leaders with artillery rounds. Indiscriminate damage is one of the best ways to fuel an upsurge in terrorist violence; what Israel is doing now looks in many ways like what the British did in Northern Ireland to start The Troubles rather than what it did to end them.
I agree that Northern Ireland and Colombia v. FARC are useful examples. However, they both share one key property that the Israel-Hamas conflict does not have: the international community fully supports the existence of both the UK and Colombia as legitimate nation-states. That is not true for Israel; there is a large and vocal segment of the international community that does not want Israel to exist, and that segment has enough political clout that it cannot be ignored.
The segment of the international community that matters is fully on board with Israel's existence. The largest country to not formally recognize Israel is Indonesia. Largely only Iran is intransigent about Israel's nonexistence; the Arab countries have in the recent past explicitly endorsed proposals to recognize Israel in exchange for durable progress on Palestinian statehood.
(Which, really, is one of the principal causes of the current situation: Netanyahu has in the past sought to undermine the ability of the Palestinian Authority to effectively govern Palestine--including covert support for Hamas--so as to be able to claim that there's no partner for peace to avoid having to make any progress on the statehood issue.)
(Which, really, is one of the principal causes of the current situation: Netanyahu has in the past sought to undermine the ability of the Palestinian Authority to effectively govern Palestine--including covert support for Hamas--so as to be able to claim that there's no partner for peace to avoid having to make any progress on the statehood issue.)
> The segment of the international community that matters is fully on board with Israel's existence.
I disagree. US policy in this area, for instance, is being significantly influenced by the fact that there are protests at major universities in support of Hamas, and elected politicians who are advocating the same thing. (And by that I mean explicitly supporting the Hamas objective of destroying Israel.)
> the Arab countries have in the recent past explicitly endorsed proposals to recognize Israel
In other words, they don't currently support Israel's existence, but they might decide to if enough of their demands are met. Which concedes my point.
The reason this matters is that the UK and Colombia were only able to even consider the options they ended up taking to resolve their conflicts because they knew that no matter what, their existence as nation states was not in question. Israel does not have that assurance, and that means they do not feel able to consider those kinds of options.
Or, to put it another way, as I have said in several other posts elsewhere in this discussion, this conflict is an existential conflict for Israel. Northern Ireland was not an existential conflict for the UK, and FARC was not an existential conflict for Colombia. That makes a huge difference.
I disagree. US policy in this area, for instance, is being significantly influenced by the fact that there are protests at major universities in support of Hamas, and elected politicians who are advocating the same thing. (And by that I mean explicitly supporting the Hamas objective of destroying Israel.)
> the Arab countries have in the recent past explicitly endorsed proposals to recognize Israel
In other words, they don't currently support Israel's existence, but they might decide to if enough of their demands are met. Which concedes my point.
The reason this matters is that the UK and Colombia were only able to even consider the options they ended up taking to resolve their conflicts because they knew that no matter what, their existence as nation states was not in question. Israel does not have that assurance, and that means they do not feel able to consider those kinds of options.
Or, to put it another way, as I have said in several other posts elsewhere in this discussion, this conflict is an existential conflict for Israel. Northern Ireland was not an existential conflict for the UK, and FARC was not an existential conflict for Colombia. That makes a huge difference.
> US policy in this area, for instance, is being significantly influenced by the fact that there are protests at major universities
I'm sorry, but no. These protests have only reached salience in the news because of overreaction from a few university presidents who sent in the police to (in the event) violently break up the protest. I assert there is no influence on the policy being done by these protests. The general stance by the administration has remained the same--the Biden administration remains firmly pro-Israel--and to the extent that it's changed, it's been prompted by frustration with the continued inability of the current Israeli government to actually listen to the administration's points about "what the hell is your day-after plan?"
> in support of Hamas, and elected politicians who are advocating the same thing. (And by that I mean explicitly supporting the Hamas objective of destroying Israel.)
I'm not going to deny that there are people among the protestors who support Hamas and maybe even want to see Israel cease to exist. But it's definitely far from the majority of the protestors, and I've never actually seen any statement by anybody involved that would place them in that category.
The thing is, there's this persistent tendency I've seen where people try to twist any criticism of Israel or its government into support for Israel's nonexistence. No major world power today has disestablishment of Israel a policy goal, nor is any of them close to having that policy. But I do worry that if Israel continues on this path, then it may in a few decades' time become a murderous genocidal state... and that very well could have the superpowers pushing for Israel's destruction.
Even though Israel is unarguably the state that faces the greatest existential threat, it's policies can still be (and indeed probably are) counterproductive to combating that.
I'm sorry, but no. These protests have only reached salience in the news because of overreaction from a few university presidents who sent in the police to (in the event) violently break up the protest. I assert there is no influence on the policy being done by these protests. The general stance by the administration has remained the same--the Biden administration remains firmly pro-Israel--and to the extent that it's changed, it's been prompted by frustration with the continued inability of the current Israeli government to actually listen to the administration's points about "what the hell is your day-after plan?"
> in support of Hamas, and elected politicians who are advocating the same thing. (And by that I mean explicitly supporting the Hamas objective of destroying Israel.)
I'm not going to deny that there are people among the protestors who support Hamas and maybe even want to see Israel cease to exist. But it's definitely far from the majority of the protestors, and I've never actually seen any statement by anybody involved that would place them in that category.
The thing is, there's this persistent tendency I've seen where people try to twist any criticism of Israel or its government into support for Israel's nonexistence. No major world power today has disestablishment of Israel a policy goal, nor is any of them close to having that policy. But I do worry that if Israel continues on this path, then it may in a few decades' time become a murderous genocidal state... and that very well could have the superpowers pushing for Israel's destruction.
Even though Israel is unarguably the state that faces the greatest existential threat, it's policies can still be (and indeed probably are) counterproductive to combating that.
Like you would any other crime. Investigate, insert moles, offer "extremely large" bounties + protection for arrests leading to conviction, and so on. The current situation is not only an ineffective means of combating Hamas, but is likely growing their numbers. The reason these sort of conflicts never end is because each time you bomb an area with innocents, you may or may not kill your target, but you definitely just turned all the friends, family, and so on of the innocents killed into new "real" enemies.
> Like you would any other crime.
The criminal model does not work for war. This is a war.
> each time you bomb an area with innocents, you may or may not kill your target, but you definitely just turned all the friends, family, and so on of the innocents killed into new "real" enemies.
So when Hamas fires rockets into Israel, killing innocents, or sends a terror squad into Israel, killing innocents (and kidnapping others), it makes more Hamas enemies. Yes, indeed.
The criminal model does not work for war. This is a war.
> each time you bomb an area with innocents, you may or may not kill your target, but you definitely just turned all the friends, family, and so on of the innocents killed into new "real" enemies.
So when Hamas fires rockets into Israel, killing innocents, or sends a terror squad into Israel, killing innocents (and kidnapping others), it makes more Hamas enemies. Yes, indeed.
They could have not supported Hamas as a strategy for dividing Palestinians.
They could make meaningful steps towards a one or two state solution in order to undercut Hamas' power.
They could make meaningful steps towards a one or two state solution in order to undercut Hamas' power.
These same proposals were given decades ago when it was the PLO Israel was having to deal with. Israel followed them, at the behest of the international community. They didn't work--we know this because it's now decades later and the same problems still exist. Isn't the classic definition of insanity trying the same thing over and over again but expecting different results?
It's pretty well established that tactics that produce widespread civilian casualties just create the next generation of insurgents. In that respect, Israel's current actions seem to match the definition of insanity.
So the better thing to do was to strengthen Hamas? Hamas is an enemy Israel helped create.
> Hamas is an enemy Israel helped create.
In the sense that Israel failed to reach a stable endpoint to this conflict once before, in 2009, yes, I suppose this is true. They should have destroyed Hamas then, and they didn't. Which would suggest that Israel should finish the job this time.
In the sense that Israel failed to reach a stable endpoint to this conflict once before, in 2009, yes, I suppose this is true. They should have destroyed Hamas then, and they didn't. Which would suggest that Israel should finish the job this time.
I mean they're all terrible at this point, but Israel has been digging this hole for a while, it's not going to be easy to get out. Doesn't mean it's not worth trying to stop digging.
> Israel has been digging this hole for a while
No, Israel has been trying to defend itself against Hamas, a terrorist organization which has explicitly declared that its objective is to destroy Israel. What options does it have to do that that would meet with your approval, or even grudging acquiescence?
There is no stable middle ground here. That's what much of the commentary on this situation seems to be missing. This is an existential conflict between Israel and Hamas (note that I said "Hamas", not "the Palestinians"--they're not the same): the only stable endpoint is that one or the other ceases to exist. And Hamas is the side that chose to make it that way. So I'm really struggling to see what possible options Israel has other than what they are doing.
No, Israel has been trying to defend itself against Hamas, a terrorist organization which has explicitly declared that its objective is to destroy Israel. What options does it have to do that that would meet with your approval, or even grudging acquiescence?
There is no stable middle ground here. That's what much of the commentary on this situation seems to be missing. This is an existential conflict between Israel and Hamas (note that I said "Hamas", not "the Palestinians"--they're not the same): the only stable endpoint is that one or the other ceases to exist. And Hamas is the side that chose to make it that way. So I'm really struggling to see what possible options Israel has other than what they are doing.
[deleted]
> What options does it have to do that that would meet with your approval, or even grudging acquiescence?
They could form a state with equal rights, including right of return, for Jews and Palestinians.
They could form a state with equal rights, including right of return, for Jews and Palestinians.
That would be the end of Israel as a functioning state (Jewish or not)
You really think a country can double it's population overnight bringing even more division without it crumbling? You'll just end up with another Lebanon.
A two state solution is the only thing that can make sense short/medium term. Longer term after decades of peace you can open the borders and create perhaps a union of sort.
A one state solution is detached - it's just not a viable option, and even if you believe it's the right thing to do it just doesn't seem wise.
You really think a country can double it's population overnight bringing even more division without it crumbling? You'll just end up with another Lebanon.
A two state solution is the only thing that can make sense short/medium term. Longer term after decades of peace you can open the borders and create perhaps a union of sort.
A one state solution is detached - it's just not a viable option, and even if you believe it's the right thing to do it just doesn't seem wise.
A single state solution is the only long term solution. Unless we accept that ethnostates are good for everyone. Israel will have a hard time bringing in the Palestinians, but the US created reservations and the native American population isn't trying to kill everyone else. Israel needs to learn by doing it that diversity is their strength.
Prosperity can do a lot towards killing the shared stories that cause people to want to go kill the people in the neighboring country. Grandpa's story about losing his home won't be as stirring when you're not being bombed and starved by the same group of people who stole Grandpa's home. Especially when they give back Grandpa's home.
Prosperity can do a lot towards killing the shared stories that cause people to want to go kill the people in the neighboring country. Grandpa's story about losing his home won't be as stirring when you're not being bombed and starved by the same group of people who stole Grandpa's home. Especially when they give back Grandpa's home.
> the US created reservations and the native American population isn't trying to kill everyone else.
Not now, but there was a long period during which native Americans were seriously pushing back and a lot of people on both sides were killed.
Not now, but there was a long period during which native Americans were seriously pushing back and a lot of people on both sides were killed.
I'm all for prosperity, which is why I think trying to merge two cultures over overnight will just result in chaos and violence. Especially since the groups are around the same size and the territory is tiny - if you actually think about the practically of such a solution you'll realize it's not viable.
Do you really think the new nation wouldn't just delve into chaos Lebanon style? Might as well just sentence everyone to eternal conflict.
How is starting with two states and later on creating a union type entity not better for everyone?
Let's say you had to approach this as an engineering problem of merging two very different branches/companies/etc, how would you approach it?
And re US, they basically committed genocide and ended up absorbing a minority, the situation in Israel is different as it's similar sized populations on a fraction of the land.
Do you really think the new nation wouldn't just delve into chaos Lebanon style? Might as well just sentence everyone to eternal conflict.
How is starting with two states and later on creating a union type entity not better for everyone?
Let's say you had to approach this as an engineering problem of merging two very different branches/companies/etc, how would you approach it?
And re US, they basically committed genocide and ended up absorbing a minority, the situation in Israel is different as it's similar sized populations on a fraction of the land.
> which has explicitly declared that its objective is to destroy Israel
This is not a serious argument. Israel has arguably the strongest military in ME. Forget the ragtag Hamas, no country in ME - including Turkey - can destroy Israel. Israel has nukes and Hamas has hand gliders for airforce. Hamas rockets are like glorified firecrackers.
There are crazies all over the world with all kinds of crazy manifestos. That is not a license to kill and starve civilians en masse.
Oct 7 was a serious security lapse on the part of Israel. It is clear that the guilty are busy distracting the population from an objective investigation and trials to punish people who are responsible for the lapses, just like what happened after 9-11. Doing that improves Israel’s long term security. But it is unlikely to happen.
This is not a serious argument. Israel has arguably the strongest military in ME. Forget the ragtag Hamas, no country in ME - including Turkey - can destroy Israel. Israel has nukes and Hamas has hand gliders for airforce. Hamas rockets are like glorified firecrackers.
There are crazies all over the world with all kinds of crazy manifestos. That is not a license to kill and starve civilians en masse.
Oct 7 was a serious security lapse on the part of Israel. It is clear that the guilty are busy distracting the population from an objective investigation and trials to punish people who are responsible for the lapses, just like what happened after 9-11. Doing that improves Israel’s long term security. But it is unlikely to happen.
Refusing to take a side is not a position of moral strength or authority. You should be a partisan against genocide.
Which genocide? The one that parts of Israel, mostly Likud, wants and isn't doing a very good job of (I was told millions would have starved by now), or the one that Hamas emphatically wants, and is supported by the vast majority of Palestinians, but they are technologically incapable of performing?
Plenty Israelis want a two state solution where Palestinians are not harmed. How many Palestinians want a two state solution where Jews live free? Why don't Palestinians get visibly upset when a Hamas rocket meant for Israel blows up Palestinians?
Bibi should rot in prison. So should the leader of Hamas. But who is willing to run Palestine without shooting rockets at Israel, and how long will they stay in power before they are overthrown by people who want to go back to shooting rockets at Israel?
There can't be a peace as long as Palestinians want the eradication of Israel, much as there can't be peace as long as Likud wants to eradicate Palestine. But if we tell Israel it can't do anything, but do not limit Hamas in the same way, all you are doing is allowing Israelis to die for the convenience of ignoring an actually difficult geopolitical problem.
"Just stop shooting at Palestinians" will certainly end the suffering of Palestinians, but is objectively trading 30k Palestinians dead now with a few Israelis dead every year.
And this isn't even getting to the insane levels of Anti-semitism that hide themselves under a cloak of "just supporting Palestinians". If you know any jewish people who aren't evenly Israeli, ask them how safe they feel nowadays.
Plenty Israelis want a two state solution where Palestinians are not harmed. How many Palestinians want a two state solution where Jews live free? Why don't Palestinians get visibly upset when a Hamas rocket meant for Israel blows up Palestinians?
Bibi should rot in prison. So should the leader of Hamas. But who is willing to run Palestine without shooting rockets at Israel, and how long will they stay in power before they are overthrown by people who want to go back to shooting rockets at Israel?
There can't be a peace as long as Palestinians want the eradication of Israel, much as there can't be peace as long as Likud wants to eradicate Palestine. But if we tell Israel it can't do anything, but do not limit Hamas in the same way, all you are doing is allowing Israelis to die for the convenience of ignoring an actually difficult geopolitical problem.
"Just stop shooting at Palestinians" will certainly end the suffering of Palestinians, but is objectively trading 30k Palestinians dead now with a few Israelis dead every year.
And this isn't even getting to the insane levels of Anti-semitism that hide themselves under a cloak of "just supporting Palestinians". If you know any jewish people who aren't evenly Israeli, ask them how safe they feel nowadays.
> "Just stop shooting at Palestinians" will certainly end the suffering of Palestinians, but is objectively trading 30k Palestinians dead now with a few Israelis dead every year.
There's shooting and there's shooting. 30k Palestinians in Gaza Strip are in the war zone so in a way it's not a much surprise they're dying, but there are Palestiniani on the West Bank, who are being murdered by Israeli (settlers backed by IDF). Last I checked the death toll is around 500 (https://apnews.com/article/settler-attack-palestinians-west-...), which puts it within the ballpark of 7 October Hamas' strike.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_tag_attack_policy
This is absolutely "Just stop shooting at Palestinians", and I think they have every right to resist such occupation.
There's shooting and there's shooting. 30k Palestinians in Gaza Strip are in the war zone so in a way it's not a much surprise they're dying, but there are Palestiniani on the West Bank, who are being murdered by Israeli (settlers backed by IDF). Last I checked the death toll is around 500 (https://apnews.com/article/settler-attack-palestinians-west-...), which puts it within the ballpark of 7 October Hamas' strike.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_tag_attack_policy
This is absolutely "Just stop shooting at Palestinians", and I think they have every right to resist such occupation.
giraffe_lady(1)
that's right! Hamas broke the ceasefire on October 7th, and if the Israelis laid down their weapons, they would be slaughtered. they can't afford to leave Hamas in charge. they don't want control of gaza, but it doesn't seem like there's any alternative to military occupation if they want to stop the incursions for good.
Supporters of Hamas are calling for a genocide and doing everything they can to get one. But then they say the other side is doing that.
blackhawkC17(1)
I agree that Israel is going about it in a terrible manner but I also do not think that the destruction of Hamas is a reasonable goal. How can you do that without genocide?
Hamas is not a population, it's a terrorist organization. There is no need to kill every Palestinian in order to destroy Hamas.
Ok, then tell me how you do it. Or how well it worked for the us to destroy the Taliban.
> then tell me how you do it
The way Israel is doing it. There is no pretty, hygienic way to fight an existential conflict, which is what this is.
The way Israel is doing it. There is no pretty, hygienic way to fight an existential conflict, which is what this is.
Okay, say Israel enters Rafah, do whatever they want in there. Say they do a whole another pass over Gaza.
Do you think the rest of the population just stands by? You can't treat people like Israel treats Palestinians and not have terrorism. It's really that simple. Any serious plan by Israel to achieve peace of any sort with Palestinians involves massive concessions compared to the actual state of things and I can't imagine for a second anything like that would happen.
Do you think the rest of the population just stands by? You can't treat people like Israel treats Palestinians and not have terrorism. It's really that simple. Any serious plan by Israel to achieve peace of any sort with Palestinians involves massive concessions compared to the actual state of things and I can't imagine for a second anything like that would happen.
It's almost like we're stumbling into how this is one of the trickiest geopolitical issues in the last hundred years...
There's an inverse to what you're saying (which I don't disagree with) which is that if Israel does nothing in response to Hamas aggression, and just lets Hamas + it's allies keep bulling, Israeli's will die and their citizenry will be radicalized to do something in response.
This has been the pattern in this region since literally day 1 of Israel being acknowledged as a country. It's two irreconcilable groups locked into a situation where neither can meaningfully (or "safely") de-escalate; a clean solution is really unlikely to emerge.
There's an inverse to what you're saying (which I don't disagree with) which is that if Israel does nothing in response to Hamas aggression, and just lets Hamas + it's allies keep bulling, Israeli's will die and their citizenry will be radicalized to do something in response.
This has been the pattern in this region since literally day 1 of Israel being acknowledged as a country. It's two irreconcilable groups locked into a situation where neither can meaningfully (or "safely") de-escalate; a clean solution is really unlikely to emerge.
But you have to acknowledge, if these actions are not actually going to fix the problem, then they are actually psychopathic in nature. The "Well I have to do SOMETHING" rationale works when the "something" doesn't involve killing tens of thousands.
Also, it's not like the other option is "doing nothing", but acknowledging that a way must be found to return to the pre-2005 state of things. There must be a Palestinian governance with a degree of sovereignty and the settlements have to be removed. These are evident steps towards deradicalization but steps that the Israeli right in general is not keen on, in fact they would rather do the complete opposite.
Also, it's not like the other option is "doing nothing", but acknowledging that a way must be found to return to the pre-2005 state of things. There must be a Palestinian governance with a degree of sovereignty and the settlements have to be removed. These are evident steps towards deradicalization but steps that the Israeli right in general is not keen on, in fact they would rather do the complete opposite.
What they "have to do SOMETHING" about is deal with a threat that aims to kill tens of thousands (more if hamas had their way) of their own, so I don't think you can just say that doesn't apply here.
It would be nice if one side could break the cycle of responding to violence with more violence, but that seems unlikely to happen, especially when one side is essentially defined by their intent of violence towards the other.
Israel backing out (removing settlements) and allowing for Palestine self governance isn't going to magically make hamas be nice. Israel would only agree to that kind of measure if they got to maintain some amount of influence over the region so that they could have some reasonable confidence that they can at least assess active threats against them. And suddenly we're back to 2005 Israeli disengagement, where they did withdraw their settlements in gaza and reduced their physical presence instead opting for trying to influence "remotely" while allowing Palestine to self-assemble it's governance. Turns out doing that is actually really hard, hamas took over anyway, and it landed everyone in the current mess.
Suggesting that they just do it again but trust me bro this time it'll work, or suggesting that what they really need to do is also relinquish any influence they have over the region is just not an idea that is going to make it off the ground. Some compromise related to it is probably what will happen, and we can all set our watches for the next iteration.
Again, it's almost like we're stumbling into how this is one of the trickiest geopolitical issues in the last hundred years
It would be nice if one side could break the cycle of responding to violence with more violence, but that seems unlikely to happen, especially when one side is essentially defined by their intent of violence towards the other.
Israel backing out (removing settlements) and allowing for Palestine self governance isn't going to magically make hamas be nice. Israel would only agree to that kind of measure if they got to maintain some amount of influence over the region so that they could have some reasonable confidence that they can at least assess active threats against them. And suddenly we're back to 2005 Israeli disengagement, where they did withdraw their settlements in gaza and reduced their physical presence instead opting for trying to influence "remotely" while allowing Palestine to self-assemble it's governance. Turns out doing that is actually really hard, hamas took over anyway, and it landed everyone in the current mess.
Suggesting that they just do it again but trust me bro this time it'll work, or suggesting that what they really need to do is also relinquish any influence they have over the region is just not an idea that is going to make it off the ground. Some compromise related to it is probably what will happen, and we can all set our watches for the next iteration.
Again, it's almost like we're stumbling into how this is one of the trickiest geopolitical issues in the last hundred years
>And suddenly we're back to 2005 Israeli disengagement, where they did withdraw their settlements in gaza and reduced their physical presence instead opting for trying to influence "remotely" while allowing Palestine to self-assemble it's governance. Turns out doing that is actually really hard, hamas took over anyway, and it landed everyone in the current mess.
Yes, because Israel delivered the entire region to Hamas on a silver platter, having absolutely no coordination whatsoever with Palestinian authorities. This was in a time in which the majority of the population there supported a peaceful relationship with Israel. A massive blunder that Israel seems content with paying in Palestinian blood but not concessions of their own, it's insane to me that this ever became a talking point to defend Israel's actions.
>Suggesting that they just do it again but trust me bro this time it'll work, or suggesting that what they really need to do is also relinquish any influence they have over the region is just not an idea that is going to make it off the ground. Some compromise related to it is probably what will happen, and we can all set our watches for the next iteration.
>Again, it's almost like we're stumbling into how this is one of the trickiest geopolitical issues in the last hundred years
Sure, it's incredibly complex and yeah, I hope that's what happens in the end, thing is for all the deep this hole is, Israel doesn't seem interested in stopping digging, from their actions the trajectory seems set towards escalating the conflict up to a breakpoint in which they can end up better off, since they are very clearly in the more powerful position.
Yes, because Israel delivered the entire region to Hamas on a silver platter, having absolutely no coordination whatsoever with Palestinian authorities. This was in a time in which the majority of the population there supported a peaceful relationship with Israel. A massive blunder that Israel seems content with paying in Palestinian blood but not concessions of their own, it's insane to me that this ever became a talking point to defend Israel's actions.
>Suggesting that they just do it again but trust me bro this time it'll work, or suggesting that what they really need to do is also relinquish any influence they have over the region is just not an idea that is going to make it off the ground. Some compromise related to it is probably what will happen, and we can all set our watches for the next iteration.
>Again, it's almost like we're stumbling into how this is one of the trickiest geopolitical issues in the last hundred years
Sure, it's incredibly complex and yeah, I hope that's what happens in the end, thing is for all the deep this hole is, Israel doesn't seem interested in stopping digging, from their actions the trajectory seems set towards escalating the conflict up to a breakpoint in which they can end up better off, since they are very clearly in the more powerful position.
golergka(1)
Many governments have been defeated in war without genocides.
exe34(3)
> The ICC is seeking arrest warrants from the ICC for people who don't care what the ICC says, and one of them isn't even in a country that's a member of the ICC?
Neither Galant nor Netanyahu is currently in an ICC state, but that's not entirely novel territory for international criminal tribunals.
> What exactly are they going to be able to do once they manage to grant themselves these warrants?
If the judges of the court grant the prosecutor’s application, the court will issue warrants and seek cooperation of its 124 member states and any willing cooperating states in enforcing them.
Neither Galant nor Netanyahu is currently in an ICC state, but that's not entirely novel territory for international criminal tribunals.
> What exactly are they going to be able to do once they manage to grant themselves these warrants?
If the judges of the court grant the prosecutor’s application, the court will issue warrants and seek cooperation of its 124 member states and any willing cooperating states in enforcing them.
Any countries part of the ICC then have the ability to arrest anyone with warrants.
Whether those countries will do the arrests or not will be up to whomever is in political power and if they are toeing the same line or not. Those with arrest warrants then would have to risk traveling.
Whether those countries will do the arrests or not will be up to whomever is in political power and if they are toeing the same line or not. Those with arrest warrants then would have to risk traveling.
Not anyone. As long as he’s in power he’s protected by diplomatic protocol. No one is going to break international law and risk their reputation and ability to host diplomats for an ICC warrant. Just makes his predicament more desperate long term though.
But what will happen is that many countries would say no to official visits.
> As long as he’s in power he’s protected by diplomatic protocol
Not true. That’s why Putin shied from visiting South Africa [1].
[1] https://apnews.com/article/putin-brics-summit-south-africa-i...
Not true. That’s why Putin shied from visiting South Africa [1].
[1] https://apnews.com/article/putin-brics-summit-south-africa-i...
This is also what I thought when they issued the warrant against Putin, but it does not seem to be the case. There's a lot of inscrutable legal precedent regarding diplomatic immunity and high crimes, of which there is none higher than genocide. This is exactly why Putin did not make a personal appearance in South Africa for the BRICS summit. South Africa felt that they would be legally obligated to arrest him due to the ICC warrant, and that was all over a far lesser charge of unlawfully deporting children.
My understanding is that the ICC is only supposed to do this for countries/areas without a functioning and functionally independent judicial system.
I expect the request for the Israelis will not be approved.
Hamas will be interesting. Hamas' territory has no functioning judicial system, but does the ICC have jurisdiction?
In any case the "warrants" if issued would only apply to countries who signed the ICC treaty.
I expect the request for the Israelis will not be approved.
Hamas will be interesting. Hamas' territory has no functioning judicial system, but does the ICC have jurisdiction?
In any case the "warrants" if issued would only apply to countries who signed the ICC treaty.
The ICC claims jurisdiction [1], which is enough for it to issue warrants and hold trials and issue judgements. The question is always if the warrants will be executed and the judgements enforced, as the ICC cannot enforce its rulings itself.
At the time of the declaration accepting jursdiction of the ICC by the State of Palestine[2], there was a unity government of Palestine, so it feels like maybe.
In April 2012, the ICC declined to assert jurisdiction over Palestine, as it was not recognized as a State by the UN [3], but in November 2012, Palestine was granted the status of a non-member observer State, which seems to satisfy the ICC.
[1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine [2] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/iccdocs/PIDS/pre... [3] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/9B6...
At the time of the declaration accepting jursdiction of the ICC by the State of Palestine[2], there was a unity government of Palestine, so it feels like maybe.
In April 2012, the ICC declined to assert jurisdiction over Palestine, as it was not recognized as a State by the UN [3], but in November 2012, Palestine was granted the status of a non-member observer State, which seems to satisfy the ICC.
[1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine [2] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/iccdocs/PIDS/pre... [3] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/9B6...
At some point the claim of jurisdiction has to be adjudicated, as it states here:
"The Chamber provided a legal answer based on the strict interpretation of the Rome Statute. It emphasised that the issue of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court would have to be further examined when the Prosecutor submits an application for the issuance of a warrant of arrest or summons to appear. The Chamber declined to address the arguments regarding the Oslo Accords in the context of the present proceedings and indicated that these issues may be raised at a later stage of the proceedings."
https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/p...
Did the legal government of Palestine do the initial request in 2015? That would have been Hamas, since Hamas was the last elected government of Palestine. I would be surprised if Hamas acceded to the ICC's jurisdiction.
Can a non-state actor be accorded the same rights as a state under the Rome accords? Is the "government of Palestine" an actual entity?
If an entity other than the authorized government accepts jurisdiction of the ICC, does that count?
I mean, this isn't even getting the actual meat of the case and it's already a mess.
"The Chamber provided a legal answer based on the strict interpretation of the Rome Statute. It emphasised that the issue of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court would have to be further examined when the Prosecutor submits an application for the issuance of a warrant of arrest or summons to appear. The Chamber declined to address the arguments regarding the Oslo Accords in the context of the present proceedings and indicated that these issues may be raised at a later stage of the proceedings."
https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/p...
Did the legal government of Palestine do the initial request in 2015? That would have been Hamas, since Hamas was the last elected government of Palestine. I would be surprised if Hamas acceded to the ICC's jurisdiction.
Can a non-state actor be accorded the same rights as a state under the Rome accords? Is the "government of Palestine" an actual entity?
If an entity other than the authorized government accepts jurisdiction of the ICC, does that count?
I mean, this isn't even getting the actual meat of the case and it's already a mess.
At the time of the letter, Hamas and Fatah were in a unity government [1], although that's maybe disputable too. If Wikipedia is accurate and complete, Hamas claimed at the end of November 2014, that the unity government had expired; but then in June 2015, Hamas rejected the dissolution of the unity government.
But yeah, you're right, my summary was overly brief --- the earlier ruling was more that there's a reasonable question of if they have jurisdiction, so investigations can proceed. As opposed to before where the court ruled that it didn't have jurisdiction, and couldn't proceed.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Hamdallah_Government
But yeah, you're right, my summary was overly brief --- the earlier ruling was more that there's a reasonable question of if they have jurisdiction, so investigations can proceed. As opposed to before where the court ruled that it didn't have jurisdiction, and couldn't proceed.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Hamdallah_Government
From the same article:
"Like the former emergency governments after June 2007, which were installed by presidential decree, this unity government was in fact illegal, as it was not approved by the Legislative Council.[2][3] Without the cooperation of all parties, however, it was not possible to get the necessary quorum to put a vote.[20]"
"Like the former emergency governments after June 2007, which were installed by presidential decree, this unity government was in fact illegal, as it was not approved by the Legislative Council.[2][3] Without the cooperation of all parties, however, it was not possible to get the necessary quorum to put a vote.[20]"
IMHO, it's pretty hard to tell what's legal and not, when all of the elected officials are way past their elected terms, and the bodies are not in session.
Article 43 seems to give pretty wide berth for the President to operate when the Legislative Council is not in session, and if the Legislative Council is never expected to be in session, there's no mechanism to reign that in.
> Article (43) The President of the National Authority shall have the right in exceptional cases, which can not be delayed, and while the Legislative Council is not in session, to issue decisions and decrees that have the power of law. However, the decisions issued shall be presented to the Legislative Council in the first session convened after their issuance, otherwise they will cease to have the power of law. If these decisions were presented as mentioned above, but were not approved, then they shall cease to have the power of law.
To be honest, not a lot of countries have laws that contemplate continuance of government in case elections are not held.
Article 43 seems to give pretty wide berth for the President to operate when the Legislative Council is not in session, and if the Legislative Council is never expected to be in session, there's no mechanism to reign that in.
> Article (43) The President of the National Authority shall have the right in exceptional cases, which can not be delayed, and while the Legislative Council is not in session, to issue decisions and decrees that have the power of law. However, the decisions issued shall be presented to the Legislative Council in the first session convened after their issuance, otherwise they will cease to have the power of law. If these decisions were presented as mentioned above, but were not approved, then they shall cease to have the power of law.
To be honest, not a lot of countries have laws that contemplate continuance of government in case elections are not held.
> My understanding is that the ICC is only supposed to do this for countries/areas without a functioning and functionally independent judicial system.
That seems to be a misunderstanding based on an improper generalization of Article 17 of the Rome Statute: the kind of inadmissibility you refer to applies not based on general capacity of the state but of action in the specific case:
---[Art 17]
1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;
(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;
(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable:
(a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 5;
(b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice;
(c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.
3. In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.
---[end]
That seems to be a misunderstanding based on an improper generalization of Article 17 of the Rome Statute: the kind of inadmissibility you refer to applies not based on general capacity of the state but of action in the specific case:
---[Art 17]
1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;
(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;
(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable:
(a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 5;
(b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice;
(c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.
3. In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.
---[end]
The ICC is not doing that. A prosecutor is requesting the court to approve them.
Now, why is the court accepting legal challenges on legal issues, and independently of the merits of those issues, from countries like South Africa, who publicly said they would not arrest Putin, who actually DOES have an ICC arrest mandate against him?
Now, why is the court accepting legal challenges on legal issues, and independently of the merits of those issues, from countries like South Africa, who publicly said they would not arrest Putin, who actually DOES have an ICC arrest mandate against him?
> from countries like South Africa, who publicly said they would not arrest Putin,
I thought they either outright said they would arrest Putin, or at least equivocated just enough to convince Putin to not want to find out if they would or not?
Did they later clarify "no we won't"?
I thought they either outright said they would arrest Putin, or at least equivocated just enough to convince Putin to not want to find out if they would or not?
Did they later clarify "no we won't"?
"South Africa grants Putin and Brics leaders diplomatic immunity for summit" - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/30/south-africa-g...
"...South Africa has issued blanket diplomatic immunity to all leaders attending an August summit, meaning Vladimir Putin might be able to travel to Johannesburg and not fear the country acting on an international criminal court warrant for his arrest..."
It's the ultimate hypocrisy on South Africa to undermine the same court where is currently arguing, and a major legal failure on the court to accept South Africa claims.
"...South Africa has issued blanket diplomatic immunity to all leaders attending an August summit, meaning Vladimir Putin might be able to travel to Johannesburg and not fear the country acting on an international criminal court warrant for his arrest..."
It's the ultimate hypocrisy on South Africa to undermine the same court where is currently arguing, and a major legal failure on the court to accept South Africa claims.
Thanks, but the second paragraph begins:
> South African officials insisted the broad offer of immunity, issued in a government gazette, may not trump the ICC arrest warrant.
Which is exactly the same uncertainty I had before.
> South African officials insisted the broad offer of immunity, issued in a government gazette, may not trump the ICC arrest warrant.
Which is exactly the same uncertainty I had before.
Where are the charges against the tribes of Gaza for committing the most savage acts of terrorism imaginable against men, women and children, including babies? All hostilities followed the acts of October 7th. The ICC could have chosen many issues to address but picked this one. For this reason, it cannot be considered a legitimate institution.
>Khan said the ICC’s prosecution team is also seeking warrants for Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as two other top Hamas leaders — Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri, the leader of the Al Qassem Brigades who is better known as Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’ political leader.
That is it..? Hamas has thousands of militants and hundreds of officials in Gaza and Qatar. At minimum the ICC should be issuing warrants for every Hamas member of al-qassam (their military wing) and Hamas core leadership.
3k Hamas fighters attacked Israel and posted it openly on social media. Half of those died in the initial attack and lots have surely died in the war since but there is no reason not to get arrest warrants for these war criminals who directly posted their war crimes to the internet.
That is it..? Hamas has thousands of militants and hundreds of officials in Gaza and Qatar. At minimum the ICC should be issuing warrants for every Hamas member of al-qassam (their military wing) and Hamas core leadership.
3k Hamas fighters attacked Israel and posted it openly on social media. Half of those died in the initial attack and lots have surely died in the war since but there is no reason not to get arrest warrants for these war criminals who directly posted their war crimes to the internet.
Are they also supposed to submit arrest warrants for all the IDF soldiers who committed war crimes and shared them on social media? It's the job of the political/government/military leaders to keep their soldiers in check, and the job of the ICC to keep the leaders in check. (In theory at least)
Yes..? If someone commits war crimes and posts the evidence of them doing so on the internet one would hope the ICC would take note.
You are ignorant of the point of the ICC
"get all the bad guys" isn't the point of the ICC
"Respectful" here means respectful to the people who are wrong (in your view) and most respectful to the people who are most wrong (in your view). If you can't do that, that's ok, but please don't post until you can. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Hellish flamewars in deep subthreads are not ok. I'm going to lower the bar for banning accounts that do this, so please don't do this. If you're hotly indignant, step away from the keyboard until that changes. Nobody 'wins' on the internet anyway, and it's not worth destroying this community for. Not to mention your heart.