28 ms·

The optics of equating a terrorist organization on the one hand with a democratic state with functioning judicial system and accountability for any crimes commi

by jupp0r 2y ago

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?

octopoc 2y ago
[flagged]
- TylerE 2y ago
  Huh? Your comment is frankly non-sensical. Witnesses/victims that appear in court are doing so on behalf of the prosecution, they aren't charged with any crime.
  - octopoc 2y ago
    Those are technicalities, but jupp0r was talking about how the public is going to perceive this action by the ICC. jupp0r was concerned that the ICC was equating the two sides, my point is that yes, they're being equated, in the sense that both sides are human. In other words, I don't think this is going to make people think, "huh, I guess both sides are equally guilty," I think it'll make people think, "huh, I guess both sides are being held to the same standard of justice." That's a good thing.
- s5300 2y ago
  [dead]
- courseofaction 2y ago
  This is a fairly charged analogy which plays into the presentation of the sides and not the facts. What if it turns out the Wealthy Businessman has been steadily murdering and Drug Addict's family, taking their land, and forcing them into such distress that they become addicted to a simple chemical escape? Wearing a suit doesn't make you respectable. Hell, these days it's a cause for suspicion.
  - octopoc 2y ago
    Yes, exactly! Our bias might be in favor of Israel because they have familiar-looking uniforms, tanks, etc. and the Palestinians are unshaven and often have a haunted look in their eyes. But not all is at it seems, and that's why the court shouldn't treat Netanyahu with kid gloves just because he looks clean.
- gip 2y ago
  This is totally off. Only the addict will be charged of assault.
rationalfaith 2y ago
[dead]
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> 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.
- mkoubaa 2y ago
  Furthermore, if Egypt did accept refugees, depending on how it was done, they could be implicated as an an accomplice to ethnic cleansing
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    In that sense, the UK and America (among others) were accomplices to the Holocaust, by accepting Jews who were fleeing Germany?
    - danans 2y ago
      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-states-and-the-holocaust https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-united...
wesselbindt 2y ago
[flagged]
- loandbehold 2y ago
  Whether Israel is an apartheid state or not is a controversial topic and far from settled. Palestinians are not getting the same rights as Israeli citizens because they don't have Israeli citizenship, just like in any other country. The discrimination is based on citizenship status and not on race. Arab Israelis have the same rights as Jewish Israelis.
  - wesselbindt 2y ago
    This is incorrect. They very comfortably fall within the definitions set out by ICSPCA, as detailed for example in the famous 280 page Amnesty intenational report, and also the B'Tselem rapport. This is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of definition.
    - genman 2y ago
      I'm sorry, but Amnesty International lost completely its credibility by supporting Putin and Hamas terrorist.
    - loandbehold 2y ago
      There are many other reports of similar length and rigor that argue otherwise. In the end none of these reports are 100% impartial. The definitions set out by ICSPCA are not 100% precise and leave much room for interpretation. Did you actually read Amnesty International report in full or are you just citing it because it's supporting "your" side?
      - wesselbindt 2y ago
        Who carried out those reports?
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
feedforward 2y ago
[flagged]
- petra 2y ago
  Analysing the Israeli-arab conflict as colonialism takes a very complex issue and describes it in a very shallow, non-accurate way.
School-Cotton 2y ago
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.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > 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_Status_of_Refugees https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_S...
- xg15 2y ago
  > 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)
eynsham 2y ago
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.)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jupp0r 2y ago
  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.
mkoubaa 2y ago
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
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  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.
  - istjohn 2y ago
    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.
    - doctorpangloss 2y ago
      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-after-sieges-fallujah-struggles 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-target-of-offensive-is-a-hospital.html 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 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/16/iraq.usa) This isn't whataboutism. War is horrible.
      - megous 2y ago
        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.
neilv 2y ago
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.)
threeseed 2y ago
> 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-egypt-refuses-to-open-its-border-to-palestinians.html 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.
- itronitron 2y ago
  Has anyone asked whether the Palestinians in Gaza want out of Gaza? That seems like a more important question.
  - dathinab 2y ago
    they don't, in general but they also don't want to die, want flowing water, food, electricity, medical infrastructure etc.
  - lr4444lr 2y ago
    Many of them have demonstrable property ownership (or their parents/grandparents did) in Israel proper.
  - ok123456 2y ago
    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.
    - Sabinus 2y ago
      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.
      - ok123456 2y ago
HL33tibCe7 2y ago
Nice whataboutism
chakintosh 2y ago
Except only one of those organizations killed 30 000 civilians within 7 months.
- HL33tibCe7 2y ago
  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.
- throwitaway222 2y ago
  I suppose if Hamas was the larger one, those 30k would have been 30 days, but most likely 5 if given the same resources.
  - HL33tibCe7 2y ago
    If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike.
    - ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago
      Nothing but the truth from Gino. As usual.
  - curiousgal 2y ago
    Yeah still does not excuse Israel..
- lr4444lr 2y ago
  Those are the Gaza ministry of health's numbers for all killed, IIRC, not just civilians.
  - longitudinal93 2y ago
    And not just all who were killed but everyone who has died since Oct. 7
genman 2y ago
[flagged]
- selimthegrim 2y ago
  Why don’t you ask Pakistan if he counts as one.
Gibbon1 2y ago
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.
- xenospn 2y ago
  I’ve never heard that before. Did you just make that up?
  - Gibbon1 2y ago
    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_(1990%E2%80%9391) 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-refugee-camp/a-36482657 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.
jjulius 2y ago
>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?
verteu 2y ago
> 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-panel-report-eng.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p...
- ronjobber 2y ago
  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).
kmeisthax 2y ago
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
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  > 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 https://youtu.be/ZbPdR3E4hCk?si=Gx1Uf_jWeRVUNELr
kelnos 2y ago
> 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.
lr4444lr 2y ago
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".
hirako2000 2y ago
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.
jjtheblunt 2y ago
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.
TMWNN 2y ago
>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.
tootie 2y ago
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.
20240519 2y ago
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.
gnulinux996 2y ago
> 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.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> 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.
DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
> 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-calculated-bombing-gaza/ https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-cal... 1. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

by jupp0r 2y ago

octopoc 2y ago

[flagged]

TylerE 2y ago
Huh? Your comment is frankly non-sensical. Witnesses/victims that appear in court are doing so on behalf of the prosecution, they aren't charged with any crime.
- octopoc 2y ago
  Those are technicalities, but jupp0r was talking about how the public is going to perceive this action by the ICC. jupp0r was concerned that the ICC was equating the two sides, my point is that yes, they're being equated, in the sense that both sides are human. In other words, I don't think this is going to make people think, "huh, I guess both sides are equally guilty," I think it'll make people think, "huh, I guess both sides are being held to the same standard of justice." That's a good thing.
s5300 2y ago
[dead]
courseofaction 2y ago
This is a fairly charged analogy which plays into the presentation of the sides and not the facts. What if it turns out the Wealthy Businessman has been steadily murdering and Drug Addict's family, taking their land, and forcing them into such distress that they become addicted to a simple chemical escape? Wearing a suit doesn't make you respectable. Hell, these days it's a cause for suspicion.
- octopoc 2y ago
  Yes, exactly! Our bias might be in favor of Israel because they have familiar-looking uniforms, tanks, etc. and the Palestinians are unshaven and often have a haunted look in their eyes. But not all is at it seems, and that's why the court shouldn't treat Netanyahu with kid gloves just because he looks clean.
gip 2y ago
This is totally off. Only the addict will be charged of assault.

rationalfaith 2y ago

[dead]

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> 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.

mkoubaa 2y ago
Furthermore, if Egypt did accept refugees, depending on how it was done, they could be implicated as an an accomplice to ethnic cleansing
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  In that sense, the UK and America (among others) were accomplices to the Holocaust, by accepting Jews who were fleeing Germany?
  - danans 2y ago
    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-states-and-the-holocaust https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-united...

wesselbindt 2y ago

[flagged]

loandbehold 2y ago
Whether Israel is an apartheid state or not is a controversial topic and far from settled. Palestinians are not getting the same rights as Israeli citizens because they don't have Israeli citizenship, just like in any other country. The discrimination is based on citizenship status and not on race. Arab Israelis have the same rights as Jewish Israelis.
- wesselbindt 2y ago
  This is incorrect. They very comfortably fall within the definitions set out by ICSPCA, as detailed for example in the famous 280 page Amnesty intenational report, and also the B'Tselem rapport. This is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of definition.
  - genman 2y ago
    I'm sorry, but Amnesty International lost completely its credibility by supporting Putin and Hamas terrorist.
  - loandbehold 2y ago
    There are many other reports of similar length and rigor that argue otherwise. In the end none of these reports are 100% impartial. The definitions set out by ICSPCA are not 100% precise and leave much room for interpretation. Did you actually read Amnesty International report in full or are you just citing it because it's supporting "your" side?
    - wesselbindt 2y ago
      Who carried out those reports?
- School-Cotton 2y ago

feedforward 2y ago

[flagged]

petra 2y ago
Analysing the Israeli-arab conflict as colonialism takes a very complex issue and describes it in a very shallow, non-accurate way.

School-Cotton 2y ago

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.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> 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_Status_of_Refugees https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_S...
xg15 2y ago
> 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)

eynsham 2y ago

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.)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jupp0r 2y ago
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.

mkoubaa 2y ago

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

doctorpangloss 2y ago
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.
- istjohn 2y ago
  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.
  - doctorpangloss 2y ago
    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-after-sieges-fallujah-struggles 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-target-of-offensive-is-a-hospital.html 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 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/16/iraq.usa) This isn't whataboutism. War is horrible.
    - megous 2y ago
      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.

neilv 2y ago

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.)

threeseed 2y ago

> 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-egypt-refuses-to-open-its-border-to-palestinians.html 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.

itronitron 2y ago
Has anyone asked whether the Palestinians in Gaza want out of Gaza? That seems like a more important question.
- dathinab 2y ago
  they don't, in general but they also don't want to die, want flowing water, food, electricity, medical infrastructure etc.
- lr4444lr 2y ago
  Many of them have demonstrable property ownership (or their parents/grandparents did) in Israel proper.
- ok123456 2y ago
  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.
  - Sabinus 2y ago
    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.
    - ok123456 2y ago

HL33tibCe7 2y ago

Nice whataboutism

chakintosh 2y ago

Except only one of those organizations killed 30 000 civilians within 7 months.

HL33tibCe7 2y ago
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.
throwitaway222 2y ago
I suppose if Hamas was the larger one, those 30k would have been 30 days, but most likely 5 if given the same resources.
- HL33tibCe7 2y ago
  If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike.
  - ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago
    Nothing but the truth from Gino. As usual.
- curiousgal 2y ago
  Yeah still does not excuse Israel..
lr4444lr 2y ago
Those are the Gaza ministry of health's numbers for all killed, IIRC, not just civilians.
- longitudinal93 2y ago
  And not just all who were killed but everyone who has died since Oct. 7

genman 2y ago

[flagged]

selimthegrim 2y ago
Why don’t you ask Pakistan if he counts as one.

Gibbon1 2y ago

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.

xenospn 2y ago
I’ve never heard that before. Did you just make that up?
- Gibbon1 2y ago
  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_(1990%E2%80%9391) 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-refugee-camp/a-36482657 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.

jjulius 2y ago

>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?

verteu 2y ago

> 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-panel-report-eng.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p...

ronjobber 2y ago
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).

kmeisthax 2y ago

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

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
> 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 https://youtu.be/ZbPdR3E4hCk?si=Gx1Uf_jWeRVUNELr

kelnos 2y ago

> 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.

lr4444lr 2y ago

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".

hirako2000 2y ago

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.

jjtheblunt 2y ago

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.

TMWNN 2y ago

tootie 2y ago

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.

20240519 2y ago

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.

gnulinux996 2y ago

dragonwriter 2y ago

> 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.

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago

> 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-calculated-bombing-gaza/ https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-cal... 1. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/