3 ms·

That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that Israel is convinced that the global scrutiny they experience is so unfair and one-sided that they have

by tome 2y ago

That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that Israel is convinced that the global scrutiny they experience is so unfair and one-sided that they have to take action ahead of time to try to restore a modicum of balance.

brabel 2y ago
That's kind of ridiculous. Israel has had the support of most of the world for months of war, but at some point it became clear they were just going far over what looked like a proportionate response. And they just kept going, month after month, getting worse and worse... and the outrage from other countries has slowly grown as they kept killing civilians almost indiscriminately. I would say this proves the exact opposite: that Israel, given the history of their people, are given more leeway than basically anyone else by the international community.
- tome 2y ago
  I acknowledge that is your interpretation. Others have the interpretation that the support Israel has been given since Oct 7th falls far short of what would be appropriate in the circumstances. Regarding the accusation of killing civilians indiscriminately: what is the civilian to combatant death ratio, and what level would it have to fall above to count as "indiscriminate"?
  - brabel 2y ago
    > what is the civilian to combatant death ratio, and what level would it have to fall above to count as "indiscriminate"? I accept the ICC report which says Israel not only killed indiscriminately, it used hunger as a weapon of war. Those accusations were investigated and proven beyond doubt by the people we most trust to investigate such matters. However, in my humble opinion, any innocent's death caused by war is unjustifiable. I thought so when the Russians started killing civilians in their war (using the same justifications as Israel, by the way), and I still think so when it's Israel killing Palestinians.
racional 2y ago
It's an "interpretation" but an obviously rubbish one. One doesn't go to such extreme lengths as stalking the Chief Prosecutor, making thinly-veiled threats to their family's safety and so on unless one is perfectly aware of one's precarious fate in the hands of global public opinion -- and perfectly aware also (through knowledge of one's own actions) of the reasons why such scrutiny is legitimate and necessary.
- tome 2y ago
  Yes, of course they're aware of their precarious situation vis-a-vis global public opinion. The question is whether that is warranted.
  - racional 2y ago
    They know perfectly well why it's warranted. That's why they're so desperate. As in literally every other case of prosecutor intimidation you will find.
    - tome 2y ago
      They were desperate because they believed (correctly) the court would target their officials. Whether or not it's warranted[1] is a quite independent consideration! For example, in principle a country could be confident that it would not be touched by the ICC, despite deserving to be. [1] No pun intended!

by tome 2y ago

brabel 2y ago

That's kind of ridiculous. Israel has had the support of most of the world for months of war, but at some point it became clear they were just going far over what looked like a proportionate response. And they just kept going, month after month, getting worse and worse... and the outrage from other countries has slowly grown as they kept killing civilians almost indiscriminately. I would say this proves the exact opposite: that Israel, given the history of their people, are given more leeway than basically anyone else by the international community.

tome 2y ago
I acknowledge that is your interpretation. Others have the interpretation that the support Israel has been given since Oct 7th falls far short of what would be appropriate in the circumstances. Regarding the accusation of killing civilians indiscriminately: what is the civilian to combatant death ratio, and what level would it have to fall above to count as "indiscriminate"?
- brabel 2y ago
  > what is the civilian to combatant death ratio, and what level would it have to fall above to count as "indiscriminate"? I accept the ICC report which says Israel not only killed indiscriminately, it used hunger as a weapon of war. Those accusations were investigated and proven beyond doubt by the people we most trust to investigate such matters. However, in my humble opinion, any innocent's death caused by war is unjustifiable. I thought so when the Russians started killing civilians in their war (using the same justifications as Israel, by the way), and I still think so when it's Israel killing Palestinians.

racional 2y ago

It's an "interpretation" but an obviously rubbish one. One doesn't go to such extreme lengths as stalking the Chief Prosecutor, making thinly-veiled threats to their family's safety and so on unless one is perfectly aware of one's precarious fate in the hands of global public opinion -- and perfectly aware also (through knowledge of one's own actions) of the reasons why such scrutiny is legitimate and necessary.

tome 2y ago
Yes, of course they're aware of their precarious situation vis-a-vis global public opinion. The question is whether that is warranted.
- racional 2y ago
  They know perfectly well why it's warranted. That's why they're so desperate. As in literally every other case of prosecutor intimidation you will find.
  - tome 2y ago
    They were desperate because they believed (correctly) the court would target their officials. Whether or not it's warranted[1] is a quite independent consideration! For example, in principle a country could be confident that it would not be touched by the ICC, despite deserving to be. [1] No pun intended!