35 ms·

(before you jump into discussion, remember that this only about these two individuals) ICC and the prosecutor are on very solid ground here. The prosecutor as

by nabla9 2y ago

(before you jump into discussion, remember that this only about these two individuals) ICC and the prosecutor are on very solid ground here. The prosecutor asked opinions from a impartial panel of experts in international law. The panel included people like Theodor Meron (former Legal adviser for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Helene Kennedy, Adrian Fulford. Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant provided plenty of evidence of the intent. Did they really think that when they talk Hebrew to their audience, rest of the world does not hear them. Case like this would be harder to prosecute without evidence of intent.

justin66 2y ago
> Did they really think that when they talk Hebrew to their audience, rest of the world does not hear them. When it comes to US public opinion, that's normally the way it works.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  Thanks to our media and politicians.
  - nabla9 2y ago
    People without media and politicians are not that much better.
  - GordonS 2y ago
    And in turn, thanks to orgs like AIPAC.
    - bjoli 2y ago
      I had a look at the democrats who support the recent "Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act". I had a look at 10 of them. 7 of them had substantial donations from AIPAC. The others were soon up for re-election. I am not American, but why oh why are you not rooting in the streets? That is just soooo effed up. This is just one of so many issues, and AIPAC is a just a part of the problem. It is just so obvious that U.S. politicians are up for purchase.
      - globalnode 2y ago
        my guess is there are no obvious consequences yet? most people seem disinterested in politics and would like to ignore it as 'petty' or 'dirty'.
      - kelnos 2y ago
        > I am not American, but why oh why are you not rooting in the streets? Fatigue and feelings of impotence, mostly. I don't think public protests are going to kick off campaign finance reform. And most people in the US feel that they have worse problems, and ignore the possibility that fixing campaign finance rules might cause us to end up with politicians who represent our interests better.
        PaulHoule 2y ago
        There are also unintended consequences. For instance if it is easy to mooch off public funds you will have people run for office just to get money to pay their friends who will owe them favors. If it is not easy to mooch off public funds than it won't be inclusive. We saw a similar scenario scenario play out in 2016 when most of the Republican candidates were attending meetings with donors who were willing to shower them with money to promote conservative ideas so long as they kissed the ring and signed up to the same list of positions on an array of issues. Some of these positions were popular (with the base and the general electorate) and others were less so, it was a hodge-podge and not a package of issues designed to win a campaign. Notably the issue of immigration was left off the table because many elite Republicans are farmowners who have a choice between hiring local young people who think it's a dead end job and would rather earn a few $ an hour less working at Burger King because its an easier job or hiring a Mexican who wants to save money to buy a farm of his own and thinks the same way the owner does. Trump didn't go that route and he picked a package of issues which were largely popular, adding the immigration issue which was highly salient in 2016 for the Republican base and that has become salient for the general electorate in 2024 since the lid blew off in Latinoamerica and Africa. Had the Republicans had fewer candidates one of them might have been able to stand out against Trump but too much funding can mean too many candidates and no differentiation and you lose. The candidates are fine though because they got the cash and they got some visibility. (Would be worth doing just for the cash) Democrats have the opposite problem that because billionaires don't fund left-wing candidates they don't have enough candidates entering in the primaries. --- I'm skeptical of other kinds of reform such as tricky voting systems because the electoral college is bad enough and if people can't understand how the vote was counted it damages legitimacy. Also systems like that have all kinds of tricky situations where the outcome of your choices often isn't what you think. (If I had to thing about Arrow's Theorem all the time I would be depressed all the time)
  - MrMcCall 2y ago
    ... where the combination of their and the public's willful ignorance results in much needless suffering.
- bbqfog 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - justin66 2y ago
    In fairness to Israel, they have a peace movement and human rights movement and so on. It’s just that even before October 7th, they were getting increasingly outnumbered.
    - jll29 2y ago
      The situation is very heterogeneous: not all Israelis are okay with what their government does, and are increasingly outspoken against it. Not all Israelis are Jewish: note also that substantial numbers of Israelis are of Arab background, some with relatives (or fellow Muslims) in Palestine. Most of non-Jewish Israelis oppose the military measures. (But there are even a few that are upset that they cannot serve in the IDF because Arab Israeli citizens are not trusted enough to serve in Israel's military - in violation of equal treatment of cizitens.) Not all Jews are in favor of Israels military action: in particular among the most religious people, there is a division between those disgusted by Israel's own military action (c.f. Rabbi David Weiss at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FNtMV2i8-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FNtMV2i8-8 ) and those right-wingers that even volunteer to become settlers in areas cleared by bulldozers from Palestinian homes in violation of the law (UN resolution 2334, Fourth Geneva Convention). What is clear and undisputable is the power asymmetry between Israel and Palestine.
  - MrMcCall 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - burkaman 2y ago
    I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but drawing any conclusions from random people on Twitter seems like a mistake. They might not be human, they might not be Israeli, and they might not be representative of Israel's 9 million people. I wouldn't want anybody to judge me based on how English-speaking Twitter accounts behave.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
bawolff 2y ago
I mean, nobody really knows until the trial (if one ever happens). Its easy to be convincing when you are just listening to the prosecution - it gets harder once the defense has the opportunity to poke holes. Keep in mind the conviction rate at ICC is pretty low. > The prosecutor asked opinions from a impartial panel of experts in international law. The court already disagreed with said panel on one of the charges (crime of extermination) and we aren't even at the stage yet where they need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Netanyahu and Gallant should certainly be quite worried (if they somehow find themselves in icc custody which seems unlikely) but we are still very far away from a conviction. Its not a foregone conclusion.
- exe34 2y ago
  [flagged]
- nabla9 2y ago
  The outcome of this case will be hard to predict, but Netanyahu and Gallant did their best to get convicted.
  - MrMcCall 2y ago
    Your dark humor made me chuckle. Thanks for that in this dire world. May the persecution of all innocent Jews, Palestinians, Ukrainians, and Africans (e.g. Ugandans) end and a world of peace and justice be established, for one and all.
    - yieldcrv 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - buran77 2y ago
      The double edged sword is that proving an ongoing crime maybe stops it from unfolding but anything other than a conviction is presented as an endorsement and encouragement to continue. That could be fine if there's really no crime, not so fine if the crime just couldn't be proven. Considering here the old adage that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. They both lead to the same verdict from a court of public opinion point of view, and realistically the same consequences from a court of justice.
nielsbot 2y ago
Also important to note that Khan, who filed the warrant requests, was one of Israel’s preferred appointees to the ICC as chief prosecutor.
- starik36 2y ago
  Why would it be preferred or not? Israel is not an ICC member.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    One can express a preference without having the right to participate in the selection. Quite a few non-US citizens express a preference on who wins the Presidency, for example. https://www.timesofisrael.com/uks-karim-khan-elected-next-icc-prosecutor-will-replace-controversial-bensouda/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/uks-karim-khan-elected-next-ic... > Israel’s Kan public broadcaster reported that Israeli officials supported Khan’s candidacy behind the scenes, and consider him a pragmatist who shies away from politicization.
yieldcrv 2y ago
Also note that the US imposed heavy sanctions on Ethopia and Eritrea’s entire government party, head of state, spouses and businesses under the exact same observations of provoking famine and starvation EO 14046
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- arresin 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - seanp2k2 2y ago
    You can literally go on social media and see first-hand videos of the things happening in real-time there for yourself.
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    I would like to see the same standard applied by the US, or demonstrate that the US has far more options than its tacit consent, I would like the US to be completely uninvolved, and point out how the US’ leverage in the situation doesn’t involve Congress just the stroke of a pen from any President, leading the Office of Foreign Assets Control since it would simultaneously be “anti-Semitic” to do this or avoid doing this by assuming cutting Israelis off from the global financial system to be uniquely debilitating, we could find out which view has a kernel of truth attached, and it shouldn’t be a problem at all
LightBug1 2y ago
[flagged]
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
My question, though, is does pushing these kinds of toothless resolutions make any difference beyond showing that the ICC essentially has no power to enforce its warrants? It's clear that the most powerful militaries in the world (US, Russia, essentially China too) have declared the "rules-based world order" dead. Does it do anyone any good to pretend this hasn't happened? It reminded me of the post Elizabeth Warren put out complaining that Trump was breaking the law because he didn't sign some ethics pledge: https://x.com/SenWarren/status/1856046118322188573 https://x.com/SenWarren/status/1856046118322188573. I couldn't help but roll my eyes. All Warren was doing was showing how pointless these laws are when there are no consequences for breaking them. The rules-based world order was always a bit of convenient fiction, but I'm afraid it's a fiction that a large part of the world no longer believes in anymore.
- hilbert42 2y ago
  "It's clear that the most powerful militaries in the world (US, Russia, essentially China too) have declared the "rules-based world order" dead." Correct, and that's what happened only about a decade after WWI—the War to End All Wars and look what happened. I'm fearful history might repeat itself. It has a bad habit of doing so and often with unexpected twists.
  - com 2y ago
    Justice has to be declared as an essential principle of human organisation. If the 1984 vision of a boot stamping on a human face forever is going to work out to be true, then so be it. The ICJ is at least holding out against that future. What will you (as a human) choose to do? These days and years are going to be definitional I think.
    - hilbert42 2y ago
      "Justice has to be declared as an essential principle of human organisation." Rereading your post days later perhaps I should have added to mine that justice has long been essential for the proper functioning of society. Likely the quintessential example of just how long justice has been considered important to societies comes from a text written over two millennia ago—Plato's Republic. Plato considers justice so significant that he begins in Book I to ask 'What is Justice?' and then goes on to explain why it is so important to society. Therein, he constructs one of the most satisfying and logical debates ever written. Plato pits the sophist Thrasymachus up against the philosopher Socrates in a battle of wits. Thrasymachus opens with a salvo of reasons why justice is everyman for himself and bit by bit Socrates systematically demolishes Thrasymachus' arguments and rebuilds them into the notion that justice is much broader and more important concept—a matter for society as a whole to embrace rather than the sophist's narrow, selfish view which only has self-interest in mind. This is a wonderful dialogue and I've read it many times since I first learned about it in philosophy decades ago. And I'd posit that it has survived for so long throughout the ages because so many consider what it has to say about justice as being too important for it to be lost. Not only do I consider Plato's take on justice just as important now as when it was written but also this cleverly constructed dialogue ought to be taken as a template for how political debate should be conducted both on and off the internet instead of the disorganized rabblerousing where only the loudest and outrageous are heard, as is so often the case nowadays. There are many copies of the Republic in English on the internet, perhaps the best known is Benjamin Jowett's translation/revision of 1888 (it's the version I learned from). Here's a link to that copy on Project Gutenberg: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/55201/55201-h/55201-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/55201/55201-h/55201-h.htm Edit: this MIT version is better formatted for smartphones and other mobile devices but it's sans intro (Gutenberg and the MIT download versions do have the full intro, foreword etc., but that's not necessary except for diehards and students): http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.2.i.html http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.2.i.html
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> Gallant provided plenty of evidence of the intent. Did they really think that when they talk Hebrew to their audience, rest of the world does not hear them. Absolutely, I can not find the BBC or most other major news networks broadcasting and translating any of that. I only see that on social media
- klipt 2y ago
  [flagged]
that_guy_iain 2y ago
[flagged]
- vladgur 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - that_guy_iain 2y ago
    > We will target all of Hamas's positions. We will turn Gaza into a deserted island. The fact, the Gaza part is a separate sentence is telling. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/7/world-is-watching-fears-grow-of-a-massive-gaza-invasion-by-israel https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/7/world-is-watching-f... > You have an opportunity to save Lebanon before it falls into the abyss of a long war that will lead to destruction and suffering like we see in Gaza. Is what he said to Lebanon, where he threatened to do similar things to another country. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly3x1w0595o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly3x1w0595o
    - dlubarov 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - vladgur 2y ago
      Does anyone have an original, in English or in Hebrew of what he said? Not a news source retelling or worse - translation
      - that_guy_iain 2y ago
        If you're going to try and argue semantics when there is literal evidence of him following through then there isn't really any point. It's reported he said it, there is no denial that he said it, and then he delivered on what he said. There is a reason there is an arrest warrant out for war crimes.
        2y ago
oort-cloud9 2y ago
[dead]
YZF 2y ago
[flagged]
- geysersam 2y ago
  It's not serious to dismiss the allegations by just saying > If Israel had intended to not supply any food or water to the Palestinians [...] the bottom line is they did not do so. because several heavyweight international humanitarian organizations say that they did. Even the US government implies this when they tell Israel to open border crossings or get cut off from military aid.
  - YZF 2y ago
    It's not serious to suggest that Israel did not supply any food or water to the Palestinians when in fact it supplied plenty. Why didn't Egypt supply food and water to the Palestinians? (Before Israel took the border corridor). What other war can you provide me as an example where a the opposing side provided supplies to its enemy? Does Russia supply Ukraine with food and water? Does Ukraine supply Russia? Did the allies supply the citizens of the Islamic State with food and water? Yes- The Gazans depended on Israel in many ways before they started this war, most of them by their own choice. Did the Germans deliver food and water to the UK during WW-II? Do the Turkish give the Kurds food and water as they bomb them? If the government of Gaza, Hamas, has stocks of food and water, and it does not disburse those to the population, and even steals aid from the population, why is this Israel's problem? Those organizations you're referring to are anti-Israeli and their statements are political. The US, who has closer knowledge of what's going on on the ground, says Israel has not committed war crimes.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      It's not serious to suggest that Israel did not supply any food or water to the Palestinians when in fact it supplied plenty. After sufficient arm-twisting from the Biden administration, it did. But until that point - it withheld. And quite intentionally and forthrightly so: “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” Gallant says following an assessment at the IDF Southern Command in Beersheba. “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly,” he adds. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-ministe...
mikae1 2y ago
> Did they really think that when they talk Hebrew to their audience, rest of the world does not hear them. Case like this would be harder to prosecute without evidence of intent. What are you talking about here? Link?
- helge9210 2y ago
  He referred to Palestinians as Amalek. Since there are not many Hebrew books written over the centuries (for obvious reasons), modern literature is heavily relying on religious texts for metaphors and analogues. Calling someone Amalek is a call for genocide.
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - sumedh 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - helge9210 2y ago
      The main lesson of the Holocaust is: if someone is saying he is going to kill you, you believe him and act accordingly. Let's for the sake of argument assume you're correct and these were just words. How come at least 200k civilians in Gaza are dead as the result?
      - raxxorraxor 2y ago
        [flagged]
        sofixa 2y ago
        > While Israel isn't entirely innocent here, most of their problems stem from their hostility towards their neighbor. Do you happen to know why that hostility exists and on what the hatred-filled propaganda that Palestinian civilians are subjected is based? Maybe there is something historic there? And in the same way that we can and do blame Hamas for their brutal atrocities, and the propaganda of hate the people acting in their name doesn't excuse their acts but merely explain it... we can blame Israel for their brutal atrocities, and its army members and commanders for committing them. Your enemy hating you because of 80 years of near constant conflict and antagonism isn't an excuse to starve his children, especially when that enemy is a literal terrorist group.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
three14 2y ago
If you do speak Hebrew, you would know that Netanyahu and Gallant have been heavily attacked by the extreme right specifically because they have been refusing to cut off food.

by nabla9 2y ago

justin66 2y ago

> Did they really think that when they talk Hebrew to their audience, rest of the world does not hear them. When it comes to US public opinion, that's normally the way it works.

PaulHoule 2y ago
Thanks to our media and politicians.
- nabla9 2y ago
  People without media and politicians are not that much better.
- GordonS 2y ago
  And in turn, thanks to orgs like AIPAC.
  - bjoli 2y ago
    I had a look at the democrats who support the recent "Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act". I had a look at 10 of them. 7 of them had substantial donations from AIPAC. The others were soon up for re-election. I am not American, but why oh why are you not rooting in the streets? That is just soooo effed up. This is just one of so many issues, and AIPAC is a just a part of the problem. It is just so obvious that U.S. politicians are up for purchase.
    - globalnode 2y ago
      my guess is there are no obvious consequences yet? most people seem disinterested in politics and would like to ignore it as 'petty' or 'dirty'.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      > I am not American, but why oh why are you not rooting in the streets? Fatigue and feelings of impotence, mostly. I don't think public protests are going to kick off campaign finance reform. And most people in the US feel that they have worse problems, and ignore the possibility that fixing campaign finance rules might cause us to end up with politicians who represent our interests better.
      - PaulHoule 2y ago
        There are also unintended consequences. For instance if it is easy to mooch off public funds you will have people run for office just to get money to pay their friends who will owe them favors. If it is not easy to mooch off public funds than it won't be inclusive. We saw a similar scenario scenario play out in 2016 when most of the Republican candidates were attending meetings with donors who were willing to shower them with money to promote conservative ideas so long as they kissed the ring and signed up to the same list of positions on an array of issues. Some of these positions were popular (with the base and the general electorate) and others were less so, it was a hodge-podge and not a package of issues designed to win a campaign. Notably the issue of immigration was left off the table because many elite Republicans are farmowners who have a choice between hiring local young people who think it's a dead end job and would rather earn a few $ an hour less working at Burger King because its an easier job or hiring a Mexican who wants to save money to buy a farm of his own and thinks the same way the owner does. Trump didn't go that route and he picked a package of issues which were largely popular, adding the immigration issue which was highly salient in 2016 for the Republican base and that has become salient for the general electorate in 2024 since the lid blew off in Latinoamerica and Africa. Had the Republicans had fewer candidates one of them might have been able to stand out against Trump but too much funding can mean too many candidates and no differentiation and you lose. The candidates are fine though because they got the cash and they got some visibility. (Would be worth doing just for the cash) Democrats have the opposite problem that because billionaires don't fund left-wing candidates they don't have enough candidates entering in the primaries. --- I'm skeptical of other kinds of reform such as tricky voting systems because the electoral college is bad enough and if people can't understand how the vote was counted it damages legitimacy. Also systems like that have all kinds of tricky situations where the outcome of your choices often isn't what you think. (If I had to thing about Arrow's Theorem all the time I would be depressed all the time)
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  ... where the combination of their and the public's willful ignorance results in much needless suffering.
bbqfog 2y ago
[flagged]
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  [flagged]
- justin66 2y ago
  In fairness to Israel, they have a peace movement and human rights movement and so on. It’s just that even before October 7th, they were getting increasingly outnumbered.
  - jll29 2y ago
    The situation is very heterogeneous: not all Israelis are okay with what their government does, and are increasingly outspoken against it. Not all Israelis are Jewish: note also that substantial numbers of Israelis are of Arab background, some with relatives (or fellow Muslims) in Palestine. Most of non-Jewish Israelis oppose the military measures. (But there are even a few that are upset that they cannot serve in the IDF because Arab Israeli citizens are not trusted enough to serve in Israel's military - in violation of equal treatment of cizitens.) Not all Jews are in favor of Israels military action: in particular among the most religious people, there is a division between those disgusted by Israel's own military action (c.f. Rabbi David Weiss at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FNtMV2i8-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FNtMV2i8-8 ) and those right-wingers that even volunteer to become settlers in areas cleared by bulldozers from Palestinian homes in violation of the law (UN resolution 2334, Fourth Geneva Convention). What is clear and undisputable is the power asymmetry between Israel and Palestine.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  [flagged]
- burkaman 2y ago
  I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but drawing any conclusions from random people on Twitter seems like a mistake. They might not be human, they might not be Israeli, and they might not be representative of Israel's 9 million people. I wouldn't want anybody to judge me based on how English-speaking Twitter accounts behave.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

bawolff 2y ago

I mean, nobody really knows until the trial (if one ever happens). Its easy to be convincing when you are just listening to the prosecution - it gets harder once the defense has the opportunity to poke holes. Keep in mind the conviction rate at ICC is pretty low. > The prosecutor asked opinions from a impartial panel of experts in international law. The court already disagreed with said panel on one of the charges (crime of extermination) and we aren't even at the stage yet where they need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Netanyahu and Gallant should certainly be quite worried (if they somehow find themselves in icc custody which seems unlikely) but we are still very far away from a conviction. Its not a foregone conclusion.

exe34 2y ago
[flagged]
nabla9 2y ago
The outcome of this case will be hard to predict, but Netanyahu and Gallant did their best to get convicted.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  Your dark humor made me chuckle. Thanks for that in this dire world. May the persecution of all innocent Jews, Palestinians, Ukrainians, and Africans (e.g. Ugandans) end and a world of peace and justice be established, for one and all.
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - buran77 2y ago
    The double edged sword is that proving an ongoing crime maybe stops it from unfolding but anything other than a conviction is presented as an endorsement and encouragement to continue. That could be fine if there's really no crime, not so fine if the crime just couldn't be proven. Considering here the old adage that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. They both lead to the same verdict from a court of public opinion point of view, and realistically the same consequences from a court of justice.

nielsbot 2y ago

Also important to note that Khan, who filed the warrant requests, was one of Israel’s preferred appointees to the ICC as chief prosecutor.

starik36 2y ago
Why would it be preferred or not? Israel is not an ICC member.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  One can express a preference without having the right to participate in the selection. Quite a few non-US citizens express a preference on who wins the Presidency, for example. https://www.timesofisrael.com/uks-karim-khan-elected-next-icc-prosecutor-will-replace-controversial-bensouda/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/uks-karim-khan-elected-next-ic... > Israel’s Kan public broadcaster reported that Israeli officials supported Khan’s candidacy behind the scenes, and consider him a pragmatist who shies away from politicization.

yieldcrv 2y ago

Also note that the US imposed heavy sanctions on Ethopia and Eritrea’s entire government party, head of state, spouses and businesses under the exact same observations of provoking famine and starvation EO 14046

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
arresin 2y ago
[flagged]
- seanp2k2 2y ago
  You can literally go on social media and see first-hand videos of the things happening in real-time there for yourself.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  I would like to see the same standard applied by the US, or demonstrate that the US has far more options than its tacit consent, I would like the US to be completely uninvolved, and point out how the US’ leverage in the situation doesn’t involve Congress just the stroke of a pen from any President, leading the Office of Foreign Assets Control since it would simultaneously be “anti-Semitic” to do this or avoid doing this by assuming cutting Israelis off from the global financial system to be uniquely debilitating, we could find out which view has a kernel of truth attached, and it shouldn’t be a problem at all

LightBug1 2y ago

[flagged]

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

My question, though, is does pushing these kinds of toothless resolutions make any difference beyond showing that the ICC essentially has no power to enforce its warrants? It's clear that the most powerful militaries in the world (US, Russia, essentially China too) have declared the "rules-based world order" dead. Does it do anyone any good to pretend this hasn't happened? It reminded me of the post Elizabeth Warren put out complaining that Trump was breaking the law because he didn't sign some ethics pledge: https://x.com/SenWarren/status/1856046118322188573 https://x.com/SenWarren/status/1856046118322188573. I couldn't help but roll my eyes. All Warren was doing was showing how pointless these laws are when there are no consequences for breaking them. The rules-based world order was always a bit of convenient fiction, but I'm afraid it's a fiction that a large part of the world no longer believes in anymore.

hilbert42 2y ago
"It's clear that the most powerful militaries in the world (US, Russia, essentially China too) have declared the "rules-based world order" dead." Correct, and that's what happened only about a decade after WWI—the War to End All Wars and look what happened. I'm fearful history might repeat itself. It has a bad habit of doing so and often with unexpected twists.
- com 2y ago
  Justice has to be declared as an essential principle of human organisation. If the 1984 vision of a boot stamping on a human face forever is going to work out to be true, then so be it. The ICJ is at least holding out against that future. What will you (as a human) choose to do? These days and years are going to be definitional I think.
  - hilbert42 2y ago
    "Justice has to be declared as an essential principle of human organisation." Rereading your post days later perhaps I should have added to mine that justice has long been essential for the proper functioning of society. Likely the quintessential example of just how long justice has been considered important to societies comes from a text written over two millennia ago—Plato's Republic. Plato considers justice so significant that he begins in Book I to ask 'What is Justice?' and then goes on to explain why it is so important to society. Therein, he constructs one of the most satisfying and logical debates ever written. Plato pits the sophist Thrasymachus up against the philosopher Socrates in a battle of wits. Thrasymachus opens with a salvo of reasons why justice is everyman for himself and bit by bit Socrates systematically demolishes Thrasymachus' arguments and rebuilds them into the notion that justice is much broader and more important concept—a matter for society as a whole to embrace rather than the sophist's narrow, selfish view which only has self-interest in mind. This is a wonderful dialogue and I've read it many times since I first learned about it in philosophy decades ago. And I'd posit that it has survived for so long throughout the ages because so many consider what it has to say about justice as being too important for it to be lost. Not only do I consider Plato's take on justice just as important now as when it was written but also this cleverly constructed dialogue ought to be taken as a template for how political debate should be conducted both on and off the internet instead of the disorganized rabblerousing where only the loudest and outrageous are heard, as is so often the case nowadays. There are many copies of the Republic in English on the internet, perhaps the best known is Benjamin Jowett's translation/revision of 1888 (it's the version I learned from). Here's a link to that copy on Project Gutenberg: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/55201/55201-h/55201-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/55201/55201-h/55201-h.htm Edit: this MIT version is better formatted for smartphones and other mobile devices but it's sans intro (Gutenberg and the MIT download versions do have the full intro, foreword etc., but that's not necessary except for diehards and students): http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.2.i.html http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.2.i.html

ClumsyPilot 2y ago

> Gallant provided plenty of evidence of the intent. Did they really think that when they talk Hebrew to their audience, rest of the world does not hear them. Absolutely, I can not find the BBC or most other major news networks broadcasting and translating any of that. I only see that on social media

klipt 2y ago
[flagged]

that_guy_iain 2y ago

[flagged]

vladgur 2y ago
[flagged]
- that_guy_iain 2y ago
  > We will target all of Hamas's positions. We will turn Gaza into a deserted island. The fact, the Gaza part is a separate sentence is telling. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/7/world-is-watching-fears-grow-of-a-massive-gaza-invasion-by-israel https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/7/world-is-watching-f... > You have an opportunity to save Lebanon before it falls into the abyss of a long war that will lead to destruction and suffering like we see in Gaza. Is what he said to Lebanon, where he threatened to do similar things to another country. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly3x1w0595o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly3x1w0595o
  - dlubarov 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - vladgur 2y ago
    Does anyone have an original, in English or in Hebrew of what he said? Not a news source retelling or worse - translation
    - that_guy_iain 2y ago
      If you're going to try and argue semantics when there is literal evidence of him following through then there isn't really any point. It's reported he said it, there is no denial that he said it, and then he delivered on what he said. There is a reason there is an arrest warrant out for war crimes.
      - 2y ago

oort-cloud9 2y ago

[dead]

YZF 2y ago

[flagged]

geysersam 2y ago
It's not serious to dismiss the allegations by just saying > If Israel had intended to not supply any food or water to the Palestinians [...] the bottom line is they did not do so. because several heavyweight international humanitarian organizations say that they did. Even the US government implies this when they tell Israel to open border crossings or get cut off from military aid.
- YZF 2y ago
  It's not serious to suggest that Israel did not supply any food or water to the Palestinians when in fact it supplied plenty. Why didn't Egypt supply food and water to the Palestinians? (Before Israel took the border corridor). What other war can you provide me as an example where a the opposing side provided supplies to its enemy? Does Russia supply Ukraine with food and water? Does Ukraine supply Russia? Did the allies supply the citizens of the Islamic State with food and water? Yes- The Gazans depended on Israel in many ways before they started this war, most of them by their own choice. Did the Germans deliver food and water to the UK during WW-II? Do the Turkish give the Kurds food and water as they bomb them? If the government of Gaza, Hamas, has stocks of food and water, and it does not disburse those to the population, and even steals aid from the population, why is this Israel's problem? Those organizations you're referring to are anti-Israeli and their statements are political. The US, who has closer knowledge of what's going on on the ground, says Israel has not committed war crimes.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    It's not serious to suggest that Israel did not supply any food or water to the Palestinians when in fact it supplied plenty. After sufficient arm-twisting from the Biden administration, it did. But until that point - it withheld. And quite intentionally and forthrightly so: “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” Gallant says following an assessment at the IDF Southern Command in Beersheba. “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly,” he adds. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-ministe...

mikae1 2y ago

> Did they really think that when they talk Hebrew to their audience, rest of the world does not hear them. Case like this would be harder to prosecute without evidence of intent. What are you talking about here? Link?

helge9210 2y ago
He referred to Palestinians as Amalek. Since there are not many Hebrew books written over the centuries (for obvious reasons), modern literature is heavily relying on religious texts for metaphors and analogues. Calling someone Amalek is a call for genocide.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - sumedh 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - helge9210 2y ago
    The main lesson of the Holocaust is: if someone is saying he is going to kill you, you believe him and act accordingly. Let's for the sake of argument assume you're correct and these were just words. How come at least 200k civilians in Gaza are dead as the result?
    - raxxorraxor 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - sofixa 2y ago
        > While Israel isn't entirely innocent here, most of their problems stem from their hostility towards their neighbor. Do you happen to know why that hostility exists and on what the hatred-filled propaganda that Palestinian civilians are subjected is based? Maybe there is something historic there? And in the same way that we can and do blame Hamas for their brutal atrocities, and the propaganda of hate the people acting in their name doesn't excuse their acts but merely explain it... we can blame Israel for their brutal atrocities, and its army members and commanders for committing them. Your enemy hating you because of 80 years of near constant conflict and antagonism isn't an excuse to starve his children, especially when that enemy is a literal terrorist group.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

three14 2y ago

If you do speak Hebrew, you would know that Netanyahu and Gallant have been heavily attacked by the extreme right specifically because they have been refusing to cut off food.