4 ms·

I'm really surprised to hear another Jewish person speak about this in language that evokes the Nuremberg trials. The article generally describes the IDF being

by YZF 1y ago

I'm really surprised to hear another Jewish person speak about this in language that evokes the Nuremberg trials. The article generally describes the IDF being asked to do crowd control with lethal weapons. For the most part it also described casualties (number unclear/unknown) as unintentional consequences. I agree this does not look good but it's also not a matter of fact either. We don't know the facts, we don't know the scale, we don't know the intentions, we don't know who is making the allegations, we don't know the details. War crimes in this war should be dealt with. Nuremberg trials is really not the right analogy.

Aeolun 1y ago
> War crimes in this war should be dealt with. Nuremberg trials is really not the right analogy. War crimes for firing into a crowd of civilians, for both the one that ordered it, and those that executed it, should definitely be at the same levels as the nuremberg trials. The fact that it will never happen doesn’t detract from that. Happily, the ICC seems to already know so, which is why there’s warrants out for all these Isrealian leaders, no?
- YZF 1y ago
  The ICC is a political circus and Israel is not a signatory. It has no jurisdiction. Even if Israel was a signatory the ICC should only intervene after Israel has done its own investigation and if it failed to hold the relevant standards. If there were war crimes committed then people need to be held accountable. The scale of the alleged war crimes is totally different than the crimes persecuted in Nuremberg.
  - SauciestGNU 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - YZF 1y ago
      [flagged]
  - troad 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - YZF 1y ago
      I am not following your logic at all. The League of Nations had no jurisdiction over the Germans (that I'm aware of). The matter of countries doing their own investigation is fundamental to the ICC and so is the matter of its jurisdiction being restricted to member countries. That is part of the convention that established it. The police in contrast, in a certain country, has jurisdiction and the power to arrest criminals. The ICCs powers come from the countries that are members of it extending their powers to this body via mutual agreement. The more proper analogy would be that me and a bunch of friends will issue an arrest warrant and put you in jail because we feel like it. EDIT: This is known as the principle of complementarity: https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works "The ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely." Re: Jurisdiction: "In the absence of a UNSC referral of an act of aggression, the Prosecutor may initiate an investigation on his own initiative or upon request from a State Party. The Prosecutor shall first ascertain whether the Security Council has made a determination of an act of aggression committed by the State concerned. Where no such determination has been made within six months after the date of notification to the UNSC by the Prosecutor of the situation, the Prosecutor may nonetheless proceed with the investigation, provided that the Pre-Trial Division has authorized the commencement of the investigation. Also, under these circumstances, the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction regarding a crime of aggression when committed by a national or on the territory of a State Party that has not ratified or accepted these amendments." The Palestinians and Gaza are not a state party. Israel is not a state party. and the UNSC has not referred this to the ICC. Therefore the ICC has no jurisdiction.
      - troad 1y ago
        Wrong. Palestine is a state party to the ICC, effective 1 April 2015. The ICC has jurisdiction on the territory of its member states. It is the position of both the ICC itself and the United Nations General Assembly that Palestine is a state and ergo entitled to be a member of the ICC. Whether Israel (or you) accept this definition of Palestine is largely irrelevant. Moreover, whether Israel is or is not a state party to the ICC is completely without bearing on the ICC investigation in question, since Gaza is not part of Israel's territory under any definition, including Israel's own. To my knowledge, no state recognises Gaza as part of Israel, including Israel itself. TLDR: It is Palestine's membership of ICC that results in the ICC lawfully exercising its jurisdiction on the territory of Gaza.
  - Aeolun 1y ago
    > the ICC should only intervene after Israel has done its own investigation We have investigated our highest leaders, and have found them absolutely blameless. Netanyahu is often found on the same golden cloud that Putin is often seen floating around on. There’s a reason we have a police force instead of allowing the criminals to investigate themselves.
tootie 1y ago
You're misreading. The civilian casualties are very much intentional. They are being ordered to fire on unarmed people seeking food. There are verified reports of IDF targeting journalists and EMTs. I am also Jewish American and I am 100% convinced that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians. I find it utterly reprehensible that this opinion can ever be considered antisemitic since the actions of the Israeli government are so incontrovertibly at odds with Jewish ideology. They shame us all.
- YZF 1y ago
  What is you definition of "genocide against the Palestinians"? Are you including Palestinians that are Israeli citizens? The West Bank? Those living outside the region? Word choice matters here. Is Israel executing a plan to kill all Gazans? I am 100% convinced Israel is not actually committing a genocide against Palestinians. That claim has no factual support. Do I agree with everything Israel is doing? No. Are there war crimes being committed by the IDF? Possibly yes, not necessarily different than any other modern war waged ever. What would you suggest, based on Jewish ideology, should have been the proper response to Oct 7th? Would you go to war? Would you wage it differently? How would you deal with the realities on the ground? Firing on people seeking food is not right. The use of the word genocide, coined to describe the systemic murder of 6 million Jews for no reason, in this context, is very clearly meant as a form of diminishing/denying the Holocaust. There is just no other way to look at it. If Hamas was to surrender and return the hostages would Israel be sending all Palestinians to gas chambers? "The word "genocide" was coined in 1944 by Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin. He combined the Greek word "genos" (meaning race or tribe) with the Latin word "cide" (meaning killing) to create the term. Lemkin used the word to describe the systematic destruction of groups of people, specifically referencing the Nazi's actions during the Holocaust"
  - goopypoop 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - bluehex 1y ago
    Etymology of the word is irrelevant when it comes to current usage, and current usage and understanding is neatly summarized by Wikipedia in the first sentence of that same article where your quote about the etymology comes from. "Genocide is violence that targets individuals because of their membership of a group and aims at the destruction of a people."
Hikikomori 1y ago
We don't know the facts. Like we didn't do with the buried ambulances and journalists like Shireen Akleh. It didn't happen. We didn't do it. If it happened Hamas did it. If we did it they deserved it. Oh it's on video, our bad, we did an oopsie. Countless of cases like this.
- YZF 1y ago
  I agree these don't all look good but you're lumping different things under the same umbrella. And you're blaming the victim. If Hamas didn't attack Israel on Oct 7th then there wouldn't be Israeli soldiers in Gaza killing and getting killed and there wouldn't be issues with ambulances. It doesn't help that Hamas uses ambulances and that its combatants don't wear uniforms and rely on being able to pass as civilians as part of their strategy. So yes, an Israeli ambush in Gaza that opened fire on a civilian vehicle is something that should be looked at. But they get a lot of leeway because it's a war and in a war mistakes can happen. In order for this to be a crime you need to show beyond doubt the soldiers knew these were civilians and intentionally wanted to kill them. There were other civilians that passed unharmed through the same forces and so proving intent is pretty difficult. Whether it's on video or not doesn't matter. In a war soldiers will potentially kill civilians. The bar is different from peacetime operations. The war was started, and is continued, by Hamas. Yes it looks bad. Yes the IDF should do whatever it can to minimize it. Yes there are whackos. I realize I'm not going to convince you but I believe that if the Palestinians stopped using violence you wouldn't see any incidents of Palestinians getting killed by security forces. The stories they are telling you about resistance and occupation are false. I am painting a broad brush here- Some Palestinians just want to live in peace. But too many do not. Pressure on Israel is misguided. Pressure should be on Hamas to surrender. Pressure on Israel emboldens Hamas, makes the war go on longer, and is not helping Palestinians. Even if you believe Israelis are evil you should still pressure the Palestinians because they are the ones who need to end this war. After the war is over we can talk about what to do next. Israelis can't and won't be pressured into letting Hamas remain in power.
  - ath3nd 1y ago
    [flagged]
ath3nd 1y ago
Israel's government is doing a genocide on the Palestinian people. The ICC sees it and that is why the war criminal Netanyahu has a warrant for his arrest and will be tried in the Hague, not Nuremberg, but close enough. Stop the Israeli genocide on Palestinian people.
- dlubarov 1y ago
  There is no genocide charge in the ICC case. Khan's initial charges included extermination, but that was rejected by the pre-trial chamber.
  - ath3nd 1y ago
    Stop the genocide

by YZF 1y ago

Aeolun 1y ago

> War crimes in this war should be dealt with. Nuremberg trials is really not the right analogy. War crimes for firing into a crowd of civilians, for both the one that ordered it, and those that executed it, should definitely be at the same levels as the nuremberg trials. The fact that it will never happen doesn’t detract from that. Happily, the ICC seems to already know so, which is why there’s warrants out for all these Isrealian leaders, no?

YZF 1y ago
The ICC is a political circus and Israel is not a signatory. It has no jurisdiction. Even if Israel was a signatory the ICC should only intervene after Israel has done its own investigation and if it failed to hold the relevant standards. If there were war crimes committed then people need to be held accountable. The scale of the alleged war crimes is totally different than the crimes persecuted in Nuremberg.
- SauciestGNU 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - YZF 1y ago
    [flagged]
- troad 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - YZF 1y ago
    I am not following your logic at all. The League of Nations had no jurisdiction over the Germans (that I'm aware of). The matter of countries doing their own investigation is fundamental to the ICC and so is the matter of its jurisdiction being restricted to member countries. That is part of the convention that established it. The police in contrast, in a certain country, has jurisdiction and the power to arrest criminals. The ICCs powers come from the countries that are members of it extending their powers to this body via mutual agreement. The more proper analogy would be that me and a bunch of friends will issue an arrest warrant and put you in jail because we feel like it. EDIT: This is known as the principle of complementarity: https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works "The ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely." Re: Jurisdiction: "In the absence of a UNSC referral of an act of aggression, the Prosecutor may initiate an investigation on his own initiative or upon request from a State Party. The Prosecutor shall first ascertain whether the Security Council has made a determination of an act of aggression committed by the State concerned. Where no such determination has been made within six months after the date of notification to the UNSC by the Prosecutor of the situation, the Prosecutor may nonetheless proceed with the investigation, provided that the Pre-Trial Division has authorized the commencement of the investigation. Also, under these circumstances, the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction regarding a crime of aggression when committed by a national or on the territory of a State Party that has not ratified or accepted these amendments." The Palestinians and Gaza are not a state party. Israel is not a state party. and the UNSC has not referred this to the ICC. Therefore the ICC has no jurisdiction.
    - troad 1y ago
      Wrong. Palestine is a state party to the ICC, effective 1 April 2015. The ICC has jurisdiction on the territory of its member states. It is the position of both the ICC itself and the United Nations General Assembly that Palestine is a state and ergo entitled to be a member of the ICC. Whether Israel (or you) accept this definition of Palestine is largely irrelevant. Moreover, whether Israel is or is not a state party to the ICC is completely without bearing on the ICC investigation in question, since Gaza is not part of Israel's territory under any definition, including Israel's own. To my knowledge, no state recognises Gaza as part of Israel, including Israel itself. TLDR: It is Palestine's membership of ICC that results in the ICC lawfully exercising its jurisdiction on the territory of Gaza.
- Aeolun 1y ago
  > the ICC should only intervene after Israel has done its own investigation We have investigated our highest leaders, and have found them absolutely blameless. Netanyahu is often found on the same golden cloud that Putin is often seen floating around on. There’s a reason we have a police force instead of allowing the criminals to investigate themselves.

tootie 1y ago

You're misreading. The civilian casualties are very much intentional. They are being ordered to fire on unarmed people seeking food. There are verified reports of IDF targeting journalists and EMTs. I am also Jewish American and I am 100% convinced that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians. I find it utterly reprehensible that this opinion can ever be considered antisemitic since the actions of the Israeli government are so incontrovertibly at odds with Jewish ideology. They shame us all.

YZF 1y ago
What is you definition of "genocide against the Palestinians"? Are you including Palestinians that are Israeli citizens? The West Bank? Those living outside the region? Word choice matters here. Is Israel executing a plan to kill all Gazans? I am 100% convinced Israel is not actually committing a genocide against Palestinians. That claim has no factual support. Do I agree with everything Israel is doing? No. Are there war crimes being committed by the IDF? Possibly yes, not necessarily different than any other modern war waged ever. What would you suggest, based on Jewish ideology, should have been the proper response to Oct 7th? Would you go to war? Would you wage it differently? How would you deal with the realities on the ground? Firing on people seeking food is not right. The use of the word genocide, coined to describe the systemic murder of 6 million Jews for no reason, in this context, is very clearly meant as a form of diminishing/denying the Holocaust. There is just no other way to look at it. If Hamas was to surrender and return the hostages would Israel be sending all Palestinians to gas chambers? "The word "genocide" was coined in 1944 by Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin. He combined the Greek word "genos" (meaning race or tribe) with the Latin word "cide" (meaning killing) to create the term. Lemkin used the word to describe the systematic destruction of groups of people, specifically referencing the Nazi's actions during the Holocaust"
- goopypoop 1y ago
  [flagged]
- bluehex 1y ago
  Etymology of the word is irrelevant when it comes to current usage, and current usage and understanding is neatly summarized by Wikipedia in the first sentence of that same article where your quote about the etymology comes from. "Genocide is violence that targets individuals because of their membership of a group and aims at the destruction of a people."

Hikikomori 1y ago

We don't know the facts. Like we didn't do with the buried ambulances and journalists like Shireen Akleh. It didn't happen. We didn't do it. If it happened Hamas did it. If we did it they deserved it. Oh it's on video, our bad, we did an oopsie. Countless of cases like this.

YZF 1y ago
I agree these don't all look good but you're lumping different things under the same umbrella. And you're blaming the victim. If Hamas didn't attack Israel on Oct 7th then there wouldn't be Israeli soldiers in Gaza killing and getting killed and there wouldn't be issues with ambulances. It doesn't help that Hamas uses ambulances and that its combatants don't wear uniforms and rely on being able to pass as civilians as part of their strategy. So yes, an Israeli ambush in Gaza that opened fire on a civilian vehicle is something that should be looked at. But they get a lot of leeway because it's a war and in a war mistakes can happen. In order for this to be a crime you need to show beyond doubt the soldiers knew these were civilians and intentionally wanted to kill them. There were other civilians that passed unharmed through the same forces and so proving intent is pretty difficult. Whether it's on video or not doesn't matter. In a war soldiers will potentially kill civilians. The bar is different from peacetime operations. The war was started, and is continued, by Hamas. Yes it looks bad. Yes the IDF should do whatever it can to minimize it. Yes there are whackos. I realize I'm not going to convince you but I believe that if the Palestinians stopped using violence you wouldn't see any incidents of Palestinians getting killed by security forces. The stories they are telling you about resistance and occupation are false. I am painting a broad brush here- Some Palestinians just want to live in peace. But too many do not. Pressure on Israel is misguided. Pressure should be on Hamas to surrender. Pressure on Israel emboldens Hamas, makes the war go on longer, and is not helping Palestinians. Even if you believe Israelis are evil you should still pressure the Palestinians because they are the ones who need to end this war. After the war is over we can talk about what to do next. Israelis can't and won't be pressured into letting Hamas remain in power.
- ath3nd 1y ago
  [flagged]

ath3nd 1y ago

Israel's government is doing a genocide on the Palestinian people. The ICC sees it and that is why the war criminal Netanyahu has a warrant for his arrest and will be tried in the Hague, not Nuremberg, but close enough. Stop the Israeli genocide on Palestinian people.

dlubarov 1y ago
There is no genocide charge in the ICC case. Khan's initial charges included extermination, but that was rejected by the pre-trial chamber.
- ath3nd 1y ago
  Stop the genocide