ICC issues warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas officials

[flagged]

Which atrocities? What wasn't shown on mainstream media?

In my experience, most of what mainstream media claimed initially around atrocities was proven to be categorically false - up to and including the president of the USA going on live TV and lying about having seen evidence of baby killing, with staffers having to sheepishly and quietly release a "that didn't happen" statement later.

Of course these retractions happened later, and Israel's explicit and planned messaging of atrocities, inhuman animal behavior, etc had its desired effect of riling people up to support a genocidal assault after a single successful counterattack from an impoverished people at war for generations.

He's said this "many" times? Can you show some other times he's said this?

This clip is IIRC from about 3 days after Hamas invaded Israel and massacred civilians. He announced an utterly immoral siege policy, but abandoned it almost immediately.

And while you can certainly cherry-pick some awful statements from Gallant, he's also made many statements that make it clear that Israel is not targeting civilians.

I think you are correct that the US service members committed some fucked up war crimes in Iraq. But many service members faced justice in the US for those crimes. And I'm not persuaded that those crimes were widespread, relative to the scale of the military engagement.

Your statement seems to imply that the Iraq War was unusually bad in terms of war crimes. If so, you should be able to give several examples of 21st century conflicts which you're confident had fewer war crimes committed per capita. Can you do so?

The way I see it, there are two rough hypotheses here:

Hypothesis 1: The US is an unusually evil country which has a harmful effect on world affairs. Its actions in Iraq exemplify this. The recent trend towards US isolationism is good, since isolationism will diminish its pernicious effects on world affairs.

Hypothesis 2: War crimes and violations of the laws of war are ubiquitous in conflict. The international treaties prohibiting them were well-intentioned but largely fruitless. The psychology of war drives soldiers to commit war crimes, and/or the incentives to commit war crimes are too strong. The US has a free press, and has systems in place to prosecute service members who commit war crimes, so you hear more about war crimes committed by the US than by other countries. But the per capita rate of the US committing war crimes may actually be lower than average.

What evidence is available that lets us differentiate between these hypotheses?

Myself, I have no sense of what it's like in Israel right now, but I have noted several times that the October 7th attack was proportionally worse to Israel than 9/11 was to the US, so I can easily believe that this had a similar impact on the national psyche.

That said, I do often read comments and news articles claiming that Netanyahu's government is unpopular within Israel, and that he only maintains his position by the support of the… well, there's not a polite way to describe the attitudes of the settlers who take land that isn't in Israel and then demand Israel defend them, nor those who demand violence while claiming their religious beliefs prohibit serving in the armed forces even though everyone else has conscription.

Not confident of that popularity though, as Googling gets me an extraordinarily broad range of popularity scores.

That said:

> But ultimately, October 7th killed any chance for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, for a long long time.

Did any chance of a peace live before?

The Israeli PM who signed the Oslo Accords, Yitzhak Rabin, was shot by a far-right-wing Israeli extremist for signing them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

A large portion of the Palestinian population also opposed it.