711–720 of 1001 posts
I really don't think this belongs on the front page. It is a highly divisive political issue with strong radicalisation at the edges of any discourse on it. I have my own strong opinions on it, but arguing it does not in my opinon belong on the front page here. There are plenty of places you can go and have this discussion in as heated of a version as you prefer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, commanders are responsible for the actions undertaken by their troops. It's called Command responsibility or sometimes the Yamashita principle/doctrine, after a Japanese general who was executed for horrific crimes committed by troops not even under his command, but in his area of responsibility (they were naval troops in the Philippines, he was commander of the Philippines, the navy and the army hated each othe…
Some Japanese officers take responsibility very seriously. >Hitoshi Imamura was a Japanese general who served in the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II, and was subsequently convicted of war crimes. Finding his punishment to be too light, Imamura built a replica of his prison in his garden and confined himself there until his death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitoshi_Imamura
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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? Absolutely this matters. This effectively limits where Netanyahu and Gallant can travel to. That's a big deal for a head of state. It sends a signal to all of Europe to be wary of doing business with Israel, which is a big deal. We also don't kno…
At some point Netanyahu will be out of power. He's been voted out of office before. He's in trouble politically. He promised a short, victorious war over Gaza, and got into a long major war against Iran and more countries instead. The next government might decide to turn him over to the ICC simply to get him off the political stage.
The next person to win a fight for a most exclusive position may decide it should be of substantially less value.. But usually only as a tactic to get the position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they just wanted to hop on a regular commercial flight to the US that might be a problem, but I'd expect they would fly on military aircraft. Instead of taking the most direct route which would fly over Europe they could stay over the Mediterranean until they reach the Atlantic and then head straight to the US. That adds about 500 miles or so to the trip which probably isn't a big deal on a trip that long.
Now I'm wondering if airspace spreads out horizontally from the coast the same way that shipping rights do. I'd assume so, but a quick skim-read didn't tell me either way. If it does, then they'd pick between going through Spanish or Moroccan airspace, because the straights of Gibraltar are narrow enough you can see Africa from Gibraltar .
If you want to do something other than just a continuous and expeditious passage through the strait than you do need permission from the bordering countries and have to obey their rules. But if you are just going straight (no pun intended) through then it legally counts as being on the high seas all the way through.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. #1 this topic is not as divisive as it may seem. There is consensus as to what is happening and only a minority of the world thinks otherwise. #2 Israel is a major tech partner and most large tech companies have offices in Tel Aviv. Many startups that we discuss here are headquartered in Tel Aviv. The head of state of the country having an ICC arrest warrant and the situation at large have major consequen…
> There is consensus as to what is happening and only a minority of the world thinks otherwise. Well, that's obviously false. GP is right; this topic produces more heat than light.
Not super meaningful in reality - any country looking to arrest either man should tread carefully. The American Service-Members' Protection Act authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". Israel is listed in the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand how a tiny country like Israel has become so important in global politics. By population Rwanda is ~30% larger than Israel.
[flagged]
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/09/opinion/gaza-...
For context, this is only possible because the state of Palestine pushed hard and persisted for years to become an ICC member and thus give the ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed on Palestinian territory, whether by Israel or by Palestinian factions. The USA is still mad at them for doing it. The full account is worth reading, it includes considerations by the various resistance factions that they’d also be subje…
> state of Palestine pushed hard and persisted for years to become an ICC member good for them; is there some reason they shouldn't have?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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? Absolutely this matters. This effectively limits where Netanyahu and Gallant can travel to. That's a big deal for a head of state. It sends a signal to all of Europe to be wary of doing business with Israel, which is a big deal. We also don't kno…
At some point Netanyahu will be out of power. He's been voted out of office before. He's in trouble politically. He promised a short, victorious war over Gaza, and got into a long major war against Iran and more countries instead. The next government might decide to turn him over to the ICC simply to get him off the political stage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not how the ICC conducts its investigations. The "41+" figure is from a Wikipedia article that is undergoing an edit war. The very source it is citing actually says 63k
As I understand it 41 is the number of starvations recorded in hospitals. 63k is a highly theoretical "estimate" based on the IPC scale and data from food insecurity in other parts of the world. It seems absurd on its face, since it would imply that an absurdly small fraction of starvations were recorded in hospitals.
The numbers are absurdly small, if hospitals were still operational, their employees not subject to extrajudicial killing from the occupation authorities and the facilities themselves not subject to bombardment.
Data from these killing fields is probably going to be far, far worse than we believe, once the dust has settled.