891–900 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The war is against Hamas not against Palestinians Of course it's not against the Palestinians, per se. It's a war against their continued presence on portions of Greater Israel that his party and his people would like to further colonize. There's also the current operation involving his former "asset" and strategic partner, Hamas. With whom it seems he's had a falling out of sorts, and as a result, his people got mas…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 al…
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.
(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 ev…
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…
Now we're back to the state of the world as it has always been - multipolar - and it has once more become obvious that things only matter when backed up by force, leverage, and incentives. Look at things with teeth behind them - NATO borders, export controls and ASML, artificial islands in the South China Sea, control of Hong Kong, Russia in Syria or any of the other treaties with military bases. There are papers and laws and declarations on both sides of all of those things, but real-world control always follows force, leverage and incentives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"instead" ?! There was already a cold war with Iran before Oct 7, and many warned it could pop any moment. It could be said to the detriment of Netanyahu that he ignored that and didn't want this on his watch. Iran was priming and planning for a moment where a joint Hezbollah-Hamas ground invasion would have put the Israeli military to a stress beyond its means, and with many thousands casualties on the first day. It…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p...
That isn't the linked article. > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
(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 ev…
> 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?
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.
> The Chamber also noted that decisions allowing or increasing humanitarian assistance into Gaza were often conditional. They were not made to fulfil Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law or to ensure that the civilian population in Gaza would be adequately supplied with goods in need. In fact, they were a response to the pressure of the international community or requests by the United States of…
This analogy has issues.
Topic is war. As far as international law is concerned, it’s “ok” to shoot people, blow them up and maim them.
I would propose analogy from a contact sport like mma (or the movie “purge”).
Bad things, that usually are forbidden, are allowed and even expected to be done in the event. Rules just add some restriction on how and why.
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? 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…
I'd argue that the "rules-based world order" as most people perceive it never really existed. Some will say that it existed for a brief moment in the 90s-2000s. Back then, most countries played nice with the international treaties even if there were no penalties for noncompliance, right? No - it just appeared that way. The 90s and 2000s were a unipolar world, the peak of the American Empire, and America made it emine…
So were the Nuremberg Trials not an instance of the RBWO?
(And all the UN mediations in e.g. Palestine, Korea, etc. from its very founding)
(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 ev…
[flagged]