991–1000 of 1001 posts
This leads to a bit of a conundrum for the Netherlands. It is the home of the ICC and officially a big sponsor of international justice. But also the right wing government has a hard on for Israel. I don't think that our esteemed ancestors ever envisioned white people to end up in court... The leader of the PVV (biggest political party) is going to visit colonial settlers in Israël. Many immigrants hate Israel. Offic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> The majority of Israeli would like to find some sort of win win solution where everyone can live in peace. The majority of Palestinians don't see any solution that includes Jewish people living in the region. [citation needed] Because your equivalent on the other side would say it is exactly the other way around, and both of you would feel unarguably right. So unless you base your claim here on a neutral trusted so…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5RuRLovXUk
This is Corey, the guy who does this project where he asks random Israelis and Palestinians questions, being interviewed. I highly recommend his channel to anyone who wants a better understanding of the conflict. He's not taking sides and he asks difficult questions (coming from his viewers) about the conflict to both. If you pursue this you will certainly find out how much you do not know about this conflict.
To some of your other points since I'm revisiting:
- There are dead children because Gaza is extremely dense and half the population are children. That said the blank statement is not useful because the Palestinians counts are iffy, one example is that they include combatants who are under 18yo, and it deflects blame from Hamas from operating under the cover of children and not providing for their safety. This is not to say we should not feel sorry for dead children. Most critics of Israel are unable to offer an alternative way for Israel to defend its citizens given the specific circumstances. If Israel had a magic weapon that only killed Hamas militants I'm sure they'd use it. If you're asking Israel to send soldiers into an urban environment to ensure no uninvolved are killed instead of dropping a bomb on the enemy, I'd say, within reason, go with the bomb. That's what any military would do, what the US and its allies did against ISIS and in other places. That's how wars are fought. Nobody puts their own soldiers lives at risk to protect civilians the other side puts at risk by their actions.
- The argument that Palestinians didn't get to vote since 2006 is also pretty weak. One reason they didn't get to vote is that the PA didn't hold a vote because Hamas would win. Polls show broad support for Hamas amongst Palestinians. Either way, they are the government of Gaza whether they enjoy support or do not. When non-democratic countries go to war their citizens suffer consequences whether they got to elect their government or not. We should feel for the unfathomable numbers of young Russians that have died in Putin's crazy war on Ukraine. Does that mean that Ukraine should surrender because those Russians didn't vote for Putin in a free and democratic elections? No.
- Israel has to, under international law, ask civilians to evacuate and indeed facilitate their evacuation from combat areas. That's exactly what it did. Now the West attacks Israel for doing exactly that. I would say there's nothing Israel can do that's right. If you can suggest a reasonable path for Israel to protect its citizens from Hamas and earn the support of the critics I'm all ears.
- I'd love for there to be a way for Israel to de-escalate the conflict. I lived in Israel during the suicide attack campaign that Hamas waged on Israel as Israel was trying to make peace with the Palestinians and get to a two state solution (circa 2000). The failure of that process and the failure of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza proves there is no partner for any sort of de-escalation. Again, go check out some of those videos. The escalation came from the Palestinians (and Iran) and Israel has no practical way to de-escalate.
I also grew up in Israel at a time where Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza had complete freedom of movement in and out of Israel. Israelis shopped in the west bank and Gaza. Palestinians worked in Israel. There were essentially zero settlements and zero settlers. The PLO (backed by the surrounding Arab countries) murdered Israeli civilians left right and center. Not because of the settlements, not because of road blocks, not because of settlers attacking Palestinians. Just because Israel exists. The Palestine they want to liberate is and has been all of Israel. This is not about the individual freedoms of the individual Palestinian and how Israel "oppresses" them. A by the way is that when Israel took Gaza from Egypt in the 6-day war many Gazans were extremely happy to not be under Egyptian rule. The Egyptian and Jordanians, prior to 1967, didn't consider for a microsecond giving the Palestinians their own country over those areas that they controlled. But both are happy to ask Israel to do that now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Israel was massively radicalized by October 7th. Prior to October 7th, a lot of Israelis believed that if Palestinians had a better economy and could afford a comfortable life, peace would be possible. October 7th was not just a surprise to many Israelis, but also the atrocities were so horrible that it radically changed how Israelis view the situation. This is hard to grasp, but a lot of people don't really understa…
It is telling that you also mention "better economy" and "comfortable life", but not "equal rights" or "self-government" or any such thing. Even with animals in the zoo one doesn't think that all they need is being well-fed.
Am I the only one who thinks it's completely justified for leaders of both sides to be wanted for war crimes?? If someone assaults me and I retaliate by injuring their family members then both the assilant and me are both guilty for criminal assault. Maybe not a perfect analogy but that's what it seems has happened here...
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.
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
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Israel already participates in the process. That's why they file documents with the court. Claims from two of those the pre-trial chamber rejected today, prior to issuing the warrants. Re response: your claim was participation not jurisdiction, shift goalposts however you like
Sure, and in American courts you can appear just for the purposes of disputing jurisdiction without submitting oneself to it.
Here, the court made such a decision, Israel is just upset they didn't prevail. If Israel didn't think the court was allowed to rule on jurisdiction, Israel would not have submitted a petition for the court to do exactly that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> have declared the "rules-based world order" dead I have hunker are confusing two things here - there is international law, which the US and other delinquents break regularly. And there is Rules based world order, which is what US talks about and attempts to impose. For example imposing sanctions on Russia does not have basis in international law, but is part of ‘rules based order’
There is no such thing as "international law" in the way you use the term. There are treaties that countries either sign or do not sign. The US isn't breaking treaties it has signed, at least not in the general case.
Also ICC has issues a warrant for arrest of Putin, and he never signed up to ICC either.
Can’t have it both ways