In other words, if by "Israel" you mean only within the borders of its sovereign territory, yes it's a democracy. If by "Israel" you mean all territory controlled by the State of Israel, it's clearly not.

So, they at best get partial credit for being "a democracy". If they wanted to get full credit, they would have to either relinquish control over the West Bank (and Gaza for that matter), or grant the people living there equal citizenship and voting rights.

> In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?

Nobody has to let foreigners into their country if they don't want to. Israel has every right to limit what goes over their border with Gaza, too. What bothers me is that they also restrict Gaza's territorial waters and airspace (and have been doing so since long before Oct. 7th), which AFAIK Egypt isn't involved in.

This is one aspect of the whole conflict that has always seriously irked me.

The West effectively treats Israel as if it were the legal guardian of the Palestinians: Israel controls the entire territory, controls the tax revenue, population registry, borders, airspace, energy and water supply, can precisely restrict what (is allowed to) go in and out, can construct or demolish buildings at will, can arrest people at will, or even shoot them, can arbitrarily set the rules for court proceedings, etc. Western and neighbor countries fully support this view, to the point where, if Palestinians import or export goods into their own territories without Israel's authorisation, this is called "smuggling".

Yet at the same time, Israel seems to have no obligation to actually consider or represent the interests of the Palestinians: They are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections; they don't have any representation in the Knesset; laws can be passed that arbitrarily disadvantage them without loss of democratic status; Israeli politicians openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies".

In any situation where any individual person were the legal guardian of another person and at the same time called them "their bitter enemy", we'd be deeply alarmed and suspect an abusive relationship. Yet in the case of Israel and the Palestinians, that's "how things are supposed to be" and everyone who tries to change that status quo is the problem.

This feels extremely wrong to me.

(The UN is clearer here: They give Israel the specific legal role of "occupation force" and point to various obligations towards the occupied population that come with that role. However, the western countries somehow both deny that any occupation even takes place and demand that Israel must continue to have full control over the territories - which is contradictory in itself)

I don't think this is really true or at the very least it's nuanced. There are some extreme right politicians that say very questionable things but Palestinians (including Israeli Arabs, Palestinians in the west bank, and Palestinians in Gaza) are not generally, as a whole, thought of as bitter enemies. The Hamas maybe. People on both sides generally get along in many situations (e.g. Palestinians that are Israeli citizens, Palestinians working in Israel, Israelis shopping in the West Bank, even most settlers in the West Bank with their Palestinian neighbours).

Even in his denial that these claims are basically holding all (or at least most) of the people of Gaza responsible for October 7th, he has actually reiterated the same claim:

"But the reality cannot be ignored, a reality which we all saw with our own eyes as published by Hamas on that cursed day, and that was the involvement of many residents of Gaza in the slaughter, in the looting, and in the riots of October 7. How the crowds in Gaza cheered at the sight of Israelis being slaughtered and their bodies mutilated. At the sight of hostages — God knows what they did to them — wounded and bleeding being dragged through the streets. In view of such terrible crimes, it is appropriate that the honorable court investigate them in depth, and not casually in passing."

He then goes on to say that despite this, they are of course not targeting civilians. But it's hard to see any way to interpret both of these statements other than as claims that the people of Gaza, collectively, deeply hate Israelis.

And other figures of power (members of the Knesset certainly, even some minsters I believe) have said much more explicit, and more heinous, things. I can search for quotes if you haven't seen them.

Quotes taken from

[0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-blood-libel-herzog-says-icj-...

Your statement is incorrect but you're doubling down on it.

I think the sentiment of Gazans towards Israelis is a topic we can look at via surveys if you want to go that way.

It's also a matter of fact that some Gazan civilians were aware and did indeed participate in the Oct 7th attack. The first wave was combatants but random people followed that pillaging, killing, taking hostages. The statement about cheering in Gaza at slaughtered Israelis is also true. Neither of those truths support the idea that in general Israelis view all Gazans or all Palestinians (your original claim) as "bitter enemies". I can find you many quotes of Israelis saying their war is not against all Gazans. Those opinions outnumbers by 2 orders of magnitude. You can't just cherry pick, you need to look at the entire picture. Even Netanyahu clatified many times that Israel's war is not on Gaza's civilians (despite the truth of some of them participating in Oct 7th).

But these are clearly statements about Gazans in general, not some specific subset of Gazans. Mr Herzog is clearly saying, or at the very least heavily implying, that Gazans in general are bitter enemies of Israel. Not every single Gazan, but Gazans in general. He could have said "there was some small group of Gazans that [...]". He could have said "There are some X thousand Gazans that [...]". But he didn't: he chose to say "Gazan civilians", without any other discriminant.

> "Israeli politicians openly call the Palestinians "our bitter enemies"."

As I said the bulk of statements from Israeli military, politicians, and government, in Hebrew and in English say that the war in Gaza is not against civilians but against Hamas. If you insist on cherry picking some statements and building your story on those then I would respectfully ask that you reconsider.

I would also urge you look at surveys and see what Gazans think about Israelis instead of obsessing with the (IMO not true) idea that Israelis consider Gazans their bitter enemy. Find me surveys before Oct 7th that show that Israelis had more negative opinions about Gazans than Gazans held about Israelis overall and I'm open to changing my position. I also urge you to see footage of Oct 7th and ask yourself a question about the mindset towards Israelis leading to these actions.

According to Amnesty International (which has a separate report detailing Palestinian war crimes), the politicians you are defending directly authorized the killing of 10,000’s of children, the maiming of 10,000’s more, torture of civilians (often to death, and including residents of Israel), created a famine that lead to a 93% starvation rate last winter, and also committed systematic violations of LGBTI’s rights in Israel.

There are many, many more war crimes enumerated in the report, and it also documents the connection to top Israeli officials.

The above is indefensible, as are the actions of Hamas.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-af...

The UN numbers come from Hamas, there is no independent verification of those numbers and Hamas is a side to the conflict.

Either way, your statement about "authorizing the killing of 10's of thousands of children" is false.

I'm not sure what systemic violation of LGBT right you're referring to. The LGBTQ+ community in Israel has no issues unlike anywhere else in the middle east (for example). Israel ranks above most countries in the world in LGBT legal rights and friendliness: https://www.equaldex.com/equality-index

I don't know what 93% starvation rate you're talking about. This is just an outright lie. Also straight from Hamas. This lie has been repeated endlessly since the war started but somehow the markets are still full of food. People (e.g. Hamas) are also stealing aid and re-selling it.

Everything happening in Gaza is a result of war. Yes, Israeli went to war after Oct 7th, which Israel's government has authorized. The goal of the war is to destroy Hamas something that is within Israel's legitimate right to self defense. These outcomes you're describing including civilian casualties, hunger, etc. are not just a function of Israel's decision, they're also a function of Hamas' decision to hold onto its hostages and continue fighting. The reason for the war is Hamas attacking Israel. Hamas, the government of Gaza, is responsible for the condition of the people it governs.

There are no other numbers for Palestinian casulaties. The Israeli state and military have continuously and vehemently refused to provide any numbers of their own (recently in a very embarrassing way on Piers Morgan's show, of all people). In contrast, the Gaza Ministry of Health numbers are considered very high quality by the UN and by all humanitarian organizations working in the region, and have been consistently confirmed for years. Sure, the ministry of health is run by Hamas, but that is only because they are the official ruling party in Gaza. Its not like trusting numbers reported by Al Quaida or ISIS.

Not to mention, those numbers represent a significant undercount of casulaties, since they only count confirmed deaths of people whom the health ministry could specifically identify. People lost in the rubble, small communities that were killed or starved and were not reported, etc are all not counted in these numbers. You can go and check the name and address of each and every one of those 7,797 children, and confirm that they are indeed dead.

Edit: If the IDF or Israel want to refute those numbers, it is extremely easy to do so: they can provide their own numbers, their own methodology, and allow independent experts to study them, like the ministry of health has. "Mysteriously", they have entirely failed to do so, just like they have failed to price that the hospitals they were bombing were Hamas control centers, and many other bogus claims they are making.

Even according to Hamas officials many of the the casualties are based on "self reporting" and/or so called "media reports". Even they do not claim that the count is as accurate as you claim.

Nobody can check the "names and addresses" of those Hamas declared to be dead. For one thing there has been huge movement of people and even Hamas doesn't know who is where, for another there's no way for anyone to independently check on this.

The IDF released plenty of evidence of fighting Hamas in hospitals by the way. It also released interrogation videos where Hamas operatives describe their use of hospitals. Probably not in the news you choose to consume.

I think the IDF simply does not know. I think Netanyahu said something like 14,000 combatants and 16,000 civilians is the estimate.

And in fact Netanyahu has all but confirmed these numbers himself. The "about 30,000" number, with no other details about provenance, accuracy, methodology, etc, is basically an excellent confirmation of the Hamas numbers.

> The IDF released plenty of evidence of fighting Hamas in hospitals by the way. It also released interrogation videos where Hamas operatives describe their use of hospitals. Probably not in the news you choose to consume.

They staged a few photo shoots of weapons they "found in the hospital", and showed some tunnels under one of the hospitals that Ehud Barak himself confirmed live in an interview with Christiane Amanpoor were actually built by Israel back when it controlled Gaza. So, no, they have not actually presented any evidence whatsoever, anymore than Avengers was evidence of an alien invasion in NYC. No journalists were ever allowed to investigate this evidence on their own, nor have any other kind of investigators.

> I think the IDF simply does not know. I think Netanyahu said something like 14,000 combatants and 16,000 civilians is the estimate.

Than it should shut up immediately about (1) the "Hamas" numbers that they just confirmed being "inaccurate", and (2) any pretense that they care about not slaughtering civilians, if they don't even know how many they are murdering.

This by the way is a total lie. Barak never said that. You're just repeating Hamas talking points.

> As I said the bulk of statements from Israeli military, politicians, and government, in Hebrew and in English say that the war in Gaza is not against civilians but against Hamas. If you insist on cherry picking some statements and building your story on those then I would respectfully ask that you reconsider.

They say they are not fighting against the civilians through one corner of their mouth, and say the civilians are bitter monsters that cheered as Israelis were slaughtered (as you are claiming as well) through the other corner of their mouth. In the meantime, their hands are busy destroying hospitals, schools, universities, killing journalists, killing aid workers, killing doctors and nurses, killing children, preventing aid of any kind from entering the country, and so on.

Not to mention, for every video of one Palestinian or Gazan cheering on the Hamas crimes of October 7th you find, I'll find a similar video of an Israeli citizen or soldier cheering when a school is destroyed or a "terrorist" killed. Both are heinous, but a lot of people, like yourself apparently, pretend only Gaza has monsters that take pleasure in the killing of civilians.

And still it must be remembered that Gazans are being actively occupied by Israel, a state which has no intention whatsoever as recognizing them as an independent nation, nor allowing those of them that wish to to return to the homes they had to abandon in the fighting of only a few decades ago. I personally cut oppressed people some small amount of slack when they feel vindicated for their oppressors feeling some amount of the oppression they feel every day, as bad as it is to think like that (note that more than 200 Gazan civilians were being killed per year even before the current slaughter began).

Wait till you find how in response to white nationalist attacks, the US political elite instead end up making laws to ban Palestinian groups.

An issue involving 14m peoples shouldn't be this international and should have never shaped the West's domestic policy (let alone foreign policy) as much as it has.

https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/instruments-of-dehuman... / https://archive.ph/BWrzw

To continue your analogy, Israel tried to "graduate" Gaza to adulthood in 2005. The army removed all Jewish settlers and settlements, and all military presence, and left the Gazans to form their own government. Gaza held elections that were judged to be free and fair by international observers.

Unfortunately, Gazans elected a Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Don't get me wrong, I can understand if Palestinians feel sore about the creation of Israel on some of the land that they desired for an undivided Palestinian state. But 10 million people live there now, including generations of Jews who have no other home, many of whom were expelled from other Arab countries when Israel was founded. A settlement between Israel and Palestinians will require compromise, but Hamas is not interested in compromise. Hamas dedicates every available resource towards an absolutist goal of destroying Israel.

Moreover, Hamas does not see itself as having any responsibility towards the people of Gaza. It builds tunnels to protect its fighters, but considers it the UN's responsibility (through UNRWA) to protect its civilians. In this sense it operates differently from almost any government in the world, in that it is not actually trying to build a society and govern it. In the eyes of Hamas Palestinians are in a war that has been going since 1948, and this war will continue until Israel is destroyed. It considers all of its people refugees and wards of the UN until Israel is destroyed.

I have plenty of criticism for Israel, primarily that it builds settlements in the West Bank, sabotaging prospects for a future Palestinian state. But it's hard for me to fault Israel for acting as the legal guardians of the Palestinians when I witness the Palestinian's disinterest in actually building a state that could coexist with Israel, not to mention the means by which they enact their resistance.

I suspect this is an aspect of the collapse of support for Israel in the US along demographic lines. For many of young Americans' adult lives, Israel's 'guardianship' has been somewhere between anti-democratic and outright oppressive, and certainly not a context in which a people could be expected to 'build a state' for themselves.

I really am curious what young Americans expect Israel to do.

Hamas wants an Arab Islamic state to rule Palestine from the river to the sea. It doesn't want equal rights and seats in the Knesset, it wants Arab Muslims to govern the land under Islamic law. This is all spelled out explicitly in their charter.

Acknowledged.

[The 2017 charter] unambiguously rejects recognition of Israel: "There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity."

By itself this statement certainly sounds unambiguous. But it comes into clear conflict with the language that immediately follows:

However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.

Taken together -- I would not call this an "unambiguous" formulation of their position. There's obviously a very clear surface-level conflict between the two passages.

Holistically -- the most reasonable paraphrase seems to be: "Hamas rejects the moral legitimacy of the Zionist state. However as a practical matter, it will support the 2SS (along June 4 1967 borders) if this is determined the be the national consensus (among Palestinians), and provided the Right of Return is also granted."

The fact that it mentions "borders" is extremely significant, in that this means at least de facto, if not de jure recognition of the State of Israel.

I think your reading is consistent with what the document says. On its face, the document hints at accepting a two-state solution under the 1967 borders. The most charitable interpretation would be that Hamas is willing to consider a two state solution an ultimate settlement of the conflict, with the two states living side-by-side in peace and harmony indefinitely.

However, another possible interpretation is that Hamas is willing to accept 1967 borders in order to secure statehood, but after securing it (including lifting of the blockade, etc) it primarily intends to use its state as a base to attack Israel with more vigor and resources until Israel is destroyed. "As a practical matter" could easily be read as "as a short-term solution."

When I observe Hamas's behavior, the second interpretation seems far more likely to me. Even as the document was announced, they said "We shall not waive an inch of the Palestinian home soil, no matter what the recent pressures are and no matter how long the occupation." The formulation of the document seems designed to legitimize future attacks on Israel once the two states are established. And Hamas shows little interest in developing Gaza as a permanent home for any of its people, as you would expect if they truly see it as a core part of their future state, preferring instead to preserve refugee status for as many people as possible.

My only point is that it's important to come to an objective view of what the language of the document says, on its own terms (even if we suspect it's all on the surface and their real intentions may be entirely different). And even if the language is only surface-level -- it at least opens a door to some kind of a pathway towards a solution based on negotiation and international law, without outside observers and verified inspections of their offensive capabilities, verified elections and national referenda at regular intervals, and so forth.

Which is the only viable route out of the current state of the conflict, in my view.

Unfortunately I don't see a Palestinian state accepting international limitations on its offensive militarization. I imagine they would consider that an unacceptable limit on their sovereignty.

I also think the "right of return" is an unfortunate stumbling block that will prevent this kind of settlement. Palestinians want to turn the clock back to a time before their allies launched a war to destroy Israel, and a time before the Mizrahi were expelled from the Arab world. Practically speaking, it's asking Israel to accept an unspecified number of people who are likely to be hostile to its existence. It's hard to imagine how this doesn't lead to a sharp increase in the amount of terror attacks inside Israel.

I want to believe that you are right, and that recognizing/encouraging small steps towards agreement from both sides will ultimately lead to a lasting peace. But my fear is that it is just a ruse to gain advantage, and that accepting it at face value will lead the West to give concessions that will ultimately aid future wars that seek to destroy Israel.

People go back and forth on how much evidence there is or isn't for Sinwar and Gaza-based Hamas's rejection of the 2017 charter, but read reporting and analysis from the time, untainted by what happened on October 7, about what the objectives were for updating the charter (significantly: easing Egypt's longstanding blocade of Gaza, repairing political relationships, working around Egypt's post-Arab-Spring, post-Sisi coup suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas's parent organization). Then look what happened on October 7. Like, there isn't much doubt that the 2017 document was unserious at this point?

This is purely a nerd point and not something I expect would change anybody's mind about what's happening in Gaza or what the outcomes should be.

The Charter was at the time meant seriously, at least by a certain faction within Hamas.

But with intervening events -- such as the appallingly harsh response to the 2018-2019 border protests; the storming of Al-Aqsa; and the election of the 37th Government (which brought on board not just an unsavory cast of characters, but specific plans for the continued expansion of the Settlements) -- the view took hold that Israeli society was plainly not interested in such overtures.

So as a result, the Charter got flagged and downvoted.

Since you prefer not to be centered on the Charter itself: if we are to understand why the decision was made to launch Operation Al-Aqsa Flood; an in particular how they were able to recruit so many people to agree to what was apparently promised as a suicide mission -- then I submit that is necessary to consider the whole background of events up until that time.

The 2018 "protest"

Can we just acknowledge the cruel and unduly harsh nature of the military response to the protests (which by all accounts did at least start peacefully, and from within sectors of society independent of Hamas) without having to allude to the Israeli government's snide, mocking ("fake protest") narrative of it?

As if these people have nothing to protest or be unhappy about.

We have reporting on the motivation behind the Al-Aqsa Flood. That reporting suggests:

* Sinwar and the Gazan hardliners siezed control of Hamas; political leadership of Hamas (on the "other side", the "Sinn Fein" types in the movement, if you want) allegedly were forced to flee.

* Sinwar held a conference more than a year ago to plan out the aftermath of the attack, in which he expected to gain complete control Israel's territory, and had worked out down the level of which exact Israeli Jewish professionals he would allow to leave versus which he would force to stay to help build up the Palestinian state --- some of that reporting is sourced from Hamas people in attendance who were freaked out because Sinwar had become a messianic lunatic. This reporting, as I remember it, actually precedes October 7.

* Apparently, Sinwar expected the October 7th attacks to immediately ignite solidarity attacks from the West Bank, unifying Gaza and the West Bank behind Hamas (this is, of course, one of the most salient conflicts in the region; they literally fought a "civil war" after the 2007 "elections").

* Further, it was apparently Sinwar's expectation that Iran would directly and forcefully back these attacks, committing Hezbollah to full scale northern front.

* Thus: the decision to launch the attacks on October 7 were based on a long-term belief that Hamas was poised to destroy the state of Israel outright.

So if you'd care to pass along some of the sources you've been drawing from, I'd be happy to give them a close read.

I am unable to vouch, so hopefully someone who is reading this will please do so.

https://www.memri.org/reports/hamas-sponsored-promise-hereaf...

Notably, a bunch of more mainstream sources corroborated this report (just Google for the name of the conference). I think it's very likely to be legitimate.

1. Not even remotely likely to happen.

2. Not what almost any of the parties on the ground want to happen.

3. If implemented, would almost certainly lead to atrocities.

4. The opposite of what most people who have studied this issue think is a good option.

It is the essence of not being really engaged with the problem, and trying to fit it into a mold that doesn't make any sense, and therefore coming up with solutions that will leave everyone worse off.

I highly suggest that if you want to better the lives of people in the region, especially the Palestinians (since they're currently the worst off), you advocate for some form of 2-state solution, just like almost every other peace advocate in the region.

(I'm happy to elaborate on any of the points above, if you'd like.)

Stop bombing hospitals and churches. Even if hamas "built tunnels" under them.

If your position is that it's Israel's responsibility to protect and value Hamas's civil and religious infrastructure more than Hamas itself does, then you are treating Hamas as a dependent state that needs legal guardianship.

If Israel is expected to work around Hamas's militarizing of civilian infrastructure, that more than justifies Israel's blockade in my mind.

When you call Palestine "Hamas" like this, it becomes obvious what you're doing ideologically. Be better.

>your position is that it's Israel's responsibility to protect and value

What a way to frame "please stop bombing hospitals and churches"

>you are treating Hamas as a dependent state that needs legal guardianship

I am not treating Hamas as a state of any kind, I'm treating them as a hostile political party that currently holds power in a country that has been dealing with a literal genocide for decades.

>A real state would not militarize hospitals and churches

I guess Israel isn't a real state then, giving how they use hospitals and churches as military targets...

>or if it did, it would accept the consequences for having done so.

Oh yeah? Those hospitals were really asking for it by "letting" Hamas operate? That's callous.

Hospitals and churches that are militarized. I don't think you are interested in understanding or fairly representing what I'm actually saying, so I'm not interested in discussing this further with you.

> When you call Palestine "Hamas" like this, it becomes obvious what you're doing ideologically. Come on.

That was unintentional actually. I was trying to edit for clarity and conciseness, but this is not what I meant. I changed it to "Gaza's".

In this context -- it seems clear enough that the commenter above understands what you're saying, and is not making any distortions of it. They simply do not see any reason accept, at face value, the IDF's attempts to spin and obfuscate these horrific incidents. As seems to be the IDF's expectation from the world at large.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara

Freudian slip? Hehehe

Do you just hope they didn't mean the things they wrote in their charter?

Even though it didn't prevent him working with them to alienate PA though.

Doesn't the US have a bunch of territories that don't have representation? Like Puerto Rico. It seems like this sort of arrangement is not alien even to Western politicians, although the treatment of people certainly differs.

Last I checked the question of democracy didn't expand to occupied territories. When the US occupied Afghanistan or Iraq (or German or Japan) those countries did not get a vote in the US elections. Puerto Rico also don't get a vote in the US?

Handing over the west bank to Palestinians isn't an option because: a) the world would not recognize that as the end of Israel's occupation just like it didn't accept Israel's handing Gaza over as the end of the occupation. b) That area would be taken over by Hamas just like Gaza was taken over and would be staging ground for launching attacks into Israel just like Oct 7th or the rocket barrages that came from Gaza over the years since Israel's withdrawal. The West Bank has a significantly longer border with Israel which would put most major Israeli cities minutes of driving and within rocket/mortar range. c) The option of annexing the West Bank and Gaza and making everyone citizens is also not acceptable to either the Palestinians or the international community.

This really answers your unasked question of why is this area under military occupation for so long (IIRC Germany and Japan were also controlled for a pretty long time but anyways). Initially Israel needed the area so Arab armies aren't sitting 10 minutes from its population centers (when the entire Arab world was still at war with Israel). Now that there's peace with Jordan and Egypt it's more of a Palestinians aren't willing to make peace in exchange for this land, they don't want to become Israelis, and there's no realistic option that ensures both the safety of Israelis and their rights and the rights of Palestinians.

After all this you might be right to complain about e.g. settlements in the west bank. And there I'd finally agree with you. Israel should not allow Israelis to live in the west bank before it's final status is determined. That said, it wouldn't really make the problem that easier to solve, if anything it is taking us closer to a day where that area is annexed and Palestinians do become Israeli citizens.

Also, settlers in the west bank aren't just a "that sucks" type of thing. It shows exactly the intentions of Israel once any territory is pacified. Which is exactly what happened to the west bank since they stopped fighting back.

>Under the Agreed Principles for Rafah Crossing, part of the Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA) of 15 November 2005, EUBAM was responsible for monitoring the Border Crossing. The agreement ensured Israel authority to dispute entrance by any person.[14]

This was in 2005, before Hamas. Now if you can't get to Gaza from the sea, because of Israel. Or from Egypt, because of Israel. Or from Israel itself...

Again, any territory or nation would consider something like this as an act of war, or if we don't see them as nation then apartheid. But no, the Gaza strip was completely free otherwise I guess?

If Israel has such good control over the Egypt-Gaza border how do Hamas fighters get to train in Iran?

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-fighters-trained...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/09/...

How did they get all the rocket manufacturing technology? Weapons?

This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing says: "It is located on the Egypt–Palestine border. Under a 2007 agreement between Egypt and Israel, Egypt controls the crossing but imports through the Rafah crossing require Israeli approval."

There is no mention of controlling movement of people. Anyways, this is something Egypt agreed to and it's sovereign and free to agree to anything it wants to. What do you mean "Egypt has no chosen voluntarily"?

Do you have a reference to your claim that Palestinians can't move without Israel consent?

You're mentioning EUBAM but EUBAM hasn't been there since 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Border_Assistan...

And yes, so between 2005 and 2007 Israel already had control over the border. That's before Hamas. Once Hamas got into power, Israel restricted the border policy even more, but Egypt just basically closed theirs.

I mean I'm not sure what's the debate here. Even Israel is very clear that they issue visas for entry to Gaza. That sure sounds like administering a border to me. In the west bank, they completely control every border point. In Gaza, it's de facto the same thing as Egypt doesn't open theirs for most of the year as they consider Israel the administrative authority that deals with Gaza borders. Which is something Israel acknowledges. Does your country emit visas for territories it doesn't administer?

https://www.gov.il/en/service/entry-to-gaza

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2016-03-10/ty-article/.p... https://www.btselem.org/freedom_of_movement/20170515_thousan...

Edit: as for Egyptian control of the border, here's a source that explains how it's in many ways nominal only, with a tacit agreement between Israel and Egypt about dual use materials.

https://features.gisha.org/red-lines-gray-lists/

Which I guess can make sense considering Hamas. But then one has to remember that this has been the case before Hamas took power too. So that catch all excuse doesn't hold water.

Israel administers it's border with Gaza. That's not the debate.

Israel requires people to get a permit to enter Gaza from Israel. It does not control who goes into Gaza from Egypt.

Your claim: "Does your country emit visas for territories it doesn't administer?" is nonsense and factually incorrect.

Israel has shown itself to basically have 0 regard for international law. It's not like they haven't shown that they will attack any way to cross the border that they don't have some sort of control on. I mean, why would they attack the Gaza flotilla and enforce a maritime blockade on Gaza if the border with Egypt was already "free" from their control?

Generally speaking, do you agree or disagree with the fact that enforcing a maritime blockade is usually an act of war and grounds for retaliation? Btw, you still haven't shown me a single example of a country that emits a visa of entry for a territory that isn't under occupation (or under blockade).

But sure, I guess Egypt totally has control over the crossing that is within shelling range from Israeli military outposts, in an area that they did shell in the past too.

So if we ignore the soft military threat on Egypt, the choking out of the border crossing opposite of the Egyptian side, the lists of goods that can't make it through due to israeli graylists, the fact that every other border crossing is controlled by Israel, and that they did control human passage before Hamas even at Rafah until 2007... oh and also the fact that Gaza has no rights to maritime traffic or air traffic.... then yes sure you're completely right.

I'm sure Palestinians should be glad that Israel gives them the privilege of being a notch more "open" than Warsaw ghettos. The few weeks per decade when Rafah is actually open, that is.

You got the settler vs. Palestinian violence in exactly the wrong order. Before the first Intifadah there were hardly any settlers in the west bank. The settlement movement is a response to Palestinian violence, not something that happened because the violence stopped. Palestinian violence against Israelis and Jews predates 1967 (when the west bank was occupied from Jordan) and predates 1948 (When the state of Israel was created).

Even if this is true, all it demonstrates is that Israel is willing to take any measure necessary to avoid giving Palestinians in the West Bank full legal and political rights. Mere military occupation was met with violence, so instead of taking it as a sign that they weren't welcome and letting the population govern itself, they resorted to civilian settlement on top of that to solidify their hold.

Many (IMO most) Palestinians don't want to govern themselves. They want Israel erased. Israel tried "govern themselves" in Gaza.

There is nobody representing Palestinians that will accept resolving the conflict in return to control over the west bank and Gaza. This is true in multiple ways, firstly the Palestinians are fractured and have no one representative. None of the different factions would accept this either. Find me one Palestinian leader that says that.

It's super naive (sorry) to think that this conflict would be over as soon as Israel withdrew from the West Bank and Gaza. Ariel Sharon wanted to withdraw from the West Bank if the withdrawal from Gaza proved successful. Most Israelis do not sympathize with the settlers (at least that's the way it used to be, public opinion shifted a lot with all the violence). What would happen is that Hamas would take over, just like it did in Gaza. The PA is relies on Israel's support right now which prevents that from happening. Then all of Israel would be bombarded with rockets, mortars, etc.

The Palestinians demand the right of return, that is any refugee from the war of 1948 and all their descendants should be allowed to return to Israel. This is a non-starter for Israel and something without precedent in any other war in history. What this means in practice is the destruction of Israel by killing or expelling all Israelis. The other point of contention is Jerusalem. Israeli maintains freedom of religion and access to all religions. When Jerusalem was under Jordanian control Jordan did not. It's unlikely that Jerusalem under Hamas control would maintain free access. Jersualem is the holiest city for Jews.

Oslo (which never included a firm promise of a Palestinian state in the first place, or even an end to the settlements) was sabotaged by the extremist fringe on both sides. If there is ever to be peace, those fringes can't be allowed to have a veto over the process. As for Camp David: https://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_m...

> Israel tried "govern themselves" in Gaza.

To be specific, Israel tried "govern themselves, but also help fund and bolster Hamas terrorists. And blockade Gaza by land, air, and sea (including bombing out their airport) so their economy has no possibility of ever growing. And shoot to kill civilians in wheelchairs if they dare protest this state of affairs." That's what the situation in Gaza has been for the past two decades. Any nation—any nation—subjected to such treatment for such a span of time would consider it casus belli.

> the Palestinians are fractured and have no one representative.

Yes, and that's because Netanyahu and co worked tirelessly for years to fracture them, so that they would be able to make this argument. https://original.antiwar.com/scott/2023/10/27/netanyahus-sup...

Barghouti perhaps could be a unifying figure if released, though maybe that wouldn't be a good thing… In any case, lack of unity between Gaza and the West Bank is no excuse to block work towards peace and ending the occupation in either locale. Israel could make separate deals with both factions.

> The Palestinians demand the right of return

They demand that RoR be acknowledged. In practice, their negotiators have admitted on several occasions that all of them returning would be impracticable. Instead, Israel could let only a small percentage in, and financially compensate the rest as restitution.

> Israeli maintains freedom of religion

Eh, they are trying to destroy the Armenian Christian quarter. But mostly true

Also I don't get your point. So they started settling because of the intifada? That doesn't make sense, and I've never seen settlers claim that it was related to anything expect that they see it as their god given land regardless of what happens to those who live there already.

I mean it's pretty simple, when the Fath ceased armed combat, the settlers came and Israel did nothing expect provide IDF protection to them. That's what the Palestinians got for trying to actually normalize the situation and create the PA and even fight their own little civil war against extremists (Fath vs Hamas): unrelenting settlement.

I'm sure the settlers wouldn't be so brazen if Hamas was also on the west bank. Funnily enough though, Israel ministers were also openly discussing allowing settlements again in last year in Gaza.

Still, it's very weird to see settlement as a "oh well that sucks but what can we do" when Israel could stop it any moment they want like they did in 2005. Oddly enough, only Israel gets to have literal conquest and blatant disregard for international law and even their allies marked as an oopsie.

You story doesn't jive with the facts. The period between 1967 and the mid eighties was the least violent period in the west bank. Palestinians worked in Israel. Israelies shopped in the west bank. That period also had virtually no settlement activity in the west bank.

The extreme right in Israel sees settlement as the "proper" answer to Palestinian violence. That's another thread connecting these things. But the government that enables this was literally brought into power by Hamas.

When did Fatah cease armed combat exactly according to you? Are you talking about the Oslo agreements and the return of Arafat to Ramallah? I'm not following you (and I used to live in Israel during those times so I'm not making stuff up).

Hamas is also in the west bank so your other statement doesn't compute either.

Israel has dismantled settlements in Sinai, and in Gaza, as part of an agreement. During the Oslo process there was support in Israel to dismantle those as part of a peace agreement. The Palestinians didn't want peace (Arafat thought he'd be murdered if he makes peace with the Israelis and anyways Hamas and the PIJ wouldn't abide which makes the whole thing moot).

I'm not sure I'm following though. You are saying that Palestinian terrorism caused the right wing to come in power and disregard international law. Sure, okay. I hope you realize that in the 1980s, most of said terrorism was happening in areas that Israel was already occupying. Also, again, you seem to imply that Israel's left wing actually gave the Palestinians more than apartheid and at best, a ghetto to live in semi undisturbed. That has never happened. Again, the poster child for that was 2005. What the Palestinians got was a a completely choked out, blockaded strip of land.

Like were the Palestinians supposed to be grateful and just accept that they will have to live in a state of semi servitude and protectorate because at least it wasn't the right wing in power? That's just completely irrelevant from the Palestinians pov. Again, who cares about the political climate of Israel as if it's some sort of actual excuse for settling and stealing land at gun point? Again, there's an incredible double standard here.

Palestinian motives and goals and politics don't matter, but Israel is always justified because it could've done worse. I mean sure? It reminds of Russian propaganda for the war: they have really tried to stay peaceful but NATO FORCED them to invade and steal land. It could've been worse though! They could've used nukes.

Yes, Israel wasn't doing settlement back then. But that's the point now isn't it? Back then, they already occupied the west bank. And the extremism and fascist inspired ideology of settlers didn't emerge yet. On both sides, extremism was less prominent. But again, the double standard is to excuse the Israeli settlers and their batshit insane ideology.

I think murdering Rabin was also part of the Israeli support for peace?

I doubt the current state of Israel would ever make the Palestinians full Israeli citizens, because then Israel would no longer be majority Jewish. Being known as the Jewish homeland is very important to Israel.

> Almost all Israeli Jews oppose a literal right of return for Palestinian refugees on the grounds that allowing such an influx of Palestinians would render Jews a minority in Israel, thus transforming Israel into an Arab-Muslim state. In addition to the right-wing and center, a majority of the Israeli left, including the far-left, opposes the right of return on these grounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return

It still would, as long as the Gaza strip is not also included (West Bank only).

Eh [1]. But not the ICC’s business.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_S...

War crimes are war crimes, and these were committed in the same war. This is like complaining a corporation and an employee were charged in the same press release. They’re different, but not in the respect of the alleged crimes.

> why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?

Refusing refugees isn’t a war crime and isn’t—to my knowledge—under the ICC’s jurisdiction.

But the analogy breaks down here because (1) the UK and USA had strongly antisemitic attitudes at the time and imposed very small quotas on the number of Jews they accepted as refugees and (2) it appears that Israel is not pursuing extermination of Palestinians.

Saving them was not an objective of the war effort and was opposed by many due to domestic anti-Semitism and ethno-nationalism (Nazism had significant open sympathy in the US at the time).

Until the political tides changed in the US/UK, both countries definitely wasted time during which many perished in the Holocaust. Mostly people watched as the Nazis killed millions. There was no public uproar to intervene while the events were happening.

It's also not clear that either country would have ever accepted millions of Holocaust refugees, even though the US certainly had the space. The creation of the state of Israel after the war in a way helped them not have to face that question.

1. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-united...

But there is also a religious rationale. In fundamentalist Christianity, the re-establishment of the state of Israel to its biblically described borders is a precondition for the return of the Messiah and Judgement Day, when the same Jewish people will supposedly be given a last chance to convert ... or else. So the policy is in part rooted in the anti-Semitism of Christian eschatology.

Those ideas had strong appeal after WW2, and they are a major policy motivator of the Christian religious right-wing in the US today.

I suppose a better term would be "evangelical protestant fundamentalist Christianity", although I suspect that even there, some small number of them are not focused on politicizing Christian eschatology.

Some were committed 7 months ago, the other were allegedly committed a short time ago.

Putting them both in the same release is utterly repugnant.

Israel is not at fault for trying to recover hostages from a population aiding and abetting terrorists. Have you even seen footage of a Hamas member in uniform being killed? They dress as civilians so their rightful killing is interpreted as "war crimes" by gullible American students.

The prosecutors at the ICC are neither gullible nor American.

> Palestine using human shields are not Israel's war crimes

Starvation as a war tactic ... can't be human shields? Dropping a bomb every 50secs for the first 2 weeks and now again in the past week killing 15k+ can't be human shields? Withholding aid, inciting genocide, destroying large swathes of infrastructure isn't merely human shields.

> gullible American students

I know one such student quite well. They are Jewish, right-wing, and all their life were taught (at the Jewish school they attended, and by their family) to support Israel. Then they went out into the world, and met some Palestinians. Now they are leading protests against the war

If you think the prima facie case against Bibi and Gallant is convincing, the Israeli AG is quite plausibly doing so little that subsidiarity is no longer engaged. If you think it is unconvincing, as you say, the problem is not some inappropriately symmetric ignoring of subsidiarity but that the charges themselves are unconvincing.

A final point is that the Rome Statute does not prohibit merely ‘orders of directly targeting civilians’, and so other potential crimes must be considered. These include ‘cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); [e]xtermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity; [and o]ther inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k)’. Of course, you may think that Khan has jumped the gun on each of these in that each of these charges is also implausible, but that is a stronger position than doubting that there were orders to directly target civilians.

(edit: I should add that Khan [I imagine] and I would say that while subsidiarity may not preclude proceedings against Israeli officials because of Israeli inaction, Hamasnikim are not subject to anything that remotely resembles a judicial system worth the name, so there is nothing comparable to even fail to act.)

Again I'm all for investigating whether war crimes have been committed by Israel. It's going to be a nuanced argument in any case to prove so that will probably involve how many civilian casualties are acceptable to achieve legitimate military aims.

The contrast must be pointed out by all who want nations and non state actors to be accountable for their actions.

Instead, the case is mostly about intent, and that can be gaged from public declarations and actions outside of mere combat. The case against Hamas is clear, they attacked in secret, with quite likely no military targets at all, and with a clear history of anti-civilian sentiments and declarations.

The case against Israel is also relatively simple from this point of view: numerous Israeli leaders, from the president to ministers to members of the Knesset have given public declarations about the collective guilt of Gaza's civilian population, and their actions in preventing aid from entering Gaza, attacking refugees, attacking journalists and international aid workers have been thoroughly documented.

(If they had named only one leader in that press release, perhaps quietly expecting to name the other later, I would think that would appear to be a judgment of the multiple obvious potential concerns, and a taking of sides.)

Unless you're trying to claim that Israel has decimated 75% of Hamas, and is almost done, let's not try to diminish this.

The number has also been largely substantiated by press and aid agencies, it's not just Gazan propaganda.

That's why you see reports of 600 extended families being completely erased, just because they lived together. It's not random civilians here and there.

Or do you see this as some just warfare on Israel part? https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

And I think Israel should not wage its extermination campaign at all, btw. So I simply don't agree with the premise of your question, personally.

I might not want to ever be on either side of such a war, but that seems to be the biggest, intellectually honest hole in the ICC's warrants.

After all they are supposed to be an alternative to the justice system of violence.

Yes.

> that seems to be the biggest, intellectually honest hole in the ICC's warrants.

No warrants have been issued nor have the specifics of any of the charges sought, beyond the names of the crimes, been made public. No oene can talk about what the holes in the charges that might ne issued in the future are, only of strawman charges that they have invented to argue against.

Iraq is kind of a terrible example.

Over a hundred thousand civilians died in Iraq. Maybe most of them died in urban combat settings.

Isn't the "Battle of Fallujah" a whitewash of the Siege of Fallujah? (https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2012/1/4/seven-years-afte...)

"Early Target of Offensive Is a Hospital" (https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/world/middleeast/early-ta...)

"US Admits Using White Phosphorus in Fallujah" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/16/iraq.usa)

This isn't whataboutism. War is horrible.

Israel started by dropping bombs on hundreds of sleeping families, leveling entire neighborhoods and after a month of that, started fighting some ragtag scavenger fighters (non-state actor), who have almost no external support, while continuing to level everything remotely related to governance, culture, or other social institutions that came in their path for seemingly no reason but the desire to completely erase possiblity for Palestinians to live in Gaza.

Seems more like an extermination campaign, and no, you can't fight that lawfully.

I see phrases like this tossed around in countless political debates - "Well, if they're investigating X, why the heck aren't they investigating Y!?".

To that, I ask - how are you 100% sure that that's not also happening?

Because Egypt believes this would amount to supporting ethnic cleansing:

https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2024/02/27/why-e...

And given that many on the far-right in the Israel government want Palestinians out of Gaza it's a reasonable position.

The real question is: why is there a militarized border fence and who is paying for it?

but they also don't want to die, want flowing water, food, electricity, medical infrastructure etc.

What if it turns out the Wealthy Businessman has been steadily murdering and Drug Addict's family, taking their land, and forcing them into such distress that they become addicted to a simple chemical escape?

Wearing a suit doesn't make you respectable. Hell, these days it's a cause for suspicion.

A point. The reason a lot of countries want a two state solution is because they plan on deporting all their Palestinians once that happens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus_from_Kuwait...

Lebanon has built walls around Palestinian refugee camps.

https://www.dw.com/en/lebanon-builds-wall-around-palestinian...

The moment Arab countries have a place they can deport Palestinians they'll do that.

Is that the "terrorist organization" that Netanyahu sent the Mossad head to Qatar a few months ago so he could beg them to fund Hamas? ( https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q... )

> democratic state

Israel says it controls Palestinian territories and it does (with some trouble in Gaza since October). None of those millions can vote in the Knesset (although a foreign Jew who moves to a West Bank settlement can vote). It is not a democracy. Even for those who can vote, Netanyahu is trying to get rid of the judiciary.

It is a colonial settler state like Rhodesia or French Algeria, and will have the same fate as those states. It is a relic in 2024, and becomes more so every year.

You very obviously can, given 18th-century America and ancient Athens were democracies despite slavery and male-only suffrage.

No, that’s oligarchy.

These questions have been debated for a long time. There is a No True Scotsman nature to the project, given the very nature of citizenship and polity means there are always demarcations between who can and cannot vote. But the difference is in degrees, and it should be obvious that there is a difference in kind between twenty-five people in a multi-billion-person nation and millions in a millions-more territory.

But perhaps we should say majoritarian democracy is the criteria we are interested in.

Athens is classically considered a democracy. Partly because democracy means more than just suffrage.

> perhaps we should say majoritarian democracy is the criteria we are interested in

This is fair. Though Israel proper still satisfies the criterion. (I wouldn’t demote Britain from a democracy while it was administering occupied Germany, nor even necessarily its colonies. Same for ancient Rome.)

Your argument is more akin to calling South Africa a majoritarian democracy after it passed the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act, imo. By the rules of the 1948 partition (prior to 1948 which side you are living on determines your citizenship), close to a majority of people today living in Gaza or West Bank would be Israeli-side citizens. Post-facto stripping of the partition rights so that only a minority are considered citizens does not make you a majoritarian democracy.

I'm aware that Athens is classically considered a democracy, I just think that view should be complicated from a modern perspective (and even contemporaries described Athens as a democracy in name only).

Ironically Socrates and Plato would say this is exactly what democracies are like. The difference is that you take democracies as positive and they did not. Anyway, calling Athens democracy (they are the OG democracy and the founder of the word itself) not the real thing made me chuckle. If only all that is at stake was a definition disagreement.

If you continue learning about history, you might happen to notice that there appear to be gaps between how societies self-describe and the actual values they live by. This was well-known by contemporaries at the time, as Athens was described "in name a democracy but in fact governed by its first citizen."

It would be completely reasonable to say that the US (or at least the southern states) was not a democracy in the modern sense of the word until that happened.

That’s redefining democracy to the extent it excludes Athens. The term you may be looking for is a liberal democracy, or more precisely universal suffrage.

You are. That’s a redefinition. It neuters the term of its millennia-old moral weight.

Sure, I’ll agree Israel isn’t a democracy per whatever definition you’re using. It isn’t a “real”country per others’. At that point, however, you’re just expressing a personal dislike. Nothing foundational.

> I’ll agree Israel isn’t a democracy per whatever definition you’re using.

Okay then, do you have an actual point, other than quibbling about what words mean?

And any bystanders too for that matter, safe in the knowledge that the end justifies the means.

By this argument, since there's still Jewish people around, the holocaust was not a genocide, which I find a completely unacceptable conclusion.

> if this were a genocide, they'd be in camps

Gaza has been described and essentially functions as a concentration camp. 2.5 million people in an area the size of Rotterdam, no going in or out, all borders, shores, airspace controlled by Israel, food, electricity, water supply controlled (and heavily restricted) by Israel. By your argument it is in fact a genocide, and I'm inclined to agree.

> The discrimination is based on citizenship status and not on race. Arab Israelis have the same rights as Jewish Israelis.

It is based indirectly on race (inasmuch as "Jewish" is a race; maybe "cultural group" would be more accurate), because any Jewish person in the world can become an Israeli citizen, whereas most Arabs have no way to become citizens unless they are in Israel proper, the Golan Heights, or East Jerusalem. I.e. for people who live in the West Bank (outside East Jerusalem), whether they are Israeli citizens is entirely determined by whether they are Jewish.

On some timeline this is every population on the planet.

I’m not defending the Nakba. But it’s not a commonly-used exclusionary rule for democracies. If it were, there has never been a democracy on Earth. (And never can be. Everyone lives on territory once occupied by another people.)

It’s horrible that so many Palestinians had to leave during the Nakba, but since the ones who stayed were eventually granted citizenship and legal equality, I think it’s fair to say that Israel proper is administered democratically today — similar to the situation of Native Americans in the U.S.

But people in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank have no way to become Israeli citizens (unless they are Jewish), despite those territories being controlled by Israel, probably permanently. That is clearly undemocratic.

Agreed. But that doesn’t unmake Israel a democracy.

The Federalist Papers are the deep dive. The Wikipedia article is a good start [1].

If you’re excluding classic members of a set with your measure, your measure is inconsistent with the classic set. You may argue Athens wasn’t a true democracy, but that obviously puts your definition of a true democracy in a special bucket.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

> South Africa has been a democracy since the end of apartheid in 1994.

People in the present day use the word "democracy" in a way that would exclude either ancient Athens or the Jim Crow-era US. You are the one who's insisting on an unusual definition from thousands of years ago; my definition is the mainstream one. Furthermore, your "classical" definition is irrelevant, since we're talking about Israel the modern state in 2024 which should be judged by present-day standards.

Not only undemocratic, but it is running an apartheid. Not to mention the complete denial of right to return for displaced Palestinians, not even acknowledging it.

Never mind the explicit ethnic-based right of return, land ownership rules, etc. By their own admission, the state frequently makes decisions prioritizing communities of the dominant ethnic group, see for instance 'National Priority Area's.

Honestly, the ethnic favoritism in Israel's government is so widespread and blatant I could just keep listing examples on and on.

The Panel's report is not based on "far fetched assumptions." It names the explicit acts that Israel is known to have committed (eg: mass starvation via blockade of food and shelter):

"based on a review of material presented by the Prosecutor, the Panel assesses that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant formed a common plan, together with others, to jointly perpetrate the crime of using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. The Panel has concluded that the acts through which this war crime was committed include a siege on the Gaza Strip and the closure of border crossings; arbitrary restrictions on entry and distribution of essential supplies; cutting off supplies of electricity and water, and severely restricting food, medicine and fuel supplies. This deprivation of objects indispensable to civilians’ survival took place in the context of attacks on facilities that produce food and clean water, attacks against civilians attempting to obtain relief supplies and attacks directed against humanitarian workers and convoys delivering relief supplies, despite the deconfliction and coordination by humanitarian agencies with Israel Defence Forces. These acts took place with full knowledge of the extent of Gazans’ reliance on Israel for essential supplies, and the adverse and inevitable consequences of such acts in terms of human suffering and deaths for the civilian population."

https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p...

The starvation charge could at least in theory fail (e.g., along the lines of intent - although Gallant's words in the beginning of the war certainly do not help Israel's case).

Furthermore, there's no way in hell Netanyahu gets his endgame (wiping Hamas off the face of the planet) without either exterminating all Palestinians in Gaza (which absolutely is a war crime, orders or no) or significantly backing down on several of the things Israel does to Palestine to make it mad. He also has no reason to simply snipe some of the higher-ups, patch up the holes in the Iron Dome, and declare victory. Netanyahu needs the war to continue so he can continue delaying his corruption trial long enough to declare himself above the law with a judicial reform.

To be clear, yes, Israel is more western and more liberal than Palestine, but that gap is closing faster than I think anyone would like to admit.

>In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?

Because countries do not recognize migration as a human right. If the ICC did this and was consistent about it, they'd have to challenge basically every restrictive immigration policy ever. I'd personally love that, but given how many countries in the EU are making handbrake turns to the right wing specifically so they never have to take in another refugee ever again[2], the EU would rather just invade the Hague like Bush threatened to.

Furthermore, (one of) the reason(s) why the 'three state solution'[3] never really panned out is because Egypt and Jordan don't want to become hosts for further revaunchism. Hamas will set up shop in their new home and Israel will just invade them - like they did in the Yom Kippur War. For similar reasons Israel has never wanted to entertain the 'one state solution'[1] that would also have solved this conflict decades ago, because they (mostly correctly) think Hamas will never be satisfied until Palestine extends from the border to the sea and all the Jews have been deported.

[1] Just abolish the Palestine/Israel border and let people live and work wherever

[2] Which, to be clear, is also a travesty.

[3] Move Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan and let Israel take over the rest of the land

The Israeli defense minister went on TV on 9 October 2023 [0] and declared that he was going to starve Gaza:

"We are imposing a complete siege on the city of Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly."

I assume that this explicit admission of guilt is why he has been charged.

0. https://youtu.be/ZbPdR3E4hCk?si=Gx1Uf_jWeRVUNELr

The Geneva Conventions prohibit attacks on agricultural areas, livestock, production of food, etc. Not blockades.

> We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.

He's referring to Hamas and those are the nicest words said about them.

[0]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...

Okay. Sure. The Israeli navy has blockaded Gazan ports since 2007, not since October. It bombed the control tower of the airport in 1999 and bulldozed the runways in 2002.

And it told Gaza any attempt to build an airport would have the same happen to it.

Israel is not responsible for feeding Gaza. But with closed land border, and those blockades, it is responsible for some of the results.

> He's referring to Hamas and those are the nicest words said about them.

Why did Netanyahu give them billions over the last couple of decades, these human animals?

With all due respect, no asked them to. Its about letting the aid from those are feeding. And maybe not raze the grain silos and farms? And not bulldozing the olive farms, both by the military and its citizens?

Citation needed. When the PLO and Arafat were becoming less militant, and more diplomatic, that's when Netanyahu and Mossad started sending tens of millions a month to Hamas, to keep it as the "public enemy number one". But if Hamas goes away, then Netanyahu has to explain why he won't support a two party state (because "from the river to the sea" has also been Likud's platform and policy).

Wasn't this internationally donated Palestinian aid money?

I don't think anyone is actually doing that, though. The leader of a terrorist group and the leader of a democratic state can both commit war crimes. We need not compare them directly or try to say which one of them is worse in order to acknowledge that fact. Putting them in the same press release (this isn't a press release, though; this is a CNN article) seems fairly natural to me, since both are actors in the same conflict, regardless of how it started.

> I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion.

You don't need direct orders to target civilians. You merely need negligence or a lack of care that causes civilian deaths in excess of what is "necessary" (ugh) to achieve the military objectives. I personally believe that Israeli forces have been indiscriminately killing civilians in Gaza in a way that would constitute war crimes, and apparently that just means I'm in agreement with the ICC.

> On the other side you have what's a pretty clear case of a large scale terror attack against innocent civilians.

Again, it is perfectly possible to acknowledge that two different parties have committed war crimes, even though they've done so in completely different ways, and the organizations they represent are completely different.

> In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?

Because that's not against international law. Even if it was, your question here is just whataboutism.

Egypt's non-involvement may violate some other principle, but probably not a "war crime".

I spent a while trying to see what you wrote but am not finding it.

On that basis all of the targets of the ICC are leaders of terrorist organisations. Hamas is considered terrorist organisation by certain authorities, you bet the Israeli government is considered terrorist by other authorities.

The ICC is meant to act on the evidence of war crimes. The definition of war crimes is far more formal than the qualification of terrorism. Consider giving a definition of terrorism, you will find that any arm belligerent who happen to cause civilian casualties can be categorized as such.

Finally, it is also worth noting the french resistance to the country's occupation and Nazism was considered led by terrorist groups. Those did employ sabotage, kidnapping, bombing, instill terrors. The collaborating french authorities and the Wermacht put those resistants on their terrorists lists, back then.

The ICC is surely meant to be above the arguments in the lines "these terrorists and those aren't", or politically and some government's biases as arguments. It would look into the evidence and prosecute based on these.

It's obvious to all that the warrants for the Hamas leaders only exist in order to justify the warrants against Netanyahu and co.

Courts can only deal in facts otherwise they are ineffective.

Courts that care about “optics” are ineffective. And there are no optics here that will please everyone. So just follow law.

What's pretty bad is attempts to discredit the ICC by those who oppose it's decisions.

> I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion. On the other side you have what's a pretty clear case of a large scale terror attack against innocent civilians.

No you are not; Your pro-genocide stance is nauseating.

> In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?

Whataboutism and deflection from the issue at hand must not and will not be tolerated.

What an unacceptable conduct.

They aren't being equated by the fact that people associated with each are having charges sought. The five individuals charged are in the same press release because it is the outcome of one investigation of the conflict by the prosecutor's office.

> In addition, why doesn't the ICC look into Egypt's conduct of refusing to allow civilians to flee from this conflict?

Because, even if that were to constitute a crime within the general subject matter jurisdiction of the court, that's not an crime that took place on the territory of Palestine or any other State Party to the Rome Statute, or by nationals of Palestine or any other State Party to the Rome Statute, so the ICC, under Article 12 of the Rome Statute, lacks the ability to exercise jurisdiction over them.

The "functioning judicial system" is only relevant here if that judicial system is actively investigating the crimes that the ICC is looking into. If Gallant and Netanyahu were on trial inside Israel for war crimes, then the ICC would step back. But that's not the case.

I won't get into whether Israel is really democratic, given that it rules over several million non-citizens in the occupied territories, whom it deprives of even the most basic rights.

> I'm all for investigating if there were any orders of directly targeting civilians being given to the Israeli military, etc, but that's a pretty far fetched assumption in my opinion.

In Gaza, the IDF has targeted nearly every civilian apartment building, nearly every hospital, nearly every school, in fact nearly every building period. The IDF knows that civilians live in apartment buildings. It knows that hospitals are full of sick and wounded civilians, as well as medical staff, families of patients, and people seeking shelter from the bombing. When Israel decides to bomb a civilian apartment building or a civilian hospital, it is intentionally targeting civilians. Israel can claim that it is just going after Hamas operatives in a highly selective fashion, but that is implausible given the scale of the bombing campaign. It is also contradicted by leaks from inside the IDF, which show that Israel is intentionally targeting the personal homes of anyone suspected by an AI system of being connected to Hamas, and that the IDF is willing to kill up to hundreds of civilians just to hit one Hamas member.[0,1]

0. https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-cal...

1. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/