War crimes for firing into a crowd of civilians, for both the one that ordered it, and those that executed it, should definitely be at the same levels as the nuremberg trials.
The fact that it will never happen doesn’t detract from that. Happily, the ICC seems to already know so, which is why there’s warrants out for all these Isrealian leaders, no?
Even if Israel was a signatory the ICC should only intervene after Israel has done its own investigation and if it failed to hold the relevant standards.
If there were war crimes committed then people need to be held accountable.
The scale of the alleged war crimes is totally different than the crimes persecuted in Nuremberg.
It is ridiculous, or malicious, to compare the war in Gaza to the murder of 6 million Jews for no reason other than their race/ethnicity.
> Even if [the Reich] was a signatory the [League of Nations] should only intervene after [the Reich] has done its own investigation and if it failed to hold the relevant standards.
See, this version wouldn't sound convincing to me in the slightest. So I'm unsure why yours is supposed to be any more so.
More broadly, this is either a hopelessly naive or tactically calculated take. 'Why does the police keep arresting criminals, before they've had a chance to conduct their own investigations of their own conduct?'
The League of Nations had no jurisdiction over the Germans (that I'm aware of).
The matter of countries doing their own investigation is fundamental to the ICC and so is the matter of its jurisdiction being restricted to member countries. That is part of the convention that established it.
The police in contrast, in a certain country, has jurisdiction and the power to arrest criminals. The ICCs powers come from the countries that are members of it extending their powers to this body via mutual agreement.
The more proper analogy would be that me and a bunch of friends will issue an arrest warrant and put you in jail because we feel like it.
EDIT: This is known as the principle of complementarity: https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works
"The ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely."
Re: Jurisdiction: "In the absence of a UNSC referral of an act of aggression, the Prosecutor may initiate an investigation on his own initiative or upon request from a State Party. The Prosecutor shall first ascertain whether the Security Council has made a determination of an act of aggression committed by the State concerned. Where no such determination has been made within six months after the date of notification to the UNSC by the Prosecutor of the situation, the Prosecutor may nonetheless proceed with the investigation, provided that the Pre-Trial Division has authorized the commencement of the investigation. Also, under these circumstances, the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction regarding a crime of aggression when committed by a national or on the territory of a State Party that has not ratified or accepted these amendments."
The Palestinians and Gaza are not a state party. Israel is not a state party. and the UNSC has not referred this to the ICC. Therefore the ICC has no jurisdiction.
It is the position of both the ICC itself and the United Nations General Assembly that Palestine is a state and ergo entitled to be a member of the ICC. Whether Israel (or you) accept this definition of Palestine is largely irrelevant.
Moreover, whether Israel is or is not a state party to the ICC is completely without bearing on the ICC investigation in question, since Gaza is not part of Israel's territory under any definition, including Israel's own. To my knowledge, no state recognises Gaza as part of Israel, including Israel itself.
TLDR: It is Palestine's membership of ICC that results in the ICC lawfully exercising its jurisdiction on the territory of Gaza.
You are free to assert that you have fact on your side, that there is no dispute, that it's "not a matter of 'position'" all you want, but none of it matters. Your position on whether Palestine is a state (or mine, for that matter) is about as relevant to the membership of the ICC as our respective positions on the planethood of Pluto.
It's fascinating that Israel thinks it can dictate the membership of a body that it refuses to recognise, let alone join. The ICC decides who is a member of the ICC, and the ICC - consistent with widespread state practice in every continent on Earth - considers Palestine a state.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-issues-...
"In today's decision, Pre-Trial Chamber I recalled that the ICC is not constitutionally competent to determine matters of statehood that would bind the international community. By ruling on the territorial scope of its jurisdiction, the Chamber is neither adjudicating a border dispute under international law nor prejudging the question of any future borders. The Chamber's ruling is for the sole purpose of defining the Court's territorial jurisdiction. "
And yes, who am I to argue with China, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Yemen, Afghanistan, Egypt, Belarus, Syria, Sudan, and their friends. Clearly Palestine is a state.
EDIT: for a more coherent argument: https://www.drake.edu/media/departmentsoffices/dussj/2006-20...
EDIT2: Asking the various AIs supports my position. Despite the recognition of various countries Palestine is not legally a state as it does not meet the criteria for being one. I do agree that the Palestinians have been very effective in fighting Israel in the diplomatic arena but unless they actually negotiate in good faith with Israel I wouldn't count on their future prospects to actually have their own country. Palestinians in general also oppose the two state solution anyways.
I am amused by you quoting this. I suggest you re-read that, they're being very careful with their words, and they are entirely correct.
It is true that the ICC has no capacity to dictate to the rest of the international community what is or is not a state, or the location of international borders; that would have the causality reversed. Instead, it takes the definition of a state or the location of borders from the international community. As the international community widely agrees that Palestine is a state, it therefore satisfies the condition set by the Rome Statute for membership of the ICC.
And, as your very excerpt shows, the the ICC is perfectly competent to rule on who is its member and where its jurisdiction lies. I will admit I am somewhat surprised to see you quote something that so well underlines my argument. I trust this discussion is concluded, then.
I would also note the PTC decision is something that virtually no one talks about (since it's entirely consistent with the ICC's usual position and the decision makes it very clear that the ICC considers Palestine a state), but that does happen to be on the Wikipedia page on this topic, so I somewhat suspect there's been a regression here to strip mining Wiki for cites and refs. I also strongly suspect that those refs are going unread, if you think the PTC decision supports any view other than that Palestine is a state. This would seem to reduce your argument below the level that warrants engagement.
Perhaps, rather than trying to mine that Wikipedia article for ammunition, actually read it, and then go read the PTC decision, and have a long hard think about why many well-meaning rational people (most of the world, in fact) take a different position from you on this issue.
> Asking the various AIs supports my position.
In the future, please begin your posts with this, so people can save time engaging.
I'm sorry but you're the one who is not engaging.
I just used AI at the end of this conversation as a sanity check. I looked at my own arguments and said hey, maybe I am wrong. It wouldn't hurt you to consider this to. I think LLMs are a good tool for this.
Maybe you should consider why many well-meaning rational people take a different position than you on this issue as well. This "state" was formed out of thin air, without meeting any normal criteria for statehood, as a legal weapon against Israel. It does not meet any requirement for an actual state, it does not look like a state, it is not a state. Maybe you should give me your definition of a state.
Ask yourself how come there's no Kurdish state? How come there's no Baloch state? How come there's no state for the Sikhs? What makes Palestinians more deserving? The ethnic minorities in Iran would also love statehood...
EDIT: I'm always open to the possibility of being wrong. I.e. I'm open to look at facts that contradict my theories. Right now my theory is that Israel is being unjustly targeted as a result of antisemitism and world politics. There is a massive, well funded, PR campaign against Israel (primarily by Qatar but also with interests from China and Russia). There is a clear pattern of propaganda messaging here, including the one you're echoing. This doesn't mean Israel is always right. It doesn't mean there aren't war crimes (there are in any war). But it should be clear if you dig deeper there are different standards applied and there is a concerted effort to e.g. equate Jews/Israelis to Nazis, strip Israel of its legitimacy, not allow it to defend itself to the level that other countries are allowed to, excuse Hamas (and Iran e.g.) genocidal attempts and war crimes towards Israel, rewrite history, redefine language. Excuse and normalize human rights violations. This campaign is decades long. Again, I would really love to see Israel behave better but that campaign doesn't need or care about Israel's behavior here. This campaign isn't strictly against Israel, it's also against the west and western values. This campaign also directly translates into higher rates of antisemitism and violence against Jewish people worldwide.
The UN as a body, and the adjacent entities, mostly represents oppressive non-democratic regimes where people do not enjoy the freedoms we enjoy in the west. Ignoring the various outright lies, leveraging what the UN says or doesn't say as a way of supporting a moral, or factual, argument is problematic. UN (UNRWA) workers are documented to have participated in the Oct 7th attack on Israeli civilians. You would have a higher chance of making me change my mind by addressing the question of Palestinian statehood from first principles. Do they control territory? Do they control their borders? Do they have their own currency? Passports? What is the history of their state? What exactly makes them a state other than the political scheming to try and force Israel to accept a two state solution that Palestinians themselves reject today, rejected numerous times in the past, going back to the partition plan, and everyone knows has no chance in hell of succeeding. It's true that international recognition is an important part of being a state, but one can't make a state out of thin air solely with international recognition. Historical precedence is that a state needs to exist and then be recognized, not the other way around.
https://libertascouncil.org/only-20-percent-of-people-live-i...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari_involvement_in_US_highe...
https://forward.com/opinion/574346/freepalestine-tiktok-isra...
Palestinians deserve what every other human being deserves. This is not it. This is not the way. This is regression in freedom and norms. This is a post-truth world.
In that context you’re correct, that Palestinian statehood doesn’t look like others’. Recognition of statehood by any entities is a strategic choice to attempt to break the stranglehold the Zionist narrative has on global politics.
One of the major goals of Israel’s anti-statehood work is to provide people like you the internal cover needed to continue to avoid looking at Israel’s war crimes and genocidal actions. It helps mend the cognitive dissonance between what Israel does and what Israel claims to be.
I hope someday you have the capacity to let go of that narrative and heal what’s broken inside of you.
[0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...
But it's still a total lie and misrepresentation overall. This fracture was created and maintained primarily by Palestinians and reflect the division in the Palestinian public between the Jihadists and those that prefer other methods to eliminate Israel and the Jews. There is also a backdrop of the PA refusing to engage in dialogue. Israel did hand over Gaza to the PA and Israel did and still supports the PA to date. Without Israel's support the PA would not exist.
https://www.cija.ca/palestinians_have_never_had_the_opportun...
The Oslo peace process failed due to Hamas suicide bombing attacks on Israel that made it impossible to make any progress. Gaza failed due to Hamas taking over and using it as a platform to attack Israel. But more fundamentally Palestinians (enough or most of them) don't want peace, they want Israel destroyed. The Oct 7th attack wasn't called "stop the occupation of Gaza", it was called the "Al Aqsa flood". The intent was to murder all Jews in Israel.
But yes, once Hamas was a fact in Gaza, and there was zero chance of getting the PA to retake control, the Israeli government in its foolishness thought that stability with Hamas was better with chaos and maybe some benefit from that political split. There was also a ton of international pressure on Israel to let money and aid flow into Gaza under Hamas. There was really no obvious alternative other than the IDF retaking Gaza (which would look more or less like it's looking now, maybe slightly less worse, but not something the Israelis wanted to pursue).
There's nothing broken inside me. I would love to see peace. You should take a pause yourself and ask why you're joining the antisemitic mob here and aligning yourself with people who share none of your values. You should ask yourself for an example of when did Palestinians try to actually have peaceful coexistence and denounce terrorism and violence. I mean that would surely counter Israel's narrative here? The answer is never. Gaza launched rockets into Israeli population center and Palestinians in the West Bank keep murdering Israeli civilians. You got cause and effect completely reversed.
There is no cognitive dissonance between what Israel does and what it claims to be. There is a very logical and clear story about how we got here if you viewpoint is Israel's right to exist and to defend its citizens and you look at facts and history and not fairy tales or lies.
"the stanglehold the Zionist narrative has" is blatant antisemitism. This is the same old story of the Zionists (Jews) controlling the world. The truth is it's the anti-Israeli narrative has a hold on global politics and Israel despite mostly being in the good side barely gets by.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine
> Pretty much nobody recognizes the "state" of Palestine
It's recognized by 147 of the 193 members of the UN. That's the majority or 75%.
You know how I know? There is a Wikipedia page about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_P...
You also know what else is a fact? Israel is doing a genocide in the state of Palestine. You know how I know ? There is a Wikipedia page about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide
If you claim we should give Israel the benefit of the doubt that it is not a genocide, maybe you also deny the Holocaust ever happened? After all, there are multiple ex Nazis who deny anything like that ever taken place.
We have investigated our highest leaders, and have found them absolutely blameless. Netanyahu is often found on the same golden cloud that Putin is often seen floating around on.
There’s a reason we have a police force instead of allowing the criminals to investigate themselves.
It didn't happen. We didn't do it. If it happened Hamas did it. If we did it they deserved it. Oh it's on video, our bad, we did an oopsie.
Countless of cases like this.
So yes, an Israeli ambush in Gaza that opened fire on a civilian vehicle is something that should be looked at. But they get a lot of leeway because it's a war and in a war mistakes can happen. In order for this to be a crime you need to show beyond doubt the soldiers knew these were civilians and intentionally wanted to kill them. There were other civilians that passed unharmed through the same forces and so proving intent is pretty difficult.
Whether it's on video or not doesn't matter. In a war soldiers will potentially kill civilians. The bar is different from peacetime operations. The war was started, and is continued, by Hamas. Yes it looks bad. Yes the IDF should do whatever it can to minimize it. Yes there are whackos.
I realize I'm not going to convince you but I believe that if the Palestinians stopped using violence you wouldn't see any incidents of Palestinians getting killed by security forces. The stories they are telling you about resistance and occupation are false. I am painting a broad brush here- Some Palestinians just want to live in peace. But too many do not. Pressure on Israel is misguided. Pressure should be on Hamas to surrender. Pressure on Israel emboldens Hamas, makes the war go on longer, and is not helping Palestinians. Even if you believe Israelis are evil you should still pressure the Palestinians because they are the ones who need to end this war. After the war is over we can talk about what to do next. Israelis can't and won't be pressured into letting Hamas remain in power.
A lot of the world ser you for what you really are.
Stop the Israeli genocide on Palestinian people.
Are you including Palestinians that are Israeli citizens? The West Bank? Those living outside the region?
Word choice matters here.
Is Israel executing a plan to kill all Gazans?
I am 100% convinced Israel is not actually committing a genocide against Palestinians. That claim has no factual support. Do I agree with everything Israel is doing? No. Are there war crimes being committed by the IDF? Possibly yes, not necessarily different than any other modern war waged ever.
What would you suggest, based on Jewish ideology, should have been the proper response to Oct 7th? Would you go to war? Would you wage it differently? How would you deal with the realities on the ground?
Firing on people seeking food is not right.
The use of the word genocide, coined to describe the systemic murder of 6 million Jews for no reason, in this context, is very clearly meant as a form of diminishing/denying the Holocaust. There is just no other way to look at it. If Hamas was to surrender and return the hostages would Israel be sending all Palestinians to gas chambers?
"The word "genocide" was coined in 1944 by Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin. He combined the Greek word "genos" (meaning race or tribe) with the Latin word "cide" (meaning killing) to create the term. Lemkin used the word to describe the systematic destruction of groups of people, specifically referencing the Nazi's actions during the Holocaust"
"Genocide is violence that targets individuals because of their membership of a group and aims at the destruction of a people."
Israel is at war with Gaza because Gaza has attacked it on Oct 7th and is holding Israeli hostages and has continued an armed conflict with it since then. Previously Gaza has launched 10's of thousands of rockets into Israeli population centers, executed terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, etc.
The "current use" so to speak of the term is just to weaponize it against Israel as part of a long term strategy. So by that definition - you're absolutely right. In fact the term started popping up before Israel responded at all to Oct 7th. Since Oct 8th more or less.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Ele...
Israel has been killing Palestinian civilians. Israel has been restricting food and medical supplies going to Palestinian civilians. All of that was beyond reasonable in regard to military objectives (e.g., bombing hospitals to take out a weapons stash). Israel's political and military leaders have expressed their opinions that Palestinians (not just Hamas or militants) are an ethnicity deserving punishment.
Note that, in the ICC's definitions, genocide does not require intent to eliminate the entirety of a group. It only requires targeting people based on their belonging to a protected group with the intent to diminish that group.
- Israel has been restricting supplies to the Gaza Strip, no to all Palestinians, as a result of a war. The Palestinian civilians are broadly the responsibility of their government who is refusing to end the war, stealing aid to finance its operations, and hoarding aid to enable the war to be prolonged. Just like North Korean citizens are the responsibility of the North Korean government (as one example) and the Russian citizens are the responsibility of the Russian government.
- Hamas is the elected government of Gaza.
- Various politicians in Israel made various statement. The official position of the government of Israel is that the war is against Hamas, not against Palestinian civilians. This has been said numerous time.
- Hamas makes extensive usage of hospitals and civilian infrastructure. Israel does not "bomb a hospital just to take out a weapons stash". Israel e.g. bombed near a hospital to kill Hamas military leaders in a tunnel. Or raided a hospital, while protecting civilians, to capture militants. Israel has supported the creation of field hospitals to ensure civilians can get some minimal care while Hamas is using the civilian infrastructure that was supposed to be for that purpose. https://gaza-aid-data.gov.il/main/medical-response/ Israel also facilitates moving of patients that can't be treated in Gaza to other locations. You are not going to find any example of a similar war situation where a one side has done more.
- Palestinians are not targeted because they are Palestinians or to diminish that group.
Israel has very much been targeting civilians.
> Civilian deaths have been a consequence of military objectives and actions
So you agree Iran's rockets were fired as a defense against the cowardly unprovoked attack by the genocidal Israeli? Those rockets killed some Israeli civilians but since
Why place your Israeli military next to civilians then? Sounds like you are using your civilians for human shields.
> While it's possible that some war crimes have been committed the official orders and policy is crystal clear
It's genocide and it's been verified by trusted third parties. We are supposed to take Israel's word for it? Especially considering Israel shoots journalists and aid workers, it's pretty clear the genocidal regime doesn't want the truth of their war crimes to come out.
Stop the genocide.
The article generally describes the IDF being asked to do crowd control with lethal weapons. For the most part it also described casualties (number unclear/unknown) as unintentional consequences.
I agree this does not look good but it's also not a matter of fact either. We don't know the facts, we don't know the scale, we don't know the intentions, we don't know who is making the allegations, we don't know the details.
War crimes in this war should be dealt with. Nuremberg trials is really not the right analogy.