jameshilliard
The Abraham Accords[0] are a normalization and peace deal.
> That's like saying the alliance of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was a "peace deal".
Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan made a peace deal(they were on different sides in WW1) before they created that military alliance, so that's not really the same thing.
> Israel was also blackmailing Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinsky
How is this related to a peace deal? The US and Israel had normalized relations already.
Ironically Israel uses hacking tool sales as a tool for diplomacy[0]. Apparently Pegasus sales played a critical role in the Abraham Accord negotiations. While there are obvious ethical issues here it seems these tools likely actually helped create real peace deals in practice.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/28/world/middleeast/israel-p...
Why would one look only at formal published scientific papers? Especially if the only publications are known to be quite outdated and highly likely to be no longer particularly relevant anymore.
> It is impossible to have an intellectual discussion if all scientific material is disregarded.
One can certainly have an intellectual discussion even for areas without relevant formal published scientific papers.
Certainly one can do so if the subject matter is in the area of your own expertise, that can even lead to scientific papers being written.
I'm an experienced open source developer leveraging AI tools for linux kernel, u-boot and buildroot contributions in addition to reverse engineering, so clearly this subject is well within my area of expertise regardless of what some outdated published research says.
I probably wouldn't even disagree with that paper's assessment at the time, however the situation is very different now. I have noticed that there is an issue with many experienced open source developers simply having not figured out how to properly leverage AI for open source projects they work on. Probably one reason for this is that productive workflows with AI are often very different from previous workflows and it takes some practice to figure out how to best use AI tools, these best practice can also change over time.
Just like most technologies AI algorithms and tools get continuously refined/improved over time.
One thing modern AI has gotten especially good at in the last year is reverse engineering, it went from struggling and frequently making mistakes when analyzing binaries even with say a specialized Ghidra MCP integration to being able to very quickly and accurately analyze even heavily stripped BROM binaries with almost no user guidance or specialized environments. Binaries that would previously take days or weeks to analyze can be analyzed by a modern AI in minutes to hours.
The difference is massive and obvious to anyone who has been working with these tools over these time periods.
Why do you think there isn't a huge difference? I've used AI tools over this time period and the difference is very obvious.
The ethnic cleansing that happened when Israel gained independence was not in just one direction, Israel also did allow plenty of Arab/Palestinians to stay and gave them citizenship where feasible. It's not surprising however that Israel doesn't currently offer citizenship to a population that largely doesn't think Israel should even exist. States don't normally give citizenship to their non-citizen enemies.
> They also allow people to convert to Judiasm and enter, so it actually has nothing to do with their ethnicity and is solely based on religion.
It's not solely based on religion. It's also quite rare for people to convert to Judaism in general so that exception has little practical implications.
This one especially really just shows they are cherry picking things which support a particular position regardless of the relevance, the difference between Early-2025 AI and Late-2026 AI is absolutely massive. Early 2026 it was reported by Greg Kroah-Hartman that AI bug reports rapidly went from obviously wrong or low quality to being real reports.[0] The kernel now has AI tooling heavily integrated into patch review workflows as well with quite good results.[1]
> They have plenty of reasons not to.
Not really any good reasons however.
[0] https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/03/26/linux-kernel...
It's fairly common in Europe[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis#Leges_sanguinis_...
States like Israel formally define their borders via mechanisms like peace deals that include bilateral recognition of agreed upon borders, like Israel has with Egypt and Jordan.
You can't realistically define borders properly otherwise, trying to define borders via unilateral declaration doesn't really work when there are 2 states next to each other, the borders ultimately need to be negotiated bilaterally between those states with both sides recognizing the same borders.
That's not really an accurate characterization of the situation as much of the land was uninhabited/unregistered and/or state owned. The Negev desert for example is a large percentage of the total land area and was effectively uninhabited and not privately owned. Land ownership records at the time were also not particularly clear and often there were disputed claims. Also Israel has about 20% Arab/Palestinian citizens so it's not like they ethnically cleansed everyone like Egypt/Jordan did with the Jews in Gaza and the West Bank when Israel gained independence.
[0] https://www.quantumfiber.com/
I saw this as well, which is funny because I've sent plenty of patches written using AI assistance to upstream U-Boot. It was my understanding that U-Boot was mostly following kernel conventions in general as many U-Boot drivers share code(in addition to the actual subsystem maintainers themselves) with their kernel equivalents.
Funny enough SpaceX just ignores copyright law a lot of the time by refusing to comply with some of the GPL licenses for their dishy firmware. I think Tesla does as well to some degree. They generally publish some code but not the complete corresponding source code for the firmware they actually ship.
Isn't it difficult to get access to Chinese clouds without having legal entities registered in China?
Being pro-Israel doesn't make their claims inaccurate and I did also link to other sources as well.[0] The main reason I linked to UN Watch was that they have a reasonably readable and compact aggregate of Navi Pillay's record on issues around antisemitism and bias. Mainstream news outlets have obviously reported on Navi Pillay as well but they typically only report on individual events as they happen.
> Either you don't understand how to judge sources, or you are knowingly acting in bad faith. That makes your view completely irrelevant. Good job.
I usually try to judge sources primarily based on whether or not they have a history of providing factually accurate information. Do you think UN Watch is putting out inaccurate information here?
I mean, she basically let the antisemitism run wild at the Durban conference.
Yeah, although his replacement would be highly unlikely to hand him over to the ICC either.
> They of course didn't just issue warrants for heads of state, although the same analysis probably applies to the other accused.
They did also issue warrants for some dead Hamas terrorists I guess.
> Ultimately i think it was an ideological stand - The ICC prosecutor wanted to say nobody is above the law, even if practically there are limits.
Could be, could also be he needed a distraction from his own misconduct investigation[0] or a bit of both. From what I've seen he rushed a very weak case but it's hard to say exactly why, could be for political reasons. Ultimately it probably just makes the ICC look weak since the warrants would be highly unlikely to be executed.
> Governments change, but treaty obligations stay.
When governments change treaty obligations tend to mostly matter to the degree they are enforce in practice.
> They could have withdrawn at any point (with 1 year notice) if they felt like it. they still havent.
Well...apparently they can't because the Taliban is not UN recognized.[1]
> The main point of withdrawing is rescinding the ICC's permission to use the states soverign ability to prosecute crimes as a basis of jurisdiction. Like yeah, there is also the cooperating in apregending fugitives bit as well, but that was always mostly on the honor system.
I mean, the apprehending fugitives part is kind of important, since that's the enforcement mechanism. Clearly the honor system doesn't seem to be working all that well.
> In most cases the situation is more that the accused has either fled or otherwise not present in the territory, which is pretty normal for courts.
I guess that has happened a bit in Africa, with how dysfunctional the courts there can be I can see cases where something like the ICC would make sense. On the other hand most of the middle east never became member states so it's rather useless there.
> Like with ukraine, i'm sure ukraine would have no problem prosecuting putin if he presented himself to ukraine. The issue is he is at large outside of the territory.
Well they would probably do that themselves rather than hand him over to the ICC. From my understanding ICC is generally only supposed to step in if local courts fail to act.
> In many ways, the ICC is best viewed as an extradition pact with its own court.
Which I guess is the main problem, the enforcement mechanism is kind of terrible, paired with the ICC seemingly deliberately trying pretty hard to stretch their jurisdiction makes them look like they are just playing political games a lot of the time.
The court probably shouldn't be making threats of arrest it can't carry through on. Similar to how Trump was making threats against Iran that he clearly wasn't willing to carry out made him look weak when they called his bluff.
[0] https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/07/1168025
[1] https://www.ejiltalk.org/unrecognized-governments-and-the-ic...
So what's the point of issuing arrest warrants to heads of nuclear armed powers like Russia/Israel then if they wouldn't get arrested?
> If a trial took place im sure they would try and argue that palestine is not really a state, not competent to join the rome statute, or failing that, its territorial extent does not include gaza.
If you go by the UN it's a non-member observer state. If you go by the de facto government of Gaza they(Hamas) clearly never signed the Rome statute.
> It would be up to a judge to rule on that
Well the real question is what judge even has the authority to rule on something like that, most sovereign states will give their own domestic courts authority above any external/foreign courts.
> Afghanistan joined signed the treaty.
The de jure government may have, but not the de facto government. The Palestine jurisdictional situation is even more confusing since they were never recognized by the UN or Israel as a full state.
> They have not done the proper procedure to withdraw.
They withdrew in practice since the ICC has no independent enforcement capability. Not that it means much anyways since even member states will regularly ignore what they signed.
It's a very strange situation where a courts rulings can be almost completely detached from the de facto jurisdiction on the ground. This whole strategy of asserting jurisdiction by the ICC without having any real enforcement capability makes it look like the ICC is making decisions that are totally detached from reality and undermines their own credibility.
One big issue is that uninvolved member states are agreeing to enforce ICC warrants up front. For example members states have refused to arrest Putin despite having a theoretical legal obligation to do so.
> That is how it works in countries, and that is how it works at the ICC . ICC is no different from any country.
The ICC is not a country, has no territory itself and has no independent enforcement mechanisms.
> The crime has to happen on the territory of a member state or be comitted by a national of a member state (im ignoring the referral from UNSC part as that is obscure)
The ICC has issued warrants for individuals for alleged crimes committed in at least two states that reject ICC jurisdiction, those states being Afghanistan and Israel.
Why? From my understanding he was given the award for his part in negotiating what ultimately became the Camp David Accords, which have held to this day.
> Itzhak Rabin and Shimon Perez
At least they were negotiating for peace in good faith, unlike Arafat[0].
You can find details from other sources as well.[0][1][2][3][4][5][6] She quite often runs cover for antisemitism.
[0] https://www.newsweek.com/new-low-antisemitism-un-opinion-172...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-geneva-race-an...
[2] https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world%2Fambassador-decries-...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/20/un-race-confer...
[4] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/eu-threatens-to-boycot...
[5] https://www.france24.com/en/20090419-growing-western-boycott...
[6] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-politics/australia-...
[0] https://unwatch.org/un-watch-documents-navi-pillays-bias/
The evidence for a Khazar origin is apparently quite weak, it's likely any Khazar link would be relatively minor if it even exists.[0] I think the Khazar's are more from the western Eurasian steppe region as opposed to near east(middle east). The original article I think was mentioning the Khazar hypothesis more as an alternative potential explanation that others have proposed.
The genetic links to the middle east are fairly strong on the paternal line.[1]
Obviously a lot of this is ongoing research of population genetics so our understanding of some of the details may change overtime but from the looks of it the paternal line ties to the middle east are strong enough that one can be fairly confident that the Ashkenazi have at minimum at least a partial middle eastern origin.
> This is the paper you linked to btw, just absolute mythical nonsense
This appears to be describing some of the tribal background that could potentially be relevant to researchers. Especially for cross referencing historical documents.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jews#Y-DNA_...
This part of the quote appears to indicate an overwhelming majority of Near Eastern ancestry, the remaining part of the quote is simply adding more details/context:
> the MSY results interpreted plausibly to suggest an overwhelming majority of Near Eastern ancestry on the Ashkenazi male line of descent
Do you see those citation links associated with the lines you quoted in the article?
Lets follow one[0] and see what publication it is referencing[1] so we can be sure we are correctly understanding this section.
Next lets look at the referenced article[1] to get some more context.
The article being referenced by the citation also clearly supports a Near East paternal lineage(in addition to European Ancestries) from the title alone:
> Multiple Origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y Chromosome Evidence for Both Near Eastern and European Ancestries
So it's clearly the case that Ashkenazi Jews have Near Eastern ancestry in addition to European.
I do have a bit of a background myself in biology but research papers like this shouldn't be that hard to follow even if you don't.
As the "A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages" title implies the European ancestry is in regards to the maternal line specifically.
The article itself in fact clearly supports a Near East paternal lineage:
> the MSY results interpreted plausibly to suggest an overwhelming majority of Near Eastern ancestry on the Ashkenazi male line of descent
Your claim was "Not only would it be good for the Middle East, it would be good for the entire planet." in regards to Civil War and Total Collapse in Israel, which is very different that claiming it would be a good thing if Israel simply magically "goes away". Civil War and Total Collapse would have a lot of additional negative implications inherently attached.
> No more pedophile blackmail, no more political bribes, no more stealing my tax dollars, no more manipulating my media, no more removing my rights and most importantly no more genocide of Palestinians!
I don't see how Civil War and Total Collapse would be good for the Palestinians or the region in general even if what you were claiming were true.
You might not be aware but the super right wing Israeli's are basically all in favor of reducing Israel's reliance on the US because they feel this reliance puts too many restrictions on Israel since that support gives the US some ability to politically moderate Israel's actions.
> Let's put it to the test. No US support, only sanctions. Let's see how far they get.
This was basically the situation immediately after the founding of Israel when Israel was at its weakest. Israel was historically the most aggressive when it had the least amount of outside support.
You're avoiding answering how it's supposedly a good thing for the world for there to be a civil war and total collapse in Israel as you've claimed.
> The only country that has ever used nuclear bombs on a population is the US.
This is relevant how?
> Both the Soviet Union and South Africa had nuclear weapons and were successfully dissolved.
South Africa still exists as a state last I checked. The Soviet Union was an organized dissolution and Russia retained the Soviet nuclear arsenal while invading other states unprovoked. You've asserted that "Not only would it be good for the Middle East, it would be good for the entire planet." in regards to Civil War and Total Collapse in Israel, do you actually believe this to be the case? I suspect you actually don't because when asked you are unable to say how that would be a good thing for the world.
Ethnic cleansing did happen, but it wasn't just in one direction. Apartheid is race based discrimination, Israel mostly just has citizenship based discrimination these days(like most countries). War is also not the same thing as genocide.
> Supporting its "right to exist" is to support all of those things.
Do you think the US has a "right to exist"? You can make an equally if not more plausible claim that the US could only exist via ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide due to what happened to the Native Americans.