Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Tamas]

It does seem more than a coincidence if he is a Muslim, especially if he indeed lied to the US as Israel as it is claimed.

[viper37]

It does seem more than a coincidence if he is a Muslim, especially if he indeed lied to the US as Israel as it is claimed.

Lindsey Graham is a reliable source now?

And since when does the court negotiate in advance with war criminals to be judged by a court they control?  Would we allow the Hamas leadership to be judged in Palestine?

[viper37]

Khan's behavior shows his first allegiance is to his Islamist compeers, certainly not to the law, the norms of how the ICC operates, and sure as fuck not to Britain.

And obviously, you are he one deciding on his allegiance.

The verdict is set.  All that is left to do is for you to render the sentence.  Death?

[OttoVonBismarck]

It does seem more than a coincidence if he is a Muslim, especially if he indeed lied to the US as Israel as it is claimed.

Lindsey Graham is a reliable source now?

And since when does the court negotiate in advance with war criminals to be judged by a court they control?  Would we allow the Hamas leadership to be judged in Palestine?

It looks like a lot of mainstream news outlets have reported the same thing Graham alleges.

And the ICC has an obligation to actually work with domestic entities where a country has a functioning court system. It is not at all in line with prior ICC precedent to completely ignore any Israeli process, the ICC by its foundational documents is only an appropriate venue where other courts cannot or will not act, as a court of last resort.

[The Minsky Moment]

What have Israeli courts done against Bibi's grab for power?

Is this a serious question? The Israeli courts resistance to Bibi's over-reaching and the government's abortive efforts against the courts is what precipitated the Israeli political crisis.

I think it would be difficult to argue that Israeli courts are incapable of fair adjudication.  A more serious question is whether there is a viable mechanism for such a case to be brought to the courts. I'm not familiar enough with the Israeli legal system to opine on that last question.

However, it seems to me the more immediate question re the ICC is their creative theory of jurisdiction, i.e. that Gaza is a "state party" to the Rome Treaty, by virtue of: (a) the UN General Assembly vote to recognize "Palestine" as a state, and (b) the 2015 declaration of the Mahmud Abbas on behalf of the PA, an organization with zero authority in Gaza, of intention to submit to ICC jurisdiction.

[grumbler]

Not having a sex offender brother or leaders in a religion also disqualifies King Charles as a British citizen

 

[viper37]

What have Israeli courts done against Bibi's grab for power?

Is this a serious question? The Israeli courts resistance to Bibi's over-reaching and the government's abortive efforts against the courts is what precipitated the Israeli political crisis.

I think it would be difficult to argue that Israeli courts are incapable of fair adjudication.  A more serious question is whether there is a viable mechanism for such a case to be brought to the courts. I'm not familiar enough with the Israeli legal system to opine on that last question.

It is a serious question: what did change?  Did they prevent Netanyahu from doing what he wanted to do?

It seems they were just as effective as the courts were against Andrew Jackson.

So I ask the question again: Assuming Lindsey Graham does not distort the fact (it's a big if, and I doubt that's the case, but let's play), what could the courts do?  He's already been accused 3 times of corruption and managed to get away with it, once by naming a prosecutor favorable to him who would reduce the charges.  What do you think would happen if he there were any serious accusations of war crimes being leveled against him?

However, it seems to me the more immediate question re the ICC is their creative theory of jurisdiction, i.e. that Gaza is a "state party" to the Rome Treaty, by virtue of: (a) the UN General Assembly vote to recognize "Palestine" as a state, and (b) the 2015 declaration of the Mahmud Abbas on behalf of the PA, an organization with zero authority in Gaza, of intention to submit to ICC jurisdiction.

That's a technicality.  It's akin to saying the US courts can't judge a President for his crimes.  It's an interesting legal debates for those inclined on this subject, but it's irrelevant to the facts debated: is there a crime that was committed.

[Josquius]

I guess if we say Israel isn't a "proper" country and thus open to debate whether it should exist at all, then the same is true for places like Kosovo, or Slovakia.

I bristle because of course that's the exact argument Putin uses about Ukraine - that it's not a proper or real country...

The analogy is far stronger here for Palestine. You hear people pushing this all the time about Palestine- many times in this thread.

The basis of the Jewish population was regular immigration, the foundation of the State is not dissimilar from how many States have been founded--by its leaders proclaiming it as such. I happen to live in such a state, I assure you it is a valid form of establishing one.

It clearly wasn't.

Again--they would have had to go home to places that did not want them.

Yes. Exactly as  I said, it'd be wrong to say it'd be a completely clean operation where the Jews could neatly move back to normal lives in the countries they came from.
But compared to "Go back to a country you've never even visited", "Go back to the country where you lived for the first 40 years of your life and where you're still legally meant to be a full citizen with all your rights (just forget about the very dark memories)" is quite a different level.

The Jews were a well established minority under the Ottoman Empire, they largely purchased land in Ottoman Palestine entirely legally. Their claim to want a state carved out of Ottoman lands--when a half dozen Arab states were in the process of being carved out is intrinsically legitimate. Yes, they were spread out, and got concentrated into a single area--that does not in any way "invalidate them", or legitimize the "go home" idea. Where the fuck were the ones fleeing pogroms supposed to go home to?


Also, it should be noted, in the first half of the 20th century several European empires fell apart to varying degrees, the community of nations oversaw a number of population transfers where diffused minorities would be moved about to create successor states which would be less prone to endless nationalist conflict. Whilst there was great tragedy in some of that, in many cases it can only rationally be seen as having served as an important foundation for later and longer lasting peace.

Interesting, I've never heard this Wilsonian self-determination argument from the modern day looking back.
It might have made sense in theory at the time, but history has shown us ethnic cleansing is never good and all it did in Europe was, in addition to creating lots of glorious human suffering in its own right, perfectly setup the conditions for WW2.

Additionally in the nations carved out at this time it was generally those branded as 'aggressors' who lost out, not their subject peoples.
The Arab states were being carved out of Arab lands for Arabs.

For some reason we are to believe only in the question of Jews in the first half of the 20th century is such a thing "beyond the pale", only in the case of Jews are we supposed to believe some of the other groups that were "shuffled elsewhere" should get to have UN backed permanent refugee status and international funds to educate those refugees in generational antisemitism.

I struggle to think of a remotely comparable situation to Israel.
It is 'only the Jews' because the zionists happen to be the only ones to have done this successfully.
The next nearest comparisons are Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa, which in their time received treatment way worse than anything that has ever been thrown Israel's way.

[Tamas]

Kosovo?

Slovakia?

Romania grabbing Transylvania?

[Solmyr]

The guy who wants arrest warrants for Netanyahu also wants them for Hamas leaders, but this is of course conveniently overlooked by fascists.

[Tamas]

The guy who wants arrest warrants for Netanyahu also wants them for Hamas leaders, but this is of course conveniently overlooked by fascists.

But this is exactly what is being challenged. That he puts a = sign between the government of Israel and Hamas. I guess you and everyone else understand that, the difference of opinion in is whether that's valid.

[Josquius]

Kosovo?

Slovakia?

Romania grabbing Transylvania?

Kosovo was majority ethnic Albanian with a brewing genocide .
Slovakia and Romania had areas that were ethnically mixed and since Hungary was branded as one of the 'aggressors' in the war, Hungarians thus lost out. In the Ottoman situation this would be more comparable to the attempts to give Greece more territory that was Turkish/Greek than the overwhelmingly Arab Palestine being carved out as a separate state for Jewish settlers.

The guy who wants arrest warrants for Netanyahu also wants them for Hamas leaders, but this is of course conveniently overlooked by fascists.

But this is exactly what is being challenged. That he puts a = sign between the government of Israel and Hamas. I guess you and everyone else understand that, the difference of opinion in is whether that's valid.

Does he though?
Both a murderer and a shop lifter need arresting but they're not equivalent.

[Tamas]

But there were Jews, settlers or otherwise, in British (and before that Ottoman) Palestine. The creation of Israel was the (intended) solution to the strife between them and the Arabs. In principle that's very similar to how Kosovo came to be. Less so, but giving Slovakia to the Czechs, and Transylvania to the Romanians was also similar.

[Josquius]

But there were Jews, settlers or otherwise, in British (and before that Ottoman) Palestine. The creation of Israel was the (intended) solution to the strife between them and the Arabs. In principle that's very similar to how Kosovo came to be. Less so, but giving Slovakia to the Czechs, and Transylvania to the Romanians was also similar.

As said Hungary was judged by the victorious powers to have been in the wrong. The desires of Hungarians were thus secondary and areas that were overall a pretty equal ethnic split would be given to the other party.

The Arabs on the other hand...were not allied with the central powers. They'd been actively involved in fighting the Ottomans on that front.
Unlike the Hungarians they'd done nothing wrong to warrant punishing by the standards of the time (I wouldn't agree with giving away so much Hungarian land either. It was a historic mistake.). Quite the opposite.

Sure, there were Jews in Palestine, about 10% of the population at the end of WW1. But I don't really see the relevance. The question isn't whether these people have the right to be there or not, even the more extreme end of Palestinian groups recognise they have the right to be there. Its whether Zionists (IIRC not many of the native Palestinian Jews were amongst them) hopes for having a state somewhere  were great enough to warrant punishing an innocent people.

[Tamas]

It's a question of which side you "punish" to resolve ethnic strife. In this regard it is similar to Kosovo (I am sure at least some Serbs living there were not keen on ethnic cleansing their Albanian neighbours, yet they found themselves in another country) and the breakup of Hungary.

I will not restart the conversation about how the plight of Arabs (feeling like they) having to flee their home was one of MANY such instances at the aftermath of WW2. The other peoples have accepted their fate and (tried to have) thrived.

It is difficult not to think that the Palestinians 70+ years resistance to officially accept new borders has a religious aspect. At least, SOMETHING makes their case different to the other millions uprooted in population exchanges in the late 40s.

Sure, they have been pushed back but that followed their repeated attempts to eliminate Israel. Would Israel have conquered more territories if they weren't constantly under existential pressure? We will never know.