Israel-Hamas War 2023

[The Minsky Moment]

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

Yes all the time. In addition to protecting LGBTQ rights, rights of non-Orthodox converts etc. the Court has been the one institution to resist the most blatant actions against Palestinians in Israel proper and the territories, including rulings shutting down individual settlements and issuing injunctions against land seizures. Not to mention its ruling striking down the proposed judicial reform, which has held up.

That's a technicality.

It's the farthest thing from a technicality; it's a fundament of the rule of law. A court's jurisdiction is the source of all of its power and authority. A court that acts outside its jurisdiction by definition is abusing its power.

It's akin to saying the US courts can't judge a President for his crimes.

No it's not akin to that at all. No one has argued the US courts lack jurisdiction to hear such cases.

It's more akin to saying that US courts can't judge the President of France for alleged crimes committed in France against people in France.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It clearly wasn't.

If you're going to live with a false set of facts I don't really know what to say. Yes, a significant portion of the Jewish population that made up early Israel was based on entirely legal immigration to the region. The next big wave was Mizrahi Jews expelled from across the Arab world, whose descendants represent a significant percentage of Israel's population--and letting them go back to their homes would mean Arabs giving up lands they stole (not to mention forcing Jews to move to countries that are mostly antisemitic autocracies today.)

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.

It'd be wrong to even countenance it, period. A significant portion of the people in question were expelled from ancestral homes in Ottoman lands and concentrated in a Jewish homeland. It would be like trying to force the Pontic Greeks back to Turkey, or to try and force all the Balkan population moves back to their pre-WWI state. The idea it is even a legitimate idea is nonsensical and even normalizes the concept of ethnic cleansing.

Interesting, I've never heard this Wilsonian self-determination argument from the modern day looking back.

It isn't about self-determination--it is about the factual, practical reality, that both after WWI and WWII, there were significant movements of ethnic populations (and in the case of India/Pakistan a few years later--religious) to borders that were seen as more stable. Some of this was deliberate policy, some of it was consequence of other policies.

The fact this "shuffling" resulted in "tragic stories" for Arabs (and also for Jews in many cases), is simply not unique. In fact I would argue it is significantly less tragic than the story of the India / Pakistan split up, in terms of human suffering / harm done.

The core issue is we seem to only believe in the case of Israel and the Jews that the correct answer for a mid-century or earlier wrong, is to do another set of ethnic cleansing to benefit Arabs--who have already had carved out for them literally 15 or so countries in the region. Is it your assertion that Arabs simply need 100% of all lands in the region? Is no other ethnic group legitimate? I assure you that Arabs have never been 100% of the ethnic composition of the region. These were shared lands among many ethnicities since time immemorial.

The "Arab lands" position echoes Arab supremacy that basically asserts that because at a given point in history Arab rulers had the most power in the region, 100% of all the land is "Arab" and anything else is evil or illegitimate. That isn't just nonsensical, it is immoral, and would be easily called out as such in most other contexts. It is quite literally the same argument Russians make that they "deserve" control of all the lands that were once under Russian dominion, it doesn't matter that maybe there were actually ethnic groups who weren't Russian, it matters that Russians used to dominate, so those lands must be seen as Russian in perpetuity. We reject it when Putin makes that argument, for good reason.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

And as much as I hate to say anything that could be construed in defense of Hamas, the same jurisdictional problem impacts the ICC for those charges. The Hamas government in Gaza never consented to ICC jurisdiction. The putative basis for such jurisdiction is a one-page declaration from Abbas in his capacity as leader of the Palestinian Authority.

In the last Palestinian elections, Hamas won the plurality, with Fatah in second place; a unity coalition government was formed. After the Hamas aggression in Gaza, Fatah repudiated the coalition but then was forced to govern by decree as it lacked a parliamentary majority to govern. Whatever the wisdom of that step, it is hard to argue with a straight face that Fatah's consent to jurisdiction binds Hamas.

ICC jurisdiction could be asserted over Hamas by vote of the security council but given the present political environment, any such proposal would be amended to add Israel.

[Razgovory]

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

Of course.  The fascists will not hand over their compatriots in Hamas.

[Razgovory]

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.

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.

Wait, some Arabs (the Hashimites) fought on the side of the Entente.  Many, (Including the Palestinians) were on the other side.  They fought against the British and the Russians and massacred Armenians just like their Turkish compatriots.

[viper37]

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

Yes all the time. In addition to protecting LGBTQ rights, rights of non-Orthodox converts etc. the Court has been the one institution to resist the most blatant actions against Palestinians in Israel proper and the territories, including rulings shutting down individual settlements and issuing injunctions against land seizures. Not to mention its ruling striking down the proposed judicial reform, which has held up.

So far, I have seen no mention of what Graham talked about in any major media outlet.  The NY Times does not talk about it, CNN does not mention it, the WP does not mention it.


In any case, we shall destroy OvB little rant here that seems to be gaining traction that only one Muslim, who is not a real British, is deciding on the fate of the Israeli President, in case that was not obvious, it was an entire panel:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/05/21/amal-clooney-icc-israel-gaza/

And the European countries are going to comply with the arrest mandate:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/05/21/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-palestine-rafah/



For questions regarding the judicial overhaul, it seems that it is still going on, only postponed because of the war, maybe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform
https://en.idi.org.il/tags-en/47383

I see no mention that there are any significant amendments to it or any retractation.

That's a technicality.

It's the farthest thing from a technicality; it's a fundament of the rule of law. A court's jurisdiction is the source of all of its power and authority. A court that acts outside its jurisdiction by definition is abusing its power.

Look, I don't know what was going on behind the scenes.

Maybe there were some discussions about it.  Maybe not. 

I think it's a bad idea, because from what we can see today, Israeli society is rallying behind their President.  There may be some movement by the military to abandon their President, but that is all.  That's not a lot of confirmed information and may be a lot of supposition.

I don't trust a court system that can't indict its PM on corruption charge to level any charges on war crimes when the population is behind the PM on the war and the party in power believes it is not going far enough in said war.

The goal of the war from day 1 has been the expel the Palestinians from Gaza.

The Israeli military tribunals have always been in favor of this and the laws of the country are very lenient toward settlers crimes.  I don't see under what kind of crimes he could be indicted here.  Settler's violence is rarely punished, even when they outright murder Palestinians.  The laws of the country favor Israeli.  I don't think it would be a fair trial, especially for Netanyahu.

No it's not akin to that at all. No one has argued the US courts lack jurisdiction to hear such cases.

It's more akin to saying that US courts can't judge the President of France for alleged crimes committed in France against people in France.

I don't think Israeli courts can judge Netanyahu and the Minister of Defense for his conduct of the war when a majority of people follow the leader and approve of his stance.  The disagreement is not about killing the Palestinians, it's about reaching the objectives: getting the people back.

In any case, it's not like he's ever going to get to a trial.  France and Germany aren't about to send a squad to Jerusalem to arrest him.

If the Israelis themselves wishes to find the Hamas leaders and deliver them along with their leaders, that's be neat.  But I still don't see it happening.

Bibi will travel to the US and to his good friend Russia, that's all.  He'll forgo any trip toward Europe.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Amal Clooney is literally born in Lebanon. She is entirely in the pocket of pro-Pal extremists.

[OttoVonBismarck]

So far, I have seen no mention of what Graham talked about in any major media outlet.  The NY Times does not talk about it, CNN does not mention it, the WP does not mention it.

NYTimes and CNN are deeply anti-Israel and would be unlikely to comment on what is a relatively minor point about the issue.

Times of Israel, which is a respected media outlet, reported on it earlier:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/israel-was-preparing-to-host-icc-chief-prosecutor-taken-completely-by-surprise-by-arrest-warrant-bid-officials/

I think your logic mistake is believing "the ICC Prosecutor had a planned trip to Israel he cancelled last minute" is actually a huge news story, it really isn't. But it does point to the bad faith actions and motivations of the prosecutor.

[viper37]

Ah, I see what Graham's rant was about.

Israel decline to investigate its own leadership itself, so the ICC went ahead:
https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-801902

It could also indicate that the ICC respects Israel's legal system, despite warnings to the latter sweeping last year's judicial reform legislation.

The court could maneuver to say that it only went after Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant – because there is no internal probe for them.

Incidentally, if a state commission of inquiry checking both the government and the IDF's compliance with international law had been or is soon opened, Khan may need to freeze his arrest warrants.

This exact solution was proposed weeks ago by former deputy attorney-general for international affairs Roy Schondrof, but was ignored by the government. Perhaps now they might reconsider.


This should give pause to those in Israel arguing it should cease any legal or diplomatic attempts to reduce the harm from the ICC or the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Neither body is a friend of Israel's, and there is no expectation it will get a completely fair shake before them. But, the fact is that eight months into this war and with a Palestinian death toll of 35,000, the ICJ has declined to order an end to the operation, let alone tar Israel with the label of genocide.


Likewise, Khan waited until the middle of the Rafah operation – opposed by nearly everybody – and is what will likely be the last major battle of the war, to come after any Israelis.


And, when he did, he went only after two, and Khan, who is far more politically savvy than his predecessor Fatou Bensouda, knows that Netanyahu is profoundly unpopular right now across the world, further even in Israeli polls.


Going after Gallant makes sense as he is the defense minister, and is not going to be probed. 

Additionally, in the heat of the moment after October 7, Gallant made public statements against Gaza that could help a case against him.

Gallant is also in Netanyahu's party – even if, internally, the two are at loggerheads – so Khan may think he is helping Gantz and other center or left parties.


Within Israel, the arrest warrants will probably give Netanyahu a temporary boost, but this may be beyond Khan's analysis and the level at which he cares about domestic Israeli issues.


Whether Israel adopts the Schondorf option – which helped it beat off the Goldstone Report war crimes allegations in 2008-9 – it is critical that the IDF rapidly start announcing the results of its probes. This will not only give Khan pause about going after the IDF and force him to analyze specific cases as opposed to dealing with general stereotypes, but it will also show the civilized world that there is real evidence on the other side of the story.

[Tamas]

Like or not OvB's delivery, but it is noticeable that pro-Palestinian actions be it like this ICC thing, or Labour Party rebels or just Guardian articles, seem to be dominated by Muslims.

Now, that may very well be a damning view on the rest of us not doing a thing. But overall non-Muslim indifference (at best, or a quiet pro-Israeli opinion) I think indicates two things: one is that this conflict is NOT such an existential drama for the US and UK as the pro-Palestinian side is making it out to be, and that there is a strong connection of Muslims to this conflict. The layman's assumption for the latter is the shared religion and thus cultural links, however this is far from being the only place where a Muslim population suffered brutally over the last couple of decades, just to mention Myanmar and China as the most recent examples. Yet there has not been nearly the efforts to force action from Western governments in protection of those people.

[viper37]

So far, I have seen no mention of what Graham talked about in any major media outlet.  The NY Times does not talk about it, CNN does not mention it, the WP does not mention it.

NYTimes and CNN are deeply anti-Israel and would be unlikely to comment on what is a relatively minor point about the issue.

Times of Israel, which is a respected media outlet, reported on it earlier:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/israel-was-preparing-to-host-icc-chief-prosecutor-taken-completely-by-surprise-by-arrest-warrant-bid-officials/

I think your logic mistake is believing "the ICC Prosecutor had a planned trip to Israel he cancelled last minute" is actually a huge news story, it really isn't. But it does point to the bad faith actions and motivations of the prosecutor.

Times of Israel is conservative media.  No surprise you find it "respected".


On 1 August 2014, an article entitled "When Genocide is Permissible" and recommending the obliteration of the entire population of Gaza Strip was published on the blogs by a regular contributor.


Again, not surprised this is a respected media outlet for you.

[HVC]

Like or not OvB's delivery, but it is noticeable that pro-Palestinian actions be it like this ICC thing, or Labour Party rebels or just Guardian articles, seem to be dominated by Muslims.

Now, that may very well be a damning view on the rest of us not doing a thing. But overall non-Muslim indifference (at best, or a quiet pro-Israeli opinion) I think indicates two things: one is that this conflict is NOT such an existential drama for the US and UK as the pro-Palestinian side is making it out to be, and that there is a strong connection of Muslims to this conflict. The layman's assumption for the latter is the shared religion and thus cultural links, however this is far from being the only place where a Muslim population suffered brutally over the last couple of decades, just to mention Myanmar and China as the most recent examples. Yet there has not been nearly the efforts to force action from Western governments in protection of those people.

How much of that is a function of cancel culture? "Whites" can't speak out without being labeled antisemitic. Muslims have that label preapplied (see OvB) so less of a concern. Look at the celebrities that got blasted, and they're just dumb pretty people.

[HVC]

He's Jewish, so he can make the joke

[OttoVonBismarck]

I am opposed to the very existence of the ICC (I supported W dropping a bomb on their building, frankly, and still do), but ignoring that for a moment--entities like the ICC and others that are supposed to be "impartial" should use actually impartial people.

In a highly charged sectarian conflict between Muslims and Jews, one that has inflamed tensions between those communities for 75 years, I would posit you should be able to find qualified international lawyers who are:

1. Not Muslim
2. Not Jewish
3. Not from the Middle East

Like why can't we have that? I think we know the reason, and it is that Islamists who support Palestine have hijacked many international organizations

[Razgovory]

Like or not OvB's delivery, but it is noticeable that pro-Palestinian actions be it like this ICC thing, or Labour Party rebels or just Guardian articles, seem to be dominated by Muslims.

Now, that may very well be a damning view on the rest of us not doing a thing. But overall non-Muslim indifference (at best, or a quiet pro-Israeli opinion) I think indicates two things: one is that this conflict is NOT such an existential drama for the US and UK as the pro-Palestinian side is making it out to be, and that there is a strong connection of Muslims to this conflict. The layman's assumption for the latter is the shared religion and thus cultural links, however this is far from being the only place where a Muslim population suffered brutally over the last couple of decades, just to mention Myanmar and China as the most recent examples. Yet there has not been nearly the efforts to force action from Western governments in protection of those people.

How much of that is a function of cancel culture? "Whites" can't speak out without being labeled antisemitic. Muslims have that label preapplied (see OvB) so less of a concern. Look at the celebrities that got blasted, and they're just dumb pretty people.

Plenty of whites speak out against the Israelis.  They just proclaim that anti-semitism is not equal to anti-zionism. And then go back to talking about how zionists are stealing children's organs.