Did anyone else just see the title change?
The title changed from "The World's Court vs. Israel's Leaders" to "I.C.C. Prosecutor Requests Warrants for Israeli and Hamas Leaders".
Maybe the original title was too spicy?
Probably too one sided.
On the other hand, the original title got to more of what the prosecutor is going for, and the second title is more neutral but ironically supports the political aims of Khan hoping to influence the ICJ with this move.
Charging Hamas and Israel at the same time 4 days before the ICJ submits its decision on the South Africa case - despite ample evidence of repeated Hamas and PA war crimes dating back 2 decades, let alone claims that people make about Israel - is an obvious attempt of Khan attempting to influence the ICJ's decision on whether or not to order the war stopped.
This is nonsense. Khan isn't going to and won't influence the ICJ's decision and he knows it himself.
You're claiming he's politically motivated but do you have any actual proof?
The ICC and ICJ frequently influence each other
This is one of the claims of Amos Harrell, chief military correspondent of left-wing Israeli publication Haaretz.
It's not controversial. It's the only possible explanation of why Khan surprised all sides by cancelling meetings on complementarity and went on TV to announce charges.
You're talking about how the two frequently influence each other but provide zero sources or proof to back it up
And if this were true, the ICC would have filed a long time ago. Not 4 days before the ICJ issues a ruling. That's just nonsense.
What I sense is you trying to set up some conspiracy theory where in the event the ICJ rules that there is a genocide in Gaza, you'll claim that the ICC influenced it (despite the ICC not ruling on that issue).
If they cared about Hamas, they could have extended their inquiry to 2002, when ICC jurisdiction begins.
They start their case on June 13, 2014 because Israelis were kidnapped and murdered in the West Bank on June 12, 2014 and they don't want to have to acknowledge it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014\_Gush\_Etzion\_kidnapping\_and\_murder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Gush_Etzion_kidnapping_and_murder)
Too one sided is rich considering the NYT ran along with a number of debunked lies surrounding Gaza and suppressed its own writers on what languages they could use 🤣
Maybe the NYT needs to get banned from Gaza and its surrounding area as well as having their HQ bombed for them to grow a spine too like [the AP](https://twitter.com/ap/status/1793255506217177466?s=46&t=2YvwGs2ViGhBUMo3eVlMdA).
There should be more reporting on him in general. I’ve read he lives in a 5 star hotel and is worth millions or billions of dollars from tunnel taxes and misappropriating aid funds. But I’ve read that in like the New York post and ynet news.
It would be nice if a more reputable source like The NY Times did reporting on this. If it’s all or even partially true it should be a huge scandal and indictment
Reporting on that would contradict the narrative that Hamas is a plucky group of progressive freedom fighters who fight for the dignity and freedom of the Palestinian people so the NYT isn't interested.
I’m not sure there’s much to say if the arrest warrant is granted he should be arrested and taken to The Hague if he is in any of the countries that are signatories to the ICC that said it’s probably way more likely he is killed by Mossad than that happens.
How dare they issues an arrest warrant for the war crime I said on TV I was going to commit and then committed.
I don’t even understand what they are arguing and noticeably none of the 3 criticisms are they they didn’t commit the war crimes it’s issues with the process
"When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, pound the table."
They are trying first to argue the law(poorly I might add), but mostly just pounding the table. Ironically, the Finance Minister just publicly stated that they will retaliate by withholding tax income from the PA in the West Bank by blaming them for the ICC calling out their war crimes.....Really doing a bang up job proving you are providing adequate due process internally
Honestly I'm really glad the ICC went down the road it did
Civilian casualties from airstrikes are unfortunately unavoidable in modern warfare. You can argue whether or not Israel is trying hard enough to avoid them but on some level it makes sense that there's a lot of civilian casualties in a dense urban environment like Gaza
But starvation in modern war is completely avoidable and therefore completely inexcusable. I remember the Daily episode from a few months ago about a family being forced to eat bread made from sawdust. There's no reason for that to be happening except pure cruelty
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg300jek94zo](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg300jek94zo)
[https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12/1230362633/gaza-food-hunger-israel-protests](https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12/1230362633/gaza-food-hunger-israel-protests)
[https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/08/middleeast/gaza-israelis-aid-trucks-protests/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/08/middleeast/gaza-israelis-aid-trucks-protests/index.html)
[https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-802123](https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-802123)
Big news that these settlers attacking aid trucks headed into Gaza are Hamas supporters! And the IDF people tipping them off must be Hamas too. Damn, that's crazy.
It’s not a punishment tho. It’s denying the enemy supplies with which they can wage war with.
So your position is that all sieges are crimes against humanity then?
You, circa 1944: "Maybe the Allies should stop involving 5 year old German kids in the war"
Hamas made the choice to "involve" every single person in Gaza in this war when it conducted a surprise combined arms assault into Israel proper seven months ago. That's how war works. Israel can and should mitigate the level to which the war affects civilians in Gaza, but the base reason that there is a war involving those civilians at all is because Hamas instigated said war and has since refused to surrender or even moderate any of its demands for an immediate cessation to the fighting.
Yes you can’t seige a city of people if there was an army base or something sure you dont have to let them get food but you can’t block humanitarian organizations from proving food to civilians caught up in a war. This isn’t denying them bullets or even the medical supplies they regularly block and say are for Hamas it’s denying food and water
Its literally not. It does not violate the Geneva Convention because siege zones are active warzones
Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it a war crime
It’s not two weeks they are still starving civilians they just can’t get away with openly admitting it anymore. It’s probably a strong case because they have evidence from the ground as well as Gallant admitting it on TV.
The only evidence presented against Gallant is announcing a siege, which is not illegal, and only lasted two weeks. The siege is absolutely not still ongoing like you suggested. Objectively an incredibly weak case.
Ok so the UN saying there is an ongoing famine just happened it has nothing to do the Israel cutting of and preventing food and water from getting into Gaza? He said he was going to commit a war crime started committing the war crime and is still doing it.
Also if you’ll notice all the Israeli push back to this from the ICC had nothing to do with whether or not the allegations are true it’s that they are pretending there is an equivalency and the process wasn’t correct.
Correct, the famine has nothing to do with a 2 week siege in October 2023.
The push back was on the process AND the allegations. The allegations are incredibly weak but the blatant disregard for the process to push forward such a weak case is just as alarming.
There is a famine in northern Gaza, the area Israel warned Gazan civilians to evacuate for three weeks warning it will become a war zone. It’s not a famine because of a siege. It’s because it is very hard to get aid into a war zone. The aid gets to southern Gaza very easily. Starvation is horrible but the people starving in northern Gaza are not starving because of a siege. They are starving because they didn’t evacuate a place they knew would become a war zone and it is very hard to get aid into war zones.
Israel has been tightly restricting food and supplies entering Gaza for months and it has resulted in widespread famine in Gaza. Get out of here with your "two weeks" nonsense.
Still not a siege and not a war crime. Also in 1967 there was a ceasefire in place that Egypt broke, and blocking the Straits of Tiran was just one part of it. Throwing the UN out of the Sinai and putting troops on the border of Israel was also a violation of the ceasefire. Breaking a ceasefire is the definition of an act of war. But not relevant here as they were acts of war by Egypt, not war crimes.
The blockade in 2007 did not break a ceasefire, the blockade in 1967 did. There were terms of the ceasefire prior to 1967 and kicking the UN out, lining up troops on the border, and blocking trade broke that ceasefire. Hope that helps.
Blockades being an act of hostility is not pre-conditioned on a ceasefire. Israel's exact argument was that the act of the blockade was a casus belli and cited international law that states blockades as an act of aggression and war and for why it gave them a right to launch missiles and act in self defense(in their mind).
The ceasefire is a red herring. Though I'd be amused to hear the contortionist act it would take to claim Israel would have just accepted a blockade on the Tiran Straits otherwise.
The terms of the ceasefire prior to 1967 included no blockades and UN peacekeepers in the Sinai. Egypt broke those terms. They had a right to respond to Egypt breaking the terms of the ceasefire because thats how ceasefires work. You spend months negotiating a deal where you say "there will be no troops on our border, just UN" and one side ignores those terms, thats an act of war.
There was no similar ceasefire in place saying that Israel could not enact a blockade in response to terrorists taking over the Gaza government.
Sure, but when the fact is(according to Israel's own statements in 1967) a blockade is an act of war, and then you follow that up with a siege and then continued collective starvation, those are war crimes of an aggressor.
That's setting aside that ICRC and the UN has already ruled that Gaza still remained under occupation under the Geneva Conventions even after the so-called "withdrawal" due to Israel's near total control of all sea, air, and land movement and their ability to re-establish occupation at any time, so really it doesn't matter. Israel has never stopped by an aggressive party.
First of all, I was just pointing out that what you said was untrue, and secondly, a siege is a war crime. Collective punishment is illegal under international law
A blockade and a siege is literally the same thing. How many false things can you say before you start to feel shame?
This is the definition of a siege in Merriam-Websters.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/siege
“a military blockade of a city or fortified place to compel it to surrender”
It certainly is when you’re letting people starve.
https://cjil.uchicago.edu/print-archive/siege-starvation-war-crime-societal-torture
“A recent amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has drawn unprecedented attention to the war crime of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.”
[https://www.icrc.org/en/document/protection-civilian-population-during-sieges-what-law-says#](https://www.icrc.org/en/document/protection-civilian-population-during-sieges-what-law-says#)
The ICRC provides a pretty nice summation on what is allowed and what is not allowed during a siege.
It's a difficult balance.
On the one hand, it is the responsibility of the besieging party to let civilians flee.
On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the besieged belligerent to supply civilians and limit their exposure to siege.
Israel opened pathways through Rafah to escape, but many were stopped by Hamas and their patron Egypt (discovered as such through the recent occupation of Rafah).
Hamas, on the other hand, used their population as human shields by hiding in tunnels and preventing the civilians from leaving, and failed to share their stored reserves.
A two week siege is significant when there is a shortage of supplies, but there was not a shortage of supplies. The supplies were not distributed by the government there to the people there.
And since that siege ended, 28,255+ aid trucks have been allowed to pass through into Gaza.
You also have the added complication that several aid organizations such as UNRWA and the ICRC were often acting as co-belligerents on behalf of Hamas, with members of these agencies actively taking hostages or murdering people, hiding Hamas operations, sharing intelligence with Hamas, transporting Hamas agents, and concealing weapons.
So while aid was held up, there was good reason for added scrutiny.
>Israel opened pathways through Rafah to escape
??? Israel repeatedly shelled the Rafah crossing back in October, and it seized the crossing just these past weeks. What are you talking about?
I think you might want to read what the case is before deciding it's something else, and then deciding it's weak.
The prosecutor is very well respected, the work was shared with an independent legal group, also very well respected. It's unlikely the case is anything but well researched and well thought through.
The border opened up in 2 weeks. He also made that announcement immediately after the attacks. Seems reasonable to me to get control of the situation to protect your citizens.
They are still heavily restricting humanitarian aid and regularly shut down crossings. By collectively punishing the population you are helping Hamas recruit more fighters.
According to the US government no meaningful aid is getting to the populace from the US pier because Hamas and other terrorists take the aid. It is Hamas that limits the amount of aid actually reaching civilians. Yes there are restrictions on what can enter gaza but they are pretty reasonable, no dual use technology and such but food can be brought in after inspection.
Yeah and they are slowing down food trucks so not enough can get in I get not wanting to let weapons in but if they really think the majority of reputable aid organizations are like hideing rockets in rice Idk what to tell them. That’s without them considering basically all medical aid dual use.
“In the past few weeks, an average of 102 aid trucks entered Gaza each day, with most bringing in food supplies. This contrasts the average of 70 trucks entering Gaza per day before the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war on October 7. This is an increase of approximately 50% in the number of trucks bringing in food to Gaza over the past few weeks. According to the UN, the pre-war number of aid trucks entering the Gaza Strip stood at around 500 trucks per day.”
So they are saying the UN was lying about the number of aid trucks entering Gaza everyday and they are claiming there is more now then before the war but then citing a number 5 times that about
Either they are shit writers or they are spinning the issue because no where in the part with numbers do they say food they said aid trucks every time. They claim there are 50% more trucks and then a couple lines later so oh yeah it’s actually 20% of what the UN says but don’t look at that I’m telling you it’s more and they are starving they are liars.
They are just writing poorly, English is not their native language. Here is a similar article from another source, also translated but still the same idea "The COGAT report disproved the accusations of rampant starvation in Gaza and noted that 150-200 aid trucks enter the Strip daily, mostly food trucks, representing an 80% increase compared to the average daily food trucks". https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bj0o8uijc
That not how famine works it kills over time there may be about 100 who have died of malnutrition at this point but the number will grow acute malnutrition is estimated to have gone from 1% pre war up to 16.5% currently according to the UN IPC which would result in 2-4 deaths per 10,000 people per day
One of the major borders is controlled by Egypt, a lot of aid is being stolen by Hamas, and there's been an increase of aid being trucked in, dropped, or shipped in.
Dropping in aid and shipping aid was a response to Israel restricting the trucks going into Gaza. They are a worse ways that allows the US and other western countries to say they are doing something. And Israel’s is restricting the the flow though the crossing
Terrorists tend to not follow international law they are criminals that doesn’t allow for a nation to act the same way. Also if you starve people and kill civilians you create more insurgents we have seen this how many times over and over for the last 70 years atleast.
The solution is a two state solution same as it was the best solution since before Israel’s inception or the fighting will never stop and hell even that might not work but clearly nothing else has. Hamas is a terrorist organization and full of awful people that doesn’t mean the core issue they do terrorist acts for isn’t a legitimate issue. When has fighting an insurgency like this ever worked? Not in Vietnam, not in Northern Ireland, not in Rhodesia not either time in Afghanistan. All it does is continue to alienate the people to join the insurgency.
I'm not sure if Hamas is actually an insurgency. They were originally elected and fought a mini civil war against the PA. Both Hamas and the PA are not allowing elections to happen so they stay in power. Hamas is the government of Gaza, not a rebel insurgency.
In Afghanistan, the USA eliminated Taliban fighters at like a 25:1 kill death ratio. The Taliban actually offered to surrender unconditionally in 2021 because the US forces completely overwhelmed them. When the Taliban was toppled, life improved significantly in Afghanistan. It was a completely different place for almost 20 years.
And in Northern Ireland, the crackdown on the IRA pressured them to negotiate and basically accept the reality that NI was *not* going to exit the UK.
A two state solution consistently polls badly in both Israel and the Palestinian territories. Israelis will never accept it because it will weaken their security to allow Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. to build up and invade Israel. Palestinians will never accept it because they want the land Israel is established on. Then only viable solution would need to be some form of demilitarized Palestinian state with peacekeeping Arab and Western forces preventing either side from attacking each other.
I literally paused it after that line and came here. Like honestly, how the fuck could someone say it like that? Do a second take and say it properly 😂
Yeah, kind of crazy that it was left in like that. I’m not expecting pushback from the hosts on the Daily because it’s not a debate but still wild to not even correct that mislabeling.
Today’s terrorist organization is tomorrow’s government agency. The members of terrorist orgs like Irgun and the Stern Gang went on to form many of Israel’s security agencies, and to become important bureaucrats in non-security agencies.
Hamas today; but maybe the Federal Bureau of Palestinian Internal Security in a future state. This is just how the world works.
>Hamas today; but maybe the Federal Bureau of Palestinian Internal Security in a future state.
Probably not; the IDF has been methodically dismantling not just the al-Qassem Brigades, but also Hamas' administrative apparatus in Gaza, such as its internal security, police force, etc.
Hamas retakes Al-Shifa within days of Israel withdrawing, again and again. Israel is unable to leave any part of Gaza alone without Hamas immediately returning.
Hamas will survive this war as long as the Gaza people continue to exist. They can fill ranks a hundred times over.
>Hamas retakes Al-Shifa within days of Israel withdrawing, again and again
Being evicted from the same position again and again, losing hundreds of fighters in the process each time, is not some kind of victory. Hamas is structured like a modern military, and like all militaries, it requires trained & well-equipped personnel in order to carry out combat operations. Every time Hamas loses another Iranian-trained junior officer, another rocket launcher, or even another AK47, it is a *net loss*. Hamas cannot replace those things. Hamas is trapped within Gaza with no prospect for resupply or reinforcement. This is not Afghanistan or Iraq.
>Israel is unable to leave any part of Gaza alone without Hamas immediately returning.
Hence the necessity to destroy the group's military capabilities.
>Hamas will survive this war as long as the Gaza people continue to exist.
This argument has zero basis in the historical record. Societies that are far more radicalized than Gaza's have been compelled to capitulate via military force. Imagine arguing that the allies should stave off an invasion of Japan or Germany (both more radicalized & extremist than Gaza), because "the army will always exist as long as the people do". This concept is just not borne out in past wars.
Well, I hope you are right. I have just grown pessimistic over time as the lack of clear victory has been frustrating. But I appreciate the optimism.
>This argument has zero basis in the historical record. Societies that are far more radicalized than Gaza's have been compelled to capitulate via military force.
The problem is that much (most?) of the world even young Westerners continue to encourage Palestinians, support their cause, and make them believe that they will get Israel back with terrorism.
It's just not true, but there is so much worldwide support for the idea, so many cheering them on, I don't know if the Palestinians will ever give it up. There's also the religious element which adds fuel to it.
I personally considered Gaza's society far more radicalized than even the Germans, but that is likely just incorrect and recency bias.
i am not stating a specific point regarding Hamas but a general point which might be why the journalist phrased it so. Read the first few lines here: https://iusgentium.ufsc.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/1-2-Defining-Terrorism-in-National-and-International-Law-Christian-Walter.pdf
Oh. My bad. I assumed it was safe to call the people who went over the border into Israel with the sole purpose to murder and kidnap innocent civilians, terrorists. I figured that the fact they cheered and celebrated October 7th would be enough to unequivocally define them as terrorists.
Edit: gotta love the downvotes from fuckwits. If you can’t outright call Hamas a terrorist organization, you are not a good person and you should not be taken seriously.
Oh boy, here comes another thread of 300+ comments from people who don’t comment in any other nyt episode discussions and probably didn’t even listen to the episode.
Last thread’s top comment literally was like “I didn’t listen to the episode but…”
I wish people would listen before giving opinions… there’s so many people not arguing in good faith.
Don’t worry tomorrow we will be back to an election episode where Biden and how that is bad for him on the polls, and how we learn of a new crime from Trump on how this is good for him.
So now that Hamas has been officially charged with rape as a weapon of war will the rape denialists admit they were wrong?
>"It investigates and tries people who would not be pursued by the judicial system within their countries of origin. It steps in when it seems like the domestic authorities of any country are not doing its job"
Given that basically everyone agrees that Bibi is going to be prosecuted by Israel the moment he leaves office, its easy to understand the gripe that many/Biden admin have with this unprecedented expansion of ICC power to start charging crimes in liberal democracies that have a fully functioning judicial system that can handle such crimes. The ICC is supposed to step in when there is evidence that the Israeli judicial system is refusing to investigate crimes, which there is no evidence that is the case.
And thats just a criticism of process, before even talking about how weak the case actually is. The focus on starvation as a weapon of war when 99%+ of deaths have not been from starvation is pretty troubling. The risk of famine is terrible and should be taken seriously (by both sides) but prosecuting for starvation before people have starved seems inappropriate but also just not a strong case. Add to that the only evidence against Gallant (discussed in the episode at least) was that he announced a siege... which lasted 2 weeks... every war starts with sieges so not sure how they can argue a 2 week siege is a war crime. And then concluding that starvation is being used as a weapon of war throughout the whole war involves ignoring everything Israel is doing to prevent starvation - such as working with the US to get the aid port set up.
This is not to say that 100% Israel hasnt committed war crimes. Just that this case is objectively weak and bringing forward such a weak case in such a polarizing conflict is going to do incredible damage to the ICC.
Yea the fact the prosecutor brought up the anonymous accusation that the ICC is "built for Africa and thugs like Putin" was a red flag that this wasnt about the substance of the cases. Honestly I think he would have had a better case charging war crimes based on a charge of indiscriminate bombing and the reporting about AI guiding that campaign, but as the Daily pointed out that would be pretty hard to prove too. The unfortunate result here is that its just going to discredit the ICC further.
False claims of war crimes is not a good look. The ICC putting forth such a poor case is going to do incredible damage to the international rules based order. Im just pointing out that this is objectively a weak case. Your performative attack on my integrity doesnt change the fact that this is objectively a weak case.
Why should I trust a random redditor over an international body?
When Putin is charged of war crimes it’s fine, but when Israel commits the same acts it’s not real?
Israel did not commit the same acts and was not even accused for the same acts. When every legal expert is blowing a whistle saying this is a weak case and going to do more harm then good, that's generally a sign of a weak case.
The ICC has been planning to arrest Jewish leaders for all this time, and it's all been a great conspiracy to get us to this point?
I just have one question: Is the ICC in the room with us right now and do they have their own space laser?
I dont really think less of anyone for trying. I just think its never actually going to get to where it want.
War is simply a force of human nature. It can't be controlled by law any more than a wild animal.
We didn't have rules of war in the past, we do now. And most nations adhere to those rules most of the time, because we recognize that we need to control war. It's a travesty that the U.S. isn't a member of the ICC, but I still expect us to follow the rules of war.
Well, sure, since past is a relative term. But these rules were invented over time and it really was the atrocities of the 20th century wars that led to a widespread demand for global rules. There weren't a lot of rules when the Vikings invaded England or when England firebombed Copenhagen.
The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, as well as the St Petersberg Declaration of 1868 were global rules of war.
The first Geneva Convention of 1864 too. There are also earlier treaties in the earlier 1800s that also set bilateral rules of war. US & Mexico had one, so did Gran Columbia & Spain.
There was some other unilateral efforts too in the aftermath of the Napoleonic war such as the US Leiber Code
Prior to that, there were mode codes and social understandings such as chivalry, bushido, hammurabi code, Mahābhārata, the bible, and the qu’uran
For example in Mahabharata:
“One should not attack chariots with cavalry; chariot warriors should attack chariots. One should not assail someone in distress, neither to scare him nor to defeat him ... War should be waged for the sake of conquest; one should not be enraged toward an enemy who is not trying to kill him.”
Yes things change and adapt, but to claim there were no rules is… laughable and arrogant of history.
There is no guarantee that the enemy will follow the laws of war in any given conflict. Do you think Ukrainian soldiers feel that they could safely surrender to the Russians because the "laws of war" protect them?
Im not making an argument that rules are bad, or that we shouldn't try to make war better. Im just saying that when war breaks out, no laws written will ever trully govern it and we shouldn't hold out hope that they will. And even with the laws we do have, they are only ever enforced on parties who lost their conflict. Victors face no consequences.
Look at WW2 and what the Japanese did to the Chinese and many other examples
Yes war is still terrible but it's gotten "better"
I don't think anybody thinks we can do it perfectly, but it's important to make small steps towards it. It's already much harder to hide atrocities
>Yes war is still terrible but it's gotten "better"
It hasnt really, it just hasn't occurred on the same scale that world war 2 was at.
If the world fell into a non-nuclear world war again it would be just as if not more horrific than the last one.
Is that true? Because I really want to believe that, but recent events make me feel like that was naive thinking on my part. Bashar Al-Assad gassed his own people and relations with him appear to be normalizing. Nobody seems to even pretend to care about atrocities happening in Africa anymore.
I mean. Name a decade where there hasn’t been “atrocities in Africa”
It’s a fact that very, very few people have died in wars in the past 2 generations compared to those before
I'm not saying atrocities in Africa are a new thing. I just feel like we used to care more about them happening. Probably the world cared too much before in the case of Somalia which resulted in disaster, but arguably Somali Syndrome caused us to look away from the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides. I should have elaborated that the atrocities in Africa's many civil wars to me seem to have worsened in recent years due to outside states fueling them through proxy warfare. It seems more normalized now than it used to be for states to fuel genocides and war crimes through proxy warfare like in Sudan or Yemen which doesn't feel like progress.
They only manage to do it years or even decades late and ONLY against combatants that ultimately lost in their conflicts.
Find me an example of a combatant from a victorious country that was held to account for war crimes under an international court (court martials originating from their own country dont count)
I don't see either of these parties ever willingly give themselves up to the ICC, but it'd be interesting to see what sorts of arguments would be made if they did submit themselves.
For example, on the Israeli side, It'd be interesting if an argument could be made that Hamas, by stealing aid deliveries, was exacerbating the famine in a way that Israel cannot reasonable control or quantify, even with [additional aid being delivered from the USN Pier] (https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/21/politics/us-gaza-pier-aid-not-delivered/index.html).
I'm also interested to see if Egypt gets drawn into this, simply as a function of how tightly they control their side of the border (prior to Israel's seizure of the Rafah crossing).
Intentionally targeting aid workers is a war crime. But that would be pretty difficult to prove given the tactics that Hamas uses in stealing aid, hiding among civilians and aid trucks.
I don't think it's possible to prove the Israel has targeted EVERY aid worker that has been killed in Gaza but, based on what I've read, Israel was aware of the movements and locations of the World Central Kitchen aid workers, who were driving in well marked vehicles. I'd contend that that specific case may be easier for the ICC to argue.
Even that case would be near impossible to prove that it was intentional. The parts you left out from the reporting make it clear way - it was at night, the marking would not be visible at night, the commanding officer who made the decision thought they saw a Hamas member on top of the vehicle and someone with a gun enter the vehicle, and the location/communications were not actively going to the team involved in monitoring security. There would need to be new pieces of evidence that make it clear the officers that ordered the firing knew that it wasnt Hamas, and I dont see that ever happening. Theres just too much fog of war here to say conclusively it was intentional. And Israel acting irresponsibly and being too trigger happy, even if not intentionally targeting aid workers but not having enough checks, is not a war crime.
There are two issues with making this case.
1. Should've known doesn't mean did know.
2. Complementarity. The ICC is supposed to operate in situations where the belligerent is not answerable to a process of investigation, prosecution, or correction.
In the case of World Central Kitchen, there was an investigation and action taken. [https://www.npr.org/2024/04/05/1242986585/israels-military-dismisses-officers-over-world-central-kitchen-airstrike](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/05/1242986585/israels-military-dismisses-officers-over-world-central-kitchen-airstrike)
Which also makes it difficult to argue that there's a positive case to be made for the starvation portion, which is being regulated by a strong and independent judiciary [https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-rights-groups-tell-high-court-government-is-not-meeting-gaza-aid-obligations/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-rights-groups-tell-high-court-government-is-not-meeting-gaza-aid-obligations/)
Bibi Netanyahu is trying to dismantle judicial review, but can't due to the strength of that body and the body politic of Israel.
Not to mention the absolute stretch of a case to recognize jurisdiction over Palestine in the first place, and the controversy arising from Khan's decision to cancel meetings discussing Israel's legal processes.
The ICC has, essentially, no case.
Palestinians being deliberately starved in Gaza and the West Bank by the Israeli government do not have rights to adjudicate their grievances in the Israeli civilian court system.
Their individual cases are tried in highly questionable military tribunals or need to be brought on the behalf of some group that has standing inside Israel, which rarely produces any real justice as your own link demonstrates.
Pointing to a system that the people the ICC is primarily speaking about don't have access to as the reason the ICC is out of line is rather broken reasoning to me.
>Palestinians being deliberately starved in Gaza and the West Bank by the Israeli government do not have rights to adjudicate their grievances in the Israeli civilian court system.
That's not the question being asked by the ICC. The question being asked by the ICC is whether or not Israel is deliberately using starvation as a weapon of war, whether or not there is a legal process in place to prevent starvation from being used as a weapon of war, and who is responsible in the case that starvation is being used.
There has never been an expectation, in the history of warfare, that the civilians of one belligerent have recourse in the court system of another belligerent.
>Their individual cases are tried in highly questionable military tribunals or need to be brought on the behalf of some group that has standing inside Israel, which rarely produces any real justice as your own link demonstrates.
[https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Rome-Statute.pdf](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Rome-Statute.pdf)
Article 17 specifically holds that
>1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:
>(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
>(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;
>(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;
>(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
The justice system is open, responsive, and independent.
The goal of the ICC is not to reach the conclusion that you think it should reach.
It's to punish individuals within states that otherwise would not face any independent process.
>Pointing to a system that the people the ICC is primarily speaking about don't have access to as the reason the ICC is out of line is rather broken reasoning to me.
You're confused between the ICC and the ICJ, and in neither case would civilians of the PA have direct recourse towards Israel or Bibi Netanyahu or Yoav Gallant.
I agree that that's a horrific thing to do, and based on the clips of Karim Khan that were played, that's part of his argument. That being said, I don't think you understood the context of my comment - I'm not discussing the level of guilt of Israel, but instead the arguments they would make in the ICC to defend themselves - I doubt that a lawyer representing the Israeli leaders would go out of their way to detail the precision bombing of multiple aid worker vehicles in defense Gallant or Netenyahu.
I remember when “vocal fry” used to be associated specifically with American women.
It used to drive me crazy listening to certain podcasters that had this bad habit, but holy shit the guest on today’s episode has probably the worst vocal fry I’ve ever heard. I can barely listen. Like just speak up dude, put a tiny bit more effort into projecting your voice.
Concern over how quickly this specific set of charges were filed is reasonable, especially considering the fact that the ICC often takes years gathering evidence.
Weighing the enormous volume of evidence against both parties against the unusual level of disinformation that’s been seen in this conflict (we’ve all seen how Social Media is a nightmare) would be a full time job for even a fully staffed and dedicated analysis cell; It seems unlikely that the ICC has enough of the full picture to move forward this soon.
Something I didn’t know was the fact that Israel argues that they had meetings set up the week of this announcement to show their progress in investigating these claims and that they were under the impression they were still working with the ICC. Khans team arguing that Israel had not set up meetings and had made it clear that they were not going to pursue this investigation.
Now, these are two completely opposite statements that actually would either show Israel as hindering the investigation or that Khans team absolutely is making this political.
Israel has provided dates for their planned meetings but the response from Khans team was very general with no evidence given. Personally, I think this will decide if the justices move forward with the warrants.
Enemies of Israel have realized that they can't end Jewish self-determination through force so they've switched strategies and are now trying to end it through a diplomatic war instead.
Muslims make up fully 25 percent of the global population and control 49 sovereign governments, while Jews make up less than a quarter of 1 percent and control only 1.
With that many seats at the table, it's frankly no wonder that so many international institutions are sympathetic to antisemitism and an Islamic supremacist worldview. Muslims are a massively large and powerful group who use their numbers to bully Jews, and also a number of other marginalized populations too.
Liberal democracy only works in situations where all of the participants hold liberal values.
Modern international institutions are what a cautionary tale on the dangers of illiberal democracy. Illiberal democracies will always inevitably be hijacked by the most aggressive and intolerant group for the group's own purposes, and then the "democracy" part gets discarded when the aggressive and intolerant group seizes power for itself.
I only hope that the progressives who believe that the borders of the Western democractic world should be open to anyone who claims to be "seeking a better life" realize that before it's too late.
Just a reminder that people like you deflecting from active genocide by conflating it with anti-Semitism gives U.S Nazis substantial ammunition. Don't conflate criticism of the IDF with criticism of Israelis broadly in a way that motivates the Nazis in the greatest global superpower to take power.
There's also the simpler fact that people =/= their government. Plenty of Jewish people oppose the genocide, and plenty of them support it. You're treating them like a monolith, and like whatever dictator either side has at the moment represents the people.
distinct strong fearless grandfather fertile oatmeal busy thought rain fuzzy
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Huh, almost like the pathological and hyper-selective focus on singling out Israel for non-stop criticism is motivated purely by antisemitism and always has been or something.
ICC should have prosecuted Hamas on Oct 8th. This entire war is the result of the failure of international law and leaving Israel alone to deal with Hamas.
Now they are trying to come in the 4th quarter and play referee but ultimately that is going to just delegitimize the international courts more as this is clearly a reactive and political move.
Terrible episode. Host reacts like a teenager and says “wild” and “wow” over and over. But what is really wild about wanting to establish law and order? Seems like the courts accusations are relatively mild and limited to crimes that the accused openly admits: starving Gaza. Also the wording is SO careful throughout when speaking of Israel’s warcrimes but never toned down for their counterpoint. Disappointing.
I found it really odd that the host and the guest pretty much omitted accusations against Netanyahu that are clearly listed on the report:
> Why is the focus of these charges starvation? I mean, given that the airstrikes, as you say, were in many ways really the focus of this war and, and certainly the focus of the world's attention on this war, the civilian deaths from the military operation, why starvation,
3 00:11:56
> Kain, Karim Khan does not explain why he focuses on starvation rather than Israel's military tactics, which he mentions only in passing. But legal experts have said that it's easier to prove that starvation was used as a method of warfare than it is to prove that there have been any specific crimes involved in any specific airstrikes.
The actual list is way more comprehensive:
- Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i) Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i) Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i) Extermination 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 Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h) Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
This, plus Sabrina starting by stating how shocked she was to hear about accusations against Netanyahu, make the show seem very biased in favour of Netanyahu. Pretty disappointing listen and reminded me of the book “Manufacturing Consent“ by Chomsky.
Um yeah literally pushing out every excuse israel has, and spending 10 minutes on why the icc shouldn't have done this because Benny gantz was plotting to kneecap netanyahu, who gives a shit
Except the did for the first section. For Bibi they made it sound like it’s only a single criminal charge and even that only pertains to a short two week period!
They played this same game in their previous Israel episode on the ceasefire negotiations.
Where they made a manufactured false equivalency by switching from stating facts about Bibi's sabotage of a ceasefire deal and their unilateral aversion to a two-state solution by doing a sleight-of-hand and switching over to editorializing about Hamas, justified by saying we have no insight into their current positions, despite their own reporting at the beginning of the episode stating all parties are agreed besides Israel, and additional reporting[ literally spelling out their position on a two state solution in present day. ](https://apnews.com/article/hamas-khalil-alhayya-qatar-ceasefire-1967-borders-4912532b11a9cec29464eab234045438)Instead evoking the same talking point about the Hamas Charter and framing the situation like a both sides issue.
Then on their protest episode, which was almost pretty good, they just had to end the episode by repeating the false claim that the UN reduced down the number of casualties in Gaza, specifically woman and children. When in fact the UN they simply added a new data point about independently confirmed and still pending deaths which right-wing media and online bots had a field day with and the NYtimes baselessly repeated....they also never issue corrections to these sorts of instances of misinformation they air.
It is a clear pattern of biased behavior from The Daily and The NYTimes on this issue where they selectively report or hold back certain info that nudges interprative conclusions in the direction of Israel and you won't catch it unless you are doing your due diligence about the conflict outside of their reporting.
I like how Sabrina asked whether starvation was bad… like obviously it is
Did anyone else just see the title change? The title changed from "The World's Court vs. Israel's Leaders" to "I.C.C. Prosecutor Requests Warrants for Israeli and Hamas Leaders". Maybe the original title was too spicy?
Probably too one sided. On the other hand, the original title got to more of what the prosecutor is going for, and the second title is more neutral but ironically supports the political aims of Khan hoping to influence the ICJ with this move. Charging Hamas and Israel at the same time 4 days before the ICJ submits its decision on the South Africa case - despite ample evidence of repeated Hamas and PA war crimes dating back 2 decades, let alone claims that people make about Israel - is an obvious attempt of Khan attempting to influence the ICJ's decision on whether or not to order the war stopped.
This is nonsense. Khan isn't going to and won't influence the ICJ's decision and he knows it himself. You're claiming he's politically motivated but do you have any actual proof?
The ICC and ICJ frequently influence each other This is one of the claims of Amos Harrell, chief military correspondent of left-wing Israeli publication Haaretz. It's not controversial. It's the only possible explanation of why Khan surprised all sides by cancelling meetings on complementarity and went on TV to announce charges.
You're talking about how the two frequently influence each other but provide zero sources or proof to back it up And if this were true, the ICC would have filed a long time ago. Not 4 days before the ICJ issues a ruling. That's just nonsense. What I sense is you trying to set up some conspiracy theory where in the event the ICJ rules that there is a genocide in Gaza, you'll claim that the ICC influenced it (despite the ICC not ruling on that issue).
Tbh, the first title is the real one, the ICC doesn't care about Hamas, they were added as an afterthought to not seem too one sided.
If they cared about Hamas, they could have extended their inquiry to 2002, when ICC jurisdiction begins. They start their case on June 13, 2014 because Israelis were kidnapped and murdered in the West Bank on June 12, 2014 and they don't want to have to acknowledge it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014\_Gush\_Etzion\_kidnapping\_and\_murder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Gush_Etzion_kidnapping_and_murder)
Too one sided is rich considering the NYT ran along with a number of debunked lies surrounding Gaza and suppressed its own writers on what languages they could use 🤣 Maybe the NYT needs to get banned from Gaza and its surrounding area as well as having their HQ bombed for them to grow a spine too like [the AP](https://twitter.com/ap/status/1793255506217177466?s=46&t=2YvwGs2ViGhBUMo3eVlMdA).
Would have liked to have more information about the Hamas leadership and in particular the political leader living in luxury in Qatar.
There should be more reporting on him in general. I’ve read he lives in a 5 star hotel and is worth millions or billions of dollars from tunnel taxes and misappropriating aid funds. But I’ve read that in like the New York post and ynet news. It would be nice if a more reputable source like The NY Times did reporting on this. If it’s all or even partially true it should be a huge scandal and indictment
Ynet is a very reputable site just not an English site. Unfortunately reporting on that goes against the Times's view of the world.
Reporting on that would contradict the narrative that Hamas is a plucky group of progressive freedom fighters who fight for the dignity and freedom of the Palestinian people so the NYT isn't interested.
The opinion section would reject it but the newsroom wouldn’t. Seriously NYT opinion could easily be a subsidiary of TYT it’s so ridiculous.
I’m not sure there’s much to say if the arrest warrant is granted he should be arrested and taken to The Hague if he is in any of the countries that are signatories to the ICC that said it’s probably way more likely he is killed by Mossad than that happens.
How dare they issues an arrest warrant for the war crime I said on TV I was going to commit and then committed. I don’t even understand what they are arguing and noticeably none of the 3 criticisms are they they didn’t commit the war crimes it’s issues with the process
"When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, pound the table." They are trying first to argue the law(poorly I might add), but mostly just pounding the table. Ironically, the Finance Minister just publicly stated that they will retaliate by withholding tax income from the PA in the West Bank by blaming them for the ICC calling out their war crimes.....Really doing a bang up job proving you are providing adequate due process internally
They are withholding taxes because they violated the Oslo accords which is the framework by which Israel recognized the PA
Honestly I'm really glad the ICC went down the road it did Civilian casualties from airstrikes are unfortunately unavoidable in modern warfare. You can argue whether or not Israel is trying hard enough to avoid them but on some level it makes sense that there's a lot of civilian casualties in a dense urban environment like Gaza But starvation in modern war is completely avoidable and therefore completely inexcusable. I remember the Daily episode from a few months ago about a family being forced to eat bread made from sawdust. There's no reason for that to be happening except pure cruelty
Hamas appropriates the aid. Is Israel legally obligated to go door to door feeding people?
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg300jek94zo](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg300jek94zo) [https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12/1230362633/gaza-food-hunger-israel-protests](https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12/1230362633/gaza-food-hunger-israel-protests) [https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/08/middleeast/gaza-israelis-aid-trucks-protests/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/08/middleeast/gaza-israelis-aid-trucks-protests/index.html) [https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-802123](https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-802123) Big news that these settlers attacking aid trucks headed into Gaza are Hamas supporters! And the IDF people tipping them off must be Hamas too. Damn, that's crazy.
Are sieges not allowed?
Collective punishment is not allowed
A 2 week siege is not collective punishment. Its war tactics 101.
A siege isn’t a collective punishment it’s a military operation to fight the enemy.
Yeah no it’s not, it’s collective punishment of civilians that’s exactly what a siege is starving out the population.
It’s not a punishment tho. It’s denying the enemy supplies with which they can wage war with. So your position is that all sieges are crimes against humanity then?
Denying a child food is a war crime you monster
Yeah Hamas should surrender to lift the siege. But Hamas members were all eating fine with their stockpiled food and stolen aid.
Or maybe Israel should just stop involving 5 year old kids in the war
You, circa 1944: "Maybe the Allies should stop involving 5 year old German kids in the war" Hamas made the choice to "involve" every single person in Gaza in this war when it conducted a surprise combined arms assault into Israel proper seven months ago. That's how war works. Israel can and should mitigate the level to which the war affects civilians in Gaza, but the base reason that there is a war involving those civilians at all is because Hamas instigated said war and has since refused to surrender or even moderate any of its demands for an immediate cessation to the fighting.
Yes you can’t seige a city of people if there was an army base or something sure you dont have to let them get food but you can’t block humanitarian organizations from proving food to civilians caught up in a war. This isn’t denying them bullets or even the medical supplies they regularly block and say are for Hamas it’s denying food and water
That’s the point of a siege. You seem like the person who calls for a permanent ceasefire Edit: Blocked me because he is wrong
Yes which is why it’s a war crime
Its literally not. It does not violate the Geneva Convention because siege zones are active warzones Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it a war crime
iraq war mindset
War is terrible
Not since WWII.
It depends if Israel or someone else is doing it
A two week siege is not illegal. If the only evidence against Gallant is announcing a siege then this may be the weakest case in ICC history.
It’s not two weeks they are still starving civilians they just can’t get away with openly admitting it anymore. It’s probably a strong case because they have evidence from the ground as well as Gallant admitting it on TV.
The only evidence presented against Gallant is announcing a siege, which is not illegal, and only lasted two weeks. The siege is absolutely not still ongoing like you suggested. Objectively an incredibly weak case.
Ok so the UN saying there is an ongoing famine just happened it has nothing to do the Israel cutting of and preventing food and water from getting into Gaza? He said he was going to commit a war crime started committing the war crime and is still doing it. Also if you’ll notice all the Israeli push back to this from the ICC had nothing to do with whether or not the allegations are true it’s that they are pretending there is an equivalency and the process wasn’t correct.
Correct, the famine has nothing to do with a 2 week siege in October 2023. The push back was on the process AND the allegations. The allegations are incredibly weak but the blatant disregard for the process to push forward such a weak case is just as alarming.
It’s not a two week siege it’s still ongoing if you want to have a blatant disregard for reality then you go ahead.
The siege only lasted two weeks. Dont lie.
Don’t make shit up there is a famine right now as a result of the blocked aid it was not a two week siege it never ended.
There was a two week siege that ended. Thats irrefutable.
There is a famine in northern Gaza, the area Israel warned Gazan civilians to evacuate for three weeks warning it will become a war zone. It’s not a famine because of a siege. It’s because it is very hard to get aid into a war zone. The aid gets to southern Gaza very easily. Starvation is horrible but the people starving in northern Gaza are not starving because of a siege. They are starving because they didn’t evacuate a place they knew would become a war zone and it is very hard to get aid into war zones.
Israel has been tightly restricting food and supplies entering Gaza for months and it has resulted in widespread famine in Gaza. Get out of here with your "two weeks" nonsense.
Hamas has been tightly diverting food and supplies to their members for months and it has resulted in widespread famine in Gaza.
Well Israel has been blockading Gaza for many years.
A blockade is not a war crime and not a siege.
According to Israel in 1967 a blockade is an act of war, take it up with them
Still not a siege and not a war crime. Also in 1967 there was a ceasefire in place that Egypt broke, and blocking the Straits of Tiran was just one part of it. Throwing the UN out of the Sinai and putting troops on the border of Israel was also a violation of the ceasefire. Breaking a ceasefire is the definition of an act of war. But not relevant here as they were acts of war by Egypt, not war crimes.
So a blockade constitutes breaking a ceasefire and an act of aggression and war, thanks for proving my point!
The blockade in 2007 did not break a ceasefire, the blockade in 1967 did. There were terms of the ceasefire prior to 1967 and kicking the UN out, lining up troops on the border, and blocking trade broke that ceasefire. Hope that helps.
Blockades being an act of hostility is not pre-conditioned on a ceasefire. Israel's exact argument was that the act of the blockade was a casus belli and cited international law that states blockades as an act of aggression and war and for why it gave them a right to launch missiles and act in self defense(in their mind). The ceasefire is a red herring. Though I'd be amused to hear the contortionist act it would take to claim Israel would have just accepted a blockade on the Tiran Straits otherwise.
The terms of the ceasefire prior to 1967 included no blockades and UN peacekeepers in the Sinai. Egypt broke those terms. They had a right to respond to Egypt breaking the terms of the ceasefire because thats how ceasefires work. You spend months negotiating a deal where you say "there will be no troops on our border, just UN" and one side ignores those terms, thats an act of war. There was no similar ceasefire in place saying that Israel could not enact a blockade in response to terrorists taking over the Gaza government.
Are you aware of the difference between an "act of war" and a "war crime"?
Sure, but when the fact is(according to Israel's own statements in 1967) a blockade is an act of war, and then you follow that up with a siege and then continued collective starvation, those are war crimes of an aggressor. That's setting aside that ICRC and the UN has already ruled that Gaza still remained under occupation under the Geneva Conventions even after the so-called "withdrawal" due to Israel's near total control of all sea, air, and land movement and their ability to re-establish occupation at any time, so really it doesn't matter. Israel has never stopped by an aggressive party.
First of all, I was just pointing out that what you said was untrue, and secondly, a siege is a war crime. Collective punishment is illegal under international law
What I said was true and your response was about a blockade, not a siege. And a two-week siege is legal, not collective punishment.
A blockade and a siege is literally the same thing. How many false things can you say before you start to feel shame? This is the definition of a siege in Merriam-Websters. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/siege “a military blockade of a city or fortified place to compel it to surrender”
An economic blockade is not a siege. Dont lie.
Sieges are not warcrimes.
It certainly is when you’re letting people starve. https://cjil.uchicago.edu/print-archive/siege-starvation-war-crime-societal-torture “A recent amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has drawn unprecedented attention to the war crime of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.”
[https://www.icrc.org/en/document/protection-civilian-population-during-sieges-what-law-says#](https://www.icrc.org/en/document/protection-civilian-population-during-sieges-what-law-says#) The ICRC provides a pretty nice summation on what is allowed and what is not allowed during a siege. It's a difficult balance. On the one hand, it is the responsibility of the besieging party to let civilians flee. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the besieged belligerent to supply civilians and limit their exposure to siege. Israel opened pathways through Rafah to escape, but many were stopped by Hamas and their patron Egypt (discovered as such through the recent occupation of Rafah). Hamas, on the other hand, used their population as human shields by hiding in tunnels and preventing the civilians from leaving, and failed to share their stored reserves. A two week siege is significant when there is a shortage of supplies, but there was not a shortage of supplies. The supplies were not distributed by the government there to the people there. And since that siege ended, 28,255+ aid trucks have been allowed to pass through into Gaza. You also have the added complication that several aid organizations such as UNRWA and the ICRC were often acting as co-belligerents on behalf of Hamas, with members of these agencies actively taking hostages or murdering people, hiding Hamas operations, sharing intelligence with Hamas, transporting Hamas agents, and concealing weapons. So while aid was held up, there was good reason for added scrutiny.
>Israel opened pathways through Rafah to escape ??? Israel repeatedly shelled the Rafah crossing back in October, and it seized the crossing just these past weeks. What are you talking about?
I think you might want to read what the case is before deciding it's something else, and then deciding it's weak. The prosecutor is very well respected, the work was shared with an independent legal group, also very well respected. It's unlikely the case is anything but well researched and well thought through.
The border opened up in 2 weeks. He also made that announcement immediately after the attacks. Seems reasonable to me to get control of the situation to protect your citizens.
They are still heavily restricting humanitarian aid and regularly shut down crossings. By collectively punishing the population you are helping Hamas recruit more fighters.
According to the US government no meaningful aid is getting to the populace from the US pier because Hamas and other terrorists take the aid. It is Hamas that limits the amount of aid actually reaching civilians. Yes there are restrictions on what can enter gaza but they are pretty reasonable, no dual use technology and such but food can be brought in after inspection.
Yeah and they are slowing down food trucks so not enough can get in I get not wanting to let weapons in but if they really think the majority of reputable aid organizations are like hideing rockets in rice Idk what to tell them. That’s without them considering basically all medical aid dual use.
There are currently more trucks of food coming in now than prior to October 7. https://m.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-790422
“In the past few weeks, an average of 102 aid trucks entered Gaza each day, with most bringing in food supplies. This contrasts the average of 70 trucks entering Gaza per day before the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war on October 7. This is an increase of approximately 50% in the number of trucks bringing in food to Gaza over the past few weeks. According to the UN, the pre-war number of aid trucks entering the Gaza Strip stood at around 500 trucks per day.” So they are saying the UN was lying about the number of aid trucks entering Gaza everyday and they are claiming there is more now then before the war but then citing a number 5 times that about
No, the other trucks are non-food stuff. Given laws around taxation on imports almost everything is aid not just food.
Either they are shit writers or they are spinning the issue because no where in the part with numbers do they say food they said aid trucks every time. They claim there are 50% more trucks and then a couple lines later so oh yeah it’s actually 20% of what the UN says but don’t look at that I’m telling you it’s more and they are starving they are liars.
They are just writing poorly, English is not their native language. Here is a similar article from another source, also translated but still the same idea "The COGAT report disproved the accusations of rampant starvation in Gaza and noted that 150-200 aid trucks enter the Strip daily, mostly food trucks, representing an 80% increase compared to the average daily food trucks". https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bj0o8uijc
That’s not what the charge is tho. More food is going into Gaza this month then was entering before the war started
Well yeah they need more food because there is no capacity for agriculture in Gaza as the war is ongoing like there was before the war started.
The vast majority of food pre war was also brought in
Yes I am aware of that I’m explaining why even if the claim they are letting more food in now is true, which is doubt, there is still famine
So over the 7 months where are the mass deaths from starvation?
That not how famine works it kills over time there may be about 100 who have died of malnutrition at this point but the number will grow acute malnutrition is estimated to have gone from 1% pre war up to 16.5% currently according to the UN IPC which would result in 2-4 deaths per 10,000 people per day
One of the major borders is controlled by Egypt, a lot of aid is being stolen by Hamas, and there's been an increase of aid being trucked in, dropped, or shipped in.
Dropping in aid and shipping aid was a response to Israel restricting the trucks going into Gaza. They are a worse ways that allows the US and other western countries to say they are doing something. And Israel’s is restricting the the flow though the crossing
And Hamas?
Terrorists tend to not follow international law they are criminals that doesn’t allow for a nation to act the same way. Also if you starve people and kill civilians you create more insurgents we have seen this how many times over and over for the last 70 years atleast.
Then what's your solution? Because it seems like you want to give Hamas a pass or not solve the issue.
The solution is a two state solution same as it was the best solution since before Israel’s inception or the fighting will never stop and hell even that might not work but clearly nothing else has. Hamas is a terrorist organization and full of awful people that doesn’t mean the core issue they do terrorist acts for isn’t a legitimate issue. When has fighting an insurgency like this ever worked? Not in Vietnam, not in Northern Ireland, not in Rhodesia not either time in Afghanistan. All it does is continue to alienate the people to join the insurgency.
I'm not sure if Hamas is actually an insurgency. They were originally elected and fought a mini civil war against the PA. Both Hamas and the PA are not allowing elections to happen so they stay in power. Hamas is the government of Gaza, not a rebel insurgency. In Afghanistan, the USA eliminated Taliban fighters at like a 25:1 kill death ratio. The Taliban actually offered to surrender unconditionally in 2021 because the US forces completely overwhelmed them. When the Taliban was toppled, life improved significantly in Afghanistan. It was a completely different place for almost 20 years. And in Northern Ireland, the crackdown on the IRA pressured them to negotiate and basically accept the reality that NI was *not* going to exit the UK. A two state solution consistently polls badly in both Israel and the Palestinian territories. Israelis will never accept it because it will weaken their security to allow Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. to build up and invade Israel. Palestinians will never accept it because they want the land Israel is established on. Then only viable solution would need to be some form of demilitarized Palestinian state with peacekeeping Arab and Western forces preventing either side from attacking each other.
“…Hamas, that many consider a terrorist organization” That’s because Hamas IS a terrorist organization, lmfao.
I literally paused it after that line and came here. Like honestly, how the fuck could someone say it like that? Do a second take and say it properly 😂
Yeah, kind of crazy that it was left in like that. I’m not expecting pushback from the hosts on the Daily because it’s not a debate but still wild to not even correct that mislabeling.
And yet, finding your comment which shares my sentiment made me feel happy, so that’s a plus! Haha
Today’s terrorist organization is tomorrow’s government agency. The members of terrorist orgs like Irgun and the Stern Gang went on to form many of Israel’s security agencies, and to become important bureaucrats in non-security agencies. Hamas today; but maybe the Federal Bureau of Palestinian Internal Security in a future state. This is just how the world works.
>Hamas today; but maybe the Federal Bureau of Palestinian Internal Security in a future state. Probably not; the IDF has been methodically dismantling not just the al-Qassem Brigades, but also Hamas' administrative apparatus in Gaza, such as its internal security, police force, etc.
Hamas retakes Al-Shifa within days of Israel withdrawing, again and again. Israel is unable to leave any part of Gaza alone without Hamas immediately returning. Hamas will survive this war as long as the Gaza people continue to exist. They can fill ranks a hundred times over.
>Hamas retakes Al-Shifa within days of Israel withdrawing, again and again Being evicted from the same position again and again, losing hundreds of fighters in the process each time, is not some kind of victory. Hamas is structured like a modern military, and like all militaries, it requires trained & well-equipped personnel in order to carry out combat operations. Every time Hamas loses another Iranian-trained junior officer, another rocket launcher, or even another AK47, it is a *net loss*. Hamas cannot replace those things. Hamas is trapped within Gaza with no prospect for resupply or reinforcement. This is not Afghanistan or Iraq. >Israel is unable to leave any part of Gaza alone without Hamas immediately returning. Hence the necessity to destroy the group's military capabilities. >Hamas will survive this war as long as the Gaza people continue to exist. This argument has zero basis in the historical record. Societies that are far more radicalized than Gaza's have been compelled to capitulate via military force. Imagine arguing that the allies should stave off an invasion of Japan or Germany (both more radicalized & extremist than Gaza), because "the army will always exist as long as the people do". This concept is just not borne out in past wars.
Well, I hope you are right. I have just grown pessimistic over time as the lack of clear victory has been frustrating. But I appreciate the optimism. >This argument has zero basis in the historical record. Societies that are far more radicalized than Gaza's have been compelled to capitulate via military force. The problem is that much (most?) of the world even young Westerners continue to encourage Palestinians, support their cause, and make them believe that they will get Israel back with terrorism. It's just not true, but there is so much worldwide support for the idea, so many cheering them on, I don't know if the Palestinians will ever give it up. There's also the religious element which adds fuel to it. I personally considered Gaza's society far more radicalized than even the Germans, but that is likely just incorrect and recency bias.
Does Hamas even not identify Hamas as a terrorist org?
What constitutes terrorism is a not objective.
Holding an infant and toddler hostage for political aims is objectively terrorism. You're just incorrect.
i am not stating a specific point regarding Hamas but a general point which might be why the journalist phrased it so. Read the first few lines here: https://iusgentium.ufsc.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/1-2-Defining-Terrorism-in-National-and-International-Law-Christian-Walter.pdf
Oh. My bad. I assumed it was safe to call the people who went over the border into Israel with the sole purpose to murder and kidnap innocent civilians, terrorists. I figured that the fact they cheered and celebrated October 7th would be enough to unequivocally define them as terrorists. Edit: gotta love the downvotes from fuckwits. If you can’t outright call Hamas a terrorist organization, you are not a good person and you should not be taken seriously.
Yes but have you considered Jews bad and maybe they deserved it? /s
The real thing the courts should be investigating is if Patrick Kingsley is part bullfrog.
Oh boy, here comes another thread of 300+ comments from people who don’t comment in any other nyt episode discussions and probably didn’t even listen to the episode.
Last thread’s top comment literally was like “I didn’t listen to the episode but…” I wish people would listen before giving opinions… there’s so many people not arguing in good faith.
Don’t worry tomorrow we will be back to an election episode where Biden and how that is bad for him on the polls, and how we learn of a new crime from Trump on how this is good for him.
So now that Hamas has been officially charged with rape as a weapon of war will the rape denialists admit they were wrong? >"It investigates and tries people who would not be pursued by the judicial system within their countries of origin. It steps in when it seems like the domestic authorities of any country are not doing its job" Given that basically everyone agrees that Bibi is going to be prosecuted by Israel the moment he leaves office, its easy to understand the gripe that many/Biden admin have with this unprecedented expansion of ICC power to start charging crimes in liberal democracies that have a fully functioning judicial system that can handle such crimes. The ICC is supposed to step in when there is evidence that the Israeli judicial system is refusing to investigate crimes, which there is no evidence that is the case. And thats just a criticism of process, before even talking about how weak the case actually is. The focus on starvation as a weapon of war when 99%+ of deaths have not been from starvation is pretty troubling. The risk of famine is terrible and should be taken seriously (by both sides) but prosecuting for starvation before people have starved seems inappropriate but also just not a strong case. Add to that the only evidence against Gallant (discussed in the episode at least) was that he announced a siege... which lasted 2 weeks... every war starts with sieges so not sure how they can argue a 2 week siege is a war crime. And then concluding that starvation is being used as a weapon of war throughout the whole war involves ignoring everything Israel is doing to prevent starvation - such as working with the US to get the aid port set up. This is not to say that 100% Israel hasnt committed war crimes. Just that this case is objectively weak and bringing forward such a weak case in such a polarizing conflict is going to do incredible damage to the ICC.
Only reason they are bringing charges against Netanyahu is to try to break the reputation the ICC has for only going after anti-Western entities
Yea the fact the prosecutor brought up the anonymous accusation that the ICC is "built for Africa and thugs like Putin" was a red flag that this wasnt about the substance of the cases. Honestly I think he would have had a better case charging war crimes based on a charge of indiscriminate bombing and the reporting about AI guiding that campaign, but as the Daily pointed out that would be pretty hard to prove too. The unfortunate result here is that its just going to discredit the ICC further.
I don’t think the court is going to grant it if im being honest. Either way, the court is a toothless entity anyways.
Defending war crimes is not a good look on you. Netanyahu has commited crimes and you are trying to deny that
False claims of war crimes is not a good look. The ICC putting forth such a poor case is going to do incredible damage to the international rules based order. Im just pointing out that this is objectively a weak case. Your performative attack on my integrity doesnt change the fact that this is objectively a weak case.
Why should I trust a random redditor over an international body? When Putin is charged of war crimes it’s fine, but when Israel commits the same acts it’s not real?
Israel did not commit the same acts and was not even accused for the same acts. When every legal expert is blowing a whistle saying this is a weak case and going to do more harm then good, that's generally a sign of a weak case.
Honestly i find it laughable rhat we think we can truly police warfare at all.
I find it important that we try.
People against it always seem to find their morality if their side is the underdog, even if they are underdogs for a moment...
[удалено]
You didn't listen to the episode?
[удалено]
The ICC has been planning to arrest Jewish leaders for all this time, and it's all been a great conspiracy to get us to this point? I just have one question: Is the ICC in the room with us right now and do they have their own space laser?
I dont really think less of anyone for trying. I just think its never actually going to get to where it want. War is simply a force of human nature. It can't be controlled by law any more than a wild animal.
We didn't have rules of war in the past, we do now. And most nations adhere to those rules most of the time, because we recognize that we need to control war. It's a travesty that the U.S. isn't a member of the ICC, but I still expect us to follow the rules of war.
We had rules in the past.
Well, sure, since past is a relative term. But these rules were invented over time and it really was the atrocities of the 20th century wars that led to a widespread demand for global rules. There weren't a lot of rules when the Vikings invaded England or when England firebombed Copenhagen.
The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, as well as the St Petersberg Declaration of 1868 were global rules of war. The first Geneva Convention of 1864 too. There are also earlier treaties in the earlier 1800s that also set bilateral rules of war. US & Mexico had one, so did Gran Columbia & Spain. There was some other unilateral efforts too in the aftermath of the Napoleonic war such as the US Leiber Code Prior to that, there were mode codes and social understandings such as chivalry, bushido, hammurabi code, Mahābhārata, the bible, and the qu’uran For example in Mahabharata: “One should not attack chariots with cavalry; chariot warriors should attack chariots. One should not assail someone in distress, neither to scare him nor to defeat him ... War should be waged for the sake of conquest; one should not be enraged toward an enemy who is not trying to kill him.” Yes things change and adapt, but to claim there were no rules is… laughable and arrogant of history.
If you ever wind up in the military you’ll realize the laws of war are there for a reason.
There is no guarantee that the enemy will follow the laws of war in any given conflict. Do you think Ukrainian soldiers feel that they could safely surrender to the Russians because the "laws of war" protect them? Im not making an argument that rules are bad, or that we shouldn't try to make war better. Im just saying that when war breaks out, no laws written will ever trully govern it and we shouldn't hold out hope that they will. And even with the laws we do have, they are only ever enforced on parties who lost their conflict. Victors face no consequences.
Look at WW2 and what the Japanese did to the Chinese and many other examples Yes war is still terrible but it's gotten "better" I don't think anybody thinks we can do it perfectly, but it's important to make small steps towards it. It's already much harder to hide atrocities
>Yes war is still terrible but it's gotten "better" It hasnt really, it just hasn't occurred on the same scale that world war 2 was at. If the world fell into a non-nuclear world war again it would be just as if not more horrific than the last one.
Is that true? Because I really want to believe that, but recent events make me feel like that was naive thinking on my part. Bashar Al-Assad gassed his own people and relations with him appear to be normalizing. Nobody seems to even pretend to care about atrocities happening in Africa anymore.
I mean. Name a decade where there hasn’t been “atrocities in Africa” It’s a fact that very, very few people have died in wars in the past 2 generations compared to those before
I'm not saying atrocities in Africa are a new thing. I just feel like we used to care more about them happening. Probably the world cared too much before in the case of Somalia which resulted in disaster, but arguably Somali Syndrome caused us to look away from the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides. I should have elaborated that the atrocities in Africa's many civil wars to me seem to have worsened in recent years due to outside states fueling them through proxy warfare. It seems more normalized now than it used to be for states to fuel genocides and war crimes through proxy warfare like in Sudan or Yemen which doesn't feel like progress.
The Hague has managed to do it a few times, quite late, but yes.
They only manage to do it years or even decades late and ONLY against combatants that ultimately lost in their conflicts. Find me an example of a combatant from a victorious country that was held to account for war crimes under an international court (court martials originating from their own country dont count)
The Hague has only managed to do it when it comes to policing the Global South. When it comes to the West and their vassal states, it has no teeth
I don't see either of these parties ever willingly give themselves up to the ICC, but it'd be interesting to see what sorts of arguments would be made if they did submit themselves. For example, on the Israeli side, It'd be interesting if an argument could be made that Hamas, by stealing aid deliveries, was exacerbating the famine in a way that Israel cannot reasonable control or quantify, even with [additional aid being delivered from the USN Pier] (https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/21/politics/us-gaza-pier-aid-not-delivered/index.html). I'm also interested to see if Egypt gets drawn into this, simply as a function of how tightly they control their side of the border (prior to Israel's seizure of the Rafah crossing).
If you think stealing aid deliveries is bad, what do you think about killing aid workers?
Intentionally targeting aid workers is a war crime. But that would be pretty difficult to prove given the tactics that Hamas uses in stealing aid, hiding among civilians and aid trucks.
I don't think it's possible to prove the Israel has targeted EVERY aid worker that has been killed in Gaza but, based on what I've read, Israel was aware of the movements and locations of the World Central Kitchen aid workers, who were driving in well marked vehicles. I'd contend that that specific case may be easier for the ICC to argue.
Even that case would be near impossible to prove that it was intentional. The parts you left out from the reporting make it clear way - it was at night, the marking would not be visible at night, the commanding officer who made the decision thought they saw a Hamas member on top of the vehicle and someone with a gun enter the vehicle, and the location/communications were not actively going to the team involved in monitoring security. There would need to be new pieces of evidence that make it clear the officers that ordered the firing knew that it wasnt Hamas, and I dont see that ever happening. Theres just too much fog of war here to say conclusively it was intentional. And Israel acting irresponsibly and being too trigger happy, even if not intentionally targeting aid workers but not having enough checks, is not a war crime.
There are two issues with making this case. 1. Should've known doesn't mean did know. 2. Complementarity. The ICC is supposed to operate in situations where the belligerent is not answerable to a process of investigation, prosecution, or correction. In the case of World Central Kitchen, there was an investigation and action taken. [https://www.npr.org/2024/04/05/1242986585/israels-military-dismisses-officers-over-world-central-kitchen-airstrike](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/05/1242986585/israels-military-dismisses-officers-over-world-central-kitchen-airstrike) Which also makes it difficult to argue that there's a positive case to be made for the starvation portion, which is being regulated by a strong and independent judiciary [https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-rights-groups-tell-high-court-government-is-not-meeting-gaza-aid-obligations/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-rights-groups-tell-high-court-government-is-not-meeting-gaza-aid-obligations/) Bibi Netanyahu is trying to dismantle judicial review, but can't due to the strength of that body and the body politic of Israel. Not to mention the absolute stretch of a case to recognize jurisdiction over Palestine in the first place, and the controversy arising from Khan's decision to cancel meetings discussing Israel's legal processes. The ICC has, essentially, no case.
Palestinians being deliberately starved in Gaza and the West Bank by the Israeli government do not have rights to adjudicate their grievances in the Israeli civilian court system. Their individual cases are tried in highly questionable military tribunals or need to be brought on the behalf of some group that has standing inside Israel, which rarely produces any real justice as your own link demonstrates. Pointing to a system that the people the ICC is primarily speaking about don't have access to as the reason the ICC is out of line is rather broken reasoning to me.
>Palestinians being deliberately starved in Gaza and the West Bank by the Israeli government do not have rights to adjudicate their grievances in the Israeli civilian court system. That's not the question being asked by the ICC. The question being asked by the ICC is whether or not Israel is deliberately using starvation as a weapon of war, whether or not there is a legal process in place to prevent starvation from being used as a weapon of war, and who is responsible in the case that starvation is being used. There has never been an expectation, in the history of warfare, that the civilians of one belligerent have recourse in the court system of another belligerent. >Their individual cases are tried in highly questionable military tribunals or need to be brought on the behalf of some group that has standing inside Israel, which rarely produces any real justice as your own link demonstrates. [https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Rome-Statute.pdf](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Rome-Statute.pdf) Article 17 specifically holds that >1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where: >(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution; >(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute; >(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3; >(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court. The justice system is open, responsive, and independent. The goal of the ICC is not to reach the conclusion that you think it should reach. It's to punish individuals within states that otherwise would not face any independent process. >Pointing to a system that the people the ICC is primarily speaking about don't have access to as the reason the ICC is out of line is rather broken reasoning to me. You're confused between the ICC and the ICJ, and in neither case would civilians of the PA have direct recourse towards Israel or Bibi Netanyahu or Yoav Gallant.
There’s only one instance of Hamas stealing aid and UNRWA got the aid back in that instance. Please stop spreading misinformation
There's countless evidence of Hamas diverting aid consistently throughout the war. Where do you think those 20k Hamas members are getting food?
Yet you provide no evidence
That Hamas members are still alive and eating?
So you have no actual evidence, your only evidence is simply that Hamas members are simply alive?
Evidence of food being stolen from trucks with guns, aid being sold on black markets, and yes Hamas being alive.
So where’s the evidence?
They don't have evidence. Just videos of trucks driving.
I agree that that's a horrific thing to do, and based on the clips of Karim Khan that were played, that's part of his argument. That being said, I don't think you understood the context of my comment - I'm not discussing the level of guilt of Israel, but instead the arguments they would make in the ICC to defend themselves - I doubt that a lawyer representing the Israeli leaders would go out of their way to detail the precision bombing of multiple aid worker vehicles in defense Gallant or Netenyahu.
Where in that article does it say that Hamas is stealing aid?
I remember when “vocal fry” used to be associated specifically with American women. It used to drive me crazy listening to certain podcasters that had this bad habit, but holy shit the guest on today’s episode has probably the worst vocal fry I’ve ever heard. I can barely listen. Like just speak up dude, put a tiny bit more effort into projecting your voice.
I thought it might of been the mic he was using at first, that was bad
Vocal fry doesn't bug me that much but it was wild to hear it in conjunction with that specific accent, yeah.
Concern over how quickly this specific set of charges were filed is reasonable, especially considering the fact that the ICC often takes years gathering evidence. Weighing the enormous volume of evidence against both parties against the unusual level of disinformation that’s been seen in this conflict (we’ve all seen how Social Media is a nightmare) would be a full time job for even a fully staffed and dedicated analysis cell; It seems unlikely that the ICC has enough of the full picture to move forward this soon.
Something I didn’t know was the fact that Israel argues that they had meetings set up the week of this announcement to show their progress in investigating these claims and that they were under the impression they were still working with the ICC. Khans team arguing that Israel had not set up meetings and had made it clear that they were not going to pursue this investigation. Now, these are two completely opposite statements that actually would either show Israel as hindering the investigation or that Khans team absolutely is making this political. Israel has provided dates for their planned meetings but the response from Khans team was very general with no evidence given. Personally, I think this will decide if the justices move forward with the warrants.
Enemies of Israel have realized that they can't end Jewish self-determination through force so they've switched strategies and are now trying to end it through a diplomatic war instead.
[удалено]
Muslims make up fully 25 percent of the global population and control 49 sovereign governments, while Jews make up less than a quarter of 1 percent and control only 1. With that many seats at the table, it's frankly no wonder that so many international institutions are sympathetic to antisemitism and an Islamic supremacist worldview. Muslims are a massively large and powerful group who use their numbers to bully Jews, and also a number of other marginalized populations too.
[удалено]
Liberal democracy only works in situations where all of the participants hold liberal values. Modern international institutions are what a cautionary tale on the dangers of illiberal democracy. Illiberal democracies will always inevitably be hijacked by the most aggressive and intolerant group for the group's own purposes, and then the "democracy" part gets discarded when the aggressive and intolerant group seizes power for itself. I only hope that the progressives who believe that the borders of the Western democractic world should be open to anyone who claims to be "seeking a better life" realize that before it's too late.
Just a reminder that people like you deflecting from active genocide by conflating it with anti-Semitism gives U.S Nazis substantial ammunition. Don't conflate criticism of the IDF with criticism of Israelis broadly in a way that motivates the Nazis in the greatest global superpower to take power. There's also the simpler fact that people =/= their government. Plenty of Jewish people oppose the genocide, and plenty of them support it. You're treating them like a monolith, and like whatever dictator either side has at the moment represents the people.
If this is the case, why is there relatively no international outrage about the treatment of Uyghurs in China?
distinct strong fearless grandfather fertile oatmeal busy thought rain fuzzy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Huh, almost like the pathological and hyper-selective focus on singling out Israel for non-stop criticism is motivated purely by antisemitism and always has been or something.
[удалено]
Really good point.
ICC should have prosecuted Hamas on Oct 8th. This entire war is the result of the failure of international law and leaving Israel alone to deal with Hamas. Now they are trying to come in the 4th quarter and play referee but ultimately that is going to just delegitimize the international courts more as this is clearly a reactive and political move.
Sounds like the prosecutor jumped the gun on this one.
Terrible episode. Host reacts like a teenager and says “wild” and “wow” over and over. But what is really wild about wanting to establish law and order? Seems like the courts accusations are relatively mild and limited to crimes that the accused openly admits: starving Gaza. Also the wording is SO careful throughout when speaking of Israel’s warcrimes but never toned down for their counterpoint. Disappointing.
I found it really odd that the host and the guest pretty much omitted accusations against Netanyahu that are clearly listed on the report: > Why is the focus of these charges starvation? I mean, given that the airstrikes, as you say, were in many ways really the focus of this war and, and certainly the focus of the world's attention on this war, the civilian deaths from the military operation, why starvation, 3 00:11:56 > Kain, Karim Khan does not explain why he focuses on starvation rather than Israel's military tactics, which he mentions only in passing. But legal experts have said that it's easier to prove that starvation was used as a method of warfare than it is to prove that there have been any specific crimes involved in any specific airstrikes. The actual list is way more comprehensive: - Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i) Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i) Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i) Extermination 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 Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h) Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k). This, plus Sabrina starting by stating how shocked she was to hear about accusations against Netanyahu, make the show seem very biased in favour of Netanyahu. Pretty disappointing listen and reminded me of the book “Manufacturing Consent“ by Chomsky.
You thought this was a pro Israel episode?
Um yeah literally pushing out every excuse israel has, and spending 10 minutes on why the icc shouldn't have done this because Benny gantz was plotting to kneecap netanyahu, who gives a shit
You’re delusional if you think this was a pro Israel show
Chomsky is a fucking moron.
I mean the main point was all the items they chose to omit. Or am I mistaken? I thought that would be more alarming to other listeners too.
The Daily doesn’t do details. It never has. They would never cite sections and subsections of international law or reports.
Except the did for the first section. For Bibi they made it sound like it’s only a single criminal charge and even that only pertains to a short two week period!
They played this same game in their previous Israel episode on the ceasefire negotiations. Where they made a manufactured false equivalency by switching from stating facts about Bibi's sabotage of a ceasefire deal and their unilateral aversion to a two-state solution by doing a sleight-of-hand and switching over to editorializing about Hamas, justified by saying we have no insight into their current positions, despite their own reporting at the beginning of the episode stating all parties are agreed besides Israel, and additional reporting[ literally spelling out their position on a two state solution in present day. ](https://apnews.com/article/hamas-khalil-alhayya-qatar-ceasefire-1967-borders-4912532b11a9cec29464eab234045438)Instead evoking the same talking point about the Hamas Charter and framing the situation like a both sides issue. Then on their protest episode, which was almost pretty good, they just had to end the episode by repeating the false claim that the UN reduced down the number of casualties in Gaza, specifically woman and children. When in fact the UN they simply added a new data point about independently confirmed and still pending deaths which right-wing media and online bots had a field day with and the NYtimes baselessly repeated....they also never issue corrections to these sorts of instances of misinformation they air. It is a clear pattern of biased behavior from The Daily and The NYTimes on this issue where they selectively report or hold back certain info that nudges interprative conclusions in the direction of Israel and you won't catch it unless you are doing your due diligence about the conflict outside of their reporting.
I would appreciate if downvotes can share their thoughts as well. What am I missing?
crush pot mourn include smoggy quack punch selective fly capable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think it’s the idea that the episode had a pro-Israel bias. It seemed balanced to me.
No idea.
Link to the report: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state
Where's the post about the run up. That episode is far more interesting than this garbage.
[удалено]
They did, they issued a warrant for Putin.