> Israel is nowadays the main obstacle not only to lasting peace in the middle east (and various other regions)
Ironically Israel uses hacking tool sales as a tool for diplomacy[0]. Apparently Pegasus sales played a critical role in the Abraham Accord negotiations. While there are obvious ethical issues here it seems these tools likely actually helped create real peace deals in practice.
The Abraham Accords[0] are a normalization and peace deal.
> That's like saying the alliance of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was a "peace deal".
Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan made a peace deal(they were on different sides in WW1) before they created that military alliance, so that's not really the same thing.
> Israel was also blackmailing Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinsky
How is this related to a peace deal? The US and Israel had normalized relations already.
There are many ways in which Israel differs. For one it's a 78 year old colony that excludes the indigenous Palestinian population from returning to their ethnically cleansed homes. They also allow people to convert to Judiasm and enter, so it actually has nothing to do with their ethnicity and is solely based on religion.
>The Law of Return offers citizenship to Jews wishing to immigrate, as well as non-Jews with at least one Jewish grandparent (see "Who is a Jew under the Law of Return?"), as well as their spouses
I agree it's racist, but they also allow converts:
> Converts to Judaism who wish to immigrate to Israel are evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the Israeli Interior Ministry, which determines whether the conversion was sincere in its view
The reasoning behind the 1970 amendment is usually traced to the Nuremberg Laws. Nazi Germany defined a Jew for the purposes of persecution as anyone with a Jewish grandparent. The amendment drew Israel’s circle of protection at the same radius: if having one Jewish grandparent was enough to be persecuted, it should be enough to be given refuge.
I wasn't making an argument for or against the legitimacy of Israel; I was arguing that self defense explains Israel's immigration laws better than a sense of racial superiority.
It's one thing to accuse Israelis of paranoia, hypocrisy, or even genocide, and it's another to deny that the primary motivation to have Israel be a jewish ethno-state was to have a refuge from persecution.
It isn't clear if the accusation is that I knowingly am telling lies, or that I am gullible and repeating lies. Either way, we could go back and forth all weekend and probably still not agree on much. Cheers.
They are certainly not engaging in genocide. The population of Palestinians has increased by 5% over the past 3 years. Even the population of Gazans has not decreased.
> For one it's a 78 year old colony that excludes the indigenous Palestinian population from returning to their ethnically cleansed homes.
The ethnic cleansing that happened when Israel gained independence was not in just one direction, Israel also did allow plenty of Arab/Palestinians to stay and gave them citizenship where feasible. It's not surprising however that Israel doesn't currently offer citizenship to a population that largely doesn't think Israel should even exist. States don't normally give citizenship to their non-citizen enemies.
> They also allow people to convert to Judiasm and enter, so it actually has nothing to do with their ethnicity and is solely based on religion.
It's not solely based on religion. It's also quite rare for people to convert to Judaism in general so that exception has little practical implications.
> Israel refuses to even define its borders. And current behaviour demonstrates why.
States like Israel formally define their borders via mechanisms like peace deals that include bilateral recognition of agreed upon borders, like Israel has with Egypt and Jordan.
You can't realistically define borders properly otherwise, trying to define borders via unilateral declaration doesn't really work when there are 2 states next to each other, the borders ultimately need to be negotiated bilaterally between those states with both sides recognizing the same borders.
That's not really an accurate characterization of the situation as much of the land was uninhabited/unregistered and/or state owned. The Negev desert for example is a large percentage of the total land area and was effectively uninhabited and not privately owned. Land ownership records at the time were also not particularly clear and often there were disputed claims. Also Israel has about 20% Arab/Palestinian citizens so it's not like they ethnically cleansed everyone like Egypt/Jordan did with the Jews in Gaza and the West Bank when Israel gained independence.
The Q1000K ONT(which also has an optional router feature) used by a major US ISP[0] has some rather crazy driver bugs I used AI to root cause and even live patch[1] as a proof of concept to fix(I found some 6RD protocol corruption bugs as well). Getting root access was also trivial by simply feeding it a copy of the firmware binary. In this case the bug originated from the SoC vendor[2] which I reported to them and they seemed to confirm it(with hopefully fixes making it into new firmware updates). It's pretty crazy how good AI is at reverse engineering and root causing bugs in embedded systems these days. Even stuff like BROM dumps(which are usually heavily stripped) are easily analyzed and even live patched[3] by AI.
> Copyright law applies to all citizens whether or not they've agreed to a contract.
Funny enough SpaceX just ignores copyright law a lot of the time by refusing to comply with some of the GPL licenses for their dishy firmware. I think Tesla does as well to some degree. They generally publish some code but not the complete corresponding source code for the firmware they actually ship.
> If you commit a crime on the territory of a sovereign state, that state gets to punish you. If you are a citizen of a soverign state then that state gets to punish you.
One big issue is that uninvolved member states are agreeing to enforce ICC warrants up front. For example members states have refused to arrest Putin despite having a theoretical legal obligation to do so.
> That is how it works in countries, and that is how it works at the ICC . ICC is no different from any country.
The ICC is not a country, has no territory itself and has no independent enforcement mechanisms.
> The crime has to happen on the territory of a member state or be comitted by a national of a member state (im ignoring the referral from UNSC part as that is obscure)
The ICC has issued warrants for individuals for alleged crimes committed in at least two states that reject ICC jurisdiction, those states being Afghanistan and Israel.
> One big issue is that uninvolved member states are agreeing to enforce ICC warrants up front.
Extradition treaties are common among soverign states. This is no different.
> For example members states have refused to arrest Putin despite having a theoretical legal obligation to do so.
Sometimes you have to bow to realism. Nobody is arresting the head of state of a nuclear armed power. That is a death wish.
Also while the idea of throwing aside soverign immunity for international crimes has quite a bit of precedent, especially for multinational tribunals, its not exactly as on firm ground as the rest of this.
> The ICC has issued warrants for individuals for alleged crimes committed in at least two states that reject ICC jurisdiction, those states being Afghanistan and Israel.
The jurisdictional theory for the Israeli nationals is that the crime took place in palestine which is a member state. If a trial took place im sure they would try and argue that palestine is not really a state, not competent to join the rome statute, or failing that, its territorial extent does not include gaza. It would be up to a judge to rule on that
Afghanistan joined signed the treaty. They have not done the proper procedure to withdraw.
> Nobody is arresting the head of state of a nuclear armed power.
So what's the point of issuing arrest warrants to heads of nuclear armed powers like Russia/Israel then if they wouldn't get arrested?
> If a trial took place im sure they would try and argue that palestine is not really a state, not competent to join the rome statute, or failing that, its territorial extent does not include gaza.
If you go by the UN it's a non-member observer state. If you go by the de facto government of Gaza they(Hamas) clearly never signed the Rome statute.
> It would be up to a judge to rule on that
Well the real question is what judge even has the authority to rule on something like that, most sovereign states will give their own domestic courts authority above any external/foreign courts.
> Afghanistan joined signed the treaty.
The de jure government may have, but not the de facto government. The Palestine jurisdictional situation is even more confusing since they were never recognized by the UN or Israel as a full state.
> They have not done the proper procedure to withdraw.
They withdrew in practice since the ICC has no independent enforcement capability. Not that it means much anyways since even member states will regularly ignore what they signed.
It's a very strange situation where a courts rulings can be almost completely detached from the de facto jurisdiction on the ground. This whole strategy of asserting jurisdiction by the ICC without having any real enforcement capability makes it look like the ICC is making decisions that are totally detached from reality and undermines their own credibility.
> So what's the point of issuing arrest warrants to heads of nuclear armed powers like Russia/Israel then if they wouldn't get arrested?
Well they won't be heads of state forever. The Israeli guy might even be out of power at the end of the month. And it does restrict their travel - fairly significantly. They of course didn't just issue warrants for heads of state, although the same analysis probably applies to the other accused.
Ultimately i think it was an ideological stand - The ICC prosecutor wanted to say nobody is above the law, even if practically there are limits.
At the same time, i do kind of agree, it undermines the ICC when it puts itself in a position where it knows it cant really win, and makes it seem in some ways like it is making a political statement rather than pursuing justice.
> If you go by the UN it's a non-member observer state. If you go by the de facto government of Gaza they(Hamas) clearly never signed the Rome statute.
Well yeah, that is why its a contentious question. People who recognize the state of Palestine generally view Gaza as part of it, despite the fact that the (official) state of palestine only controlled the area for a very short time long ago. Not to mention Palestine lacking some of the traditional attributes associated with states. It would be up to the judges of the ICC to determine what the ICC thinks. I think there was already a preliminary ruling, but if the Israeli accused surrendered themselves, i'm sure that would have to be relitigated.
> The de jure government [of afghanistan] may have, but not the de facto government
well, de jure & de facto at the time. Governments change, but treaty obligations stay. I think the taliban considers itself the successor state. They could have withdrawn at any point (with 1 year notice) if they felt like it. they still havent.
> They withdrew in practice since the ICC has no independent enforcement capability
The main point of withdrawing is rescinding the ICC's permission to use the states soverign ability to prosecute crimes as a basis of jurisdiction. Like yeah, there is also the cooperating in apregending fugitives bit as well, but that was always mostly on the honor system.
>It's a very strange situation where a courts rulings can be almost completely detached from the de facto jurisdiction on the ground. This whole strategy of asserting jurisdiction by the ICC without having any real enforcement capability makes it look like the ICC is making decisions that are totally detached from reality and undermines their own credibility.
I'll grant you its strange in the Palestine case, where the state of palestine does not have de facto juridsiction in gaza, but that is kind of exceptional.
In most cases the situation is more that the accused has either fled or otherwise not present in the territory, which is pretty normal for courts. Like with ukraine, i'm sure ukraine would have no problem prosecuting putin if he presented himself to ukraine. The issue is he is at large outside of the territory. That seems pretty common thing to happen in normal courts.
People give most of the attention to the weird cases, but i think the less famous icc cases tend to be a lot more normal.
In many ways, the ICC is best viewed as an extradition pact with its own court.
> The Israeli guy might even be out of power at the end of the month.
Yeah, although his replacement would be highly unlikely to hand him over to the ICC either.
> They of course didn't just issue warrants for heads of state, although the same analysis probably applies to the other accused.
They did also issue warrants for some dead Hamas terrorists I guess.
> Ultimately i think it was an ideological stand - The ICC prosecutor wanted to say nobody is above the law, even if practically there are limits.
Could be, could also be he needed a distraction from his own misconduct investigation[0] or a bit of both. From what I've seen he rushed a very weak case but it's hard to say exactly why, could be for political reasons. Ultimately it probably just makes the ICC look weak since the warrants would be highly unlikely to be executed.
> Governments change, but treaty obligations stay.
When governments change treaty obligations tend to mostly matter to the degree they are enforce in practice.
> They could have withdrawn at any point (with 1 year notice) if they felt like it. they still havent.
Well...apparently they can't because the Taliban is not UN recognized.[1]
> The main point of withdrawing is rescinding the ICC's permission to use the states soverign ability to prosecute crimes as a basis of jurisdiction. Like yeah, there is also the cooperating in apregending fugitives bit as well, but that was always mostly on the honor system.
I mean, the apprehending fugitives part is kind of important, since that's the enforcement mechanism. Clearly the honor system doesn't seem to be working all that well.
> In most cases the situation is more that the accused has either fled or otherwise not present in the territory, which is pretty normal for courts.
I guess that has happened a bit in Africa, with how dysfunctional the courts there can be I can see cases where something like the ICC would make sense. On the other hand most of the middle east never became member states so it's rather useless there.
> Like with ukraine, i'm sure ukraine would have no problem prosecuting putin if he presented himself to ukraine. The issue is he is at large outside of the territory.
Well they would probably do that themselves rather than hand him over to the ICC. From my understanding ICC is generally only supposed to step in if local courts fail to act.
> In many ways, the ICC is best viewed as an extradition pact with its own court.
Which I guess is the main problem, the enforcement mechanism is kind of terrible, paired with the ICC seemingly deliberately trying pretty hard to stretch their jurisdiction makes them look like they are just playing political games a lot of the time.
The court probably shouldn't be making threats of arrest it can't carry through on. Similar to how Trump was making threats against Iran that he clearly wasn't willing to carry out made him look weak when they called his bluff.
> Thank you for submitting a DMCA takedown notice. We've reviewed the information you've provided, and based on the facts presented to us, we're unable to confirm a violation of 17 U.S. Code § 1201.
Did they actually republish you code or were they just creating wrappers that download/cache the code from your website to run locally?
> The lite version has better performance since it’s effectively just a bunch of MV3 blocklists.
I think in practice ublock origin lite results in worse overall performance than regular ublock origin since it's worse at blocking ads(which cause more performance issues than the ad-blocker itself).
Ironically Israel uses hacking tool sales as a tool for diplomacy[0]. Apparently Pegasus sales played a critical role in the Abraham Accord negotiations. While there are obvious ethical issues here it seems these tools likely actually helped create real peace deals in practice.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/28/world/middleeast/israel-p...
reply