what do i think should be done in gaza?

the idea that gaza is or should be an independent country is moronic and people stating as much cannot be listened to or otherwise taken seriously. anybody suggesting a palestinian state as an outcome of this process should be laughed out of the room; that is not a serious discussion.

gaza needs a marshall plan, and it needs to be done under heavy israeli occupation, in conjunction with a un peacekeeping force. they should depopulate the entire region, bulldoze it, rebuild it and then focus on ensuring that the new inhabitants receive a secular education that separates them from their recent history of islamism. this focus on a secular education is of the utmost importance and the primary tactic that is required to prevent further conflict in the region. a particular focus on economic development should also be fundamental.

international law is likely to be more of a hindrance than a help in stabilizing the region and some attempt to reform the international institutions to rewrite some laws to be less conservative and allow for more aggressive processes of needed change may also be required. this legal regime was written to freeze the world as it was in 1945, and that is no longer what anybody should want and something that needs to be moved on from. this is a situation where forced population replacement is helpful to the stability of the region, and the law should allow for it rather than try to stop it. this idea that all population replacement is criminal needs to be re-examined.

once the region is rebuilt, i think there should be a referendum to join egypt, with egypt's consent. if that referendum fails, some talk of statehood may again become relevant some time around 2050.

the substantive part of the prosecutor's application for a warrant against netanyahu would appear to be the (baseless) clam that he's starving the population, which is not rooted in clear evidence and which i do not expect to be granted. the israelis claim that they're being careful about shipments in and out of the country to stop weapons smuggling, and that's a convincing argument. further, the fact is that gazans aren't starving and that israel is only indirectly responsible for the absence of any sort of economy in gaza and the presence of poor eating habits, which is mostly cultural. i would like to see an objective comparison on child malnutrition performed between gaza, egypt and the united states; i would expect the result to be illuminating. the prosecutor needs to demonstrate grounds that include intent, and i don't think he can even establish that the facts on the ground justify a charge at all.

it is well documented that hamas hides behind civilians (and uses hospitals and schools as bases) and that hamas' tactics are what is primarily responsible for the high collateral. there is simply no clear intent to target civilians, as could be demonstrated in a court of law (israel can clearly demonstrate a number of things it does to avoid civilian targets, and consequently even avoid a negligence charge), and there is simply no actual mass of starving civilians, despite repeated warnings that such an outcome is imminent which never seem to materialize.

as such, i would expect the justices to reject the warrant against netanyahu and gallant as lacking in merit.

if you read through the statement by the prosecutor, it is apparent that the warrant request is some kind of identity politics designed to balance the much more grounded application against hamas leadership, including that currently living in qatar. it is much easier to demonstrate that the oct 7th attack was planned and intentionally slaughtered civilians and took them hostage; this very clearly meets the definition of an obvious war crime that can actually be prosecuted in a court of law, as we have real victims and we actually have intent. the prosecutor's statement is full of weasley words and both sidesism that make it clear that the court doesn't want to be seen as taking a side in the conflict, and is therefore charging representatives of both parties to evade a claim of pro-israeli bias.

this is unfortunate and comes off as amateur. hamas is a terrorist group that needs to be brought to justice; the israeli state is trying to do that using the methods available to it, and should not be lectured by distant academics in their comfortable ivory towers. yet, for whatever political reasons, they seem to have felt the need to do this, and it can only be criticized for what it is.

if there is a potential issue of bias to note, it is rather worth noting that the prosecutor is a muslim and as such has a conflict of interest that should cause him to defer the case to somebody of non-muslim background. history will harshly judge a muslim prosecutor framing this attack on "zionism" using the warped language that they use.

there is an extremely strong case for war crimes against hamas and i expect the warrants to be granted. this is a positive development; the qatar leadership should be rotting in the hague.

conversely, the legal case against netanyahu is exceedingly weak and i would be very surprised if the court grants the warrant request at all, let alone if there's any sort of trial.

instead of pretending that there's some kind of equivalence between hamas and the israeli state, or that both sides should be held to the same standards, i would call on the icc to acknowledge that this isn't a war but a police operation and that israel has the right to dismantle what is essentially an organized crime syndicate operating on it's border in order to stop it from committing crimes in it's territory. there is some language in the statement that indicates that there is a realization that what is happening is not a war and should not be framed as one, despite the propaganda from al jazaeera and the jingoist press releases from the knesset.

the political considerations here are likely substantive, as past israeli leaderss (most notably ariel sharon) legitimately should have been charged with war crimes, and were not. this police operation to shut down hamas is the most justified israeli action in decades, yet it is the one that gets the response from the icc, as weak as it is. netanyahu is a very prickly character that is widely disliked, but that doesn't create the legal justification to charge him with such weak evidence, when his predecessors were so obviously guilty of actual crimes that could have been actually prosecuted and were not.

the icc might even be charged with collectively punishing netanyahu for the crimes of sharon, but we're not there yet.

my opinion on marriage is that it's an archaic institution that has no place in modern society and should be abolished. to the extent that it ought to exist at all, it ought to exist as a purely religious ceremony. i actually would very forcibly argue that enforcing a separation of church and state in a secular society means removing the state from any responsibility of oversight or definition of marriage at all; the state has no place in the activity of marriage, it is strictly a religious function.

what that means is that if the religious psychotics want to define marriage as heterosexual, i actually think they have a right to do that, as marriage is their idea and their institution. a secular society rooted in atheist civil traditions would not have marriage at all, as it is not a secular idea and doesn't make any sense in a truly atheist worldview. 

it would follow that if gay people want to invent their own religion and define their own institutions, they ought to be free to that, i guess. i mean, to the extent that any kind of marriage is stupid, gay people getting married isn't any more stupid. this isn't something the state should be involved in defining or overseeing, it ought to be a religious institution and process that the state has no power to interfere in. 

this is a legal and civil opinion: marriage is obsolete, but gay people shouldn't be told they can't get married, if they can find a religion to marry them, and they really insist.

but, my personal opinion is that gay marriage is a dumb idea that is attempting to enforce a concept of human nature that is contrary to our biological instincts and our normal behaviour. lesbian marriage strikes me as particularly stupid. nobody should be surprised to find out that gay marriages rarely last more than a year, and the average length of a lesbian marriage is measured in months. these girls are all just lying to themselves.

when i meet married lesbians (particularly), i have a hard time taking them seriously. either they're (in fact imminently) going to cheat on each other and end their friendship in a vicious cat fight as they accuse each other of being controlling, or it's an open relationship and they're not really married. this is not real marriage by any sort of meaningful definition, and no thinking person would ever interpret it that way.