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.

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.

Why? From my understanding he was given the award for his part in negotiating what ultimately became the Camp David Accords, which have held to this day.

> Itzhak Rabin and Shimon Perez

At least they were negotiating for peace in good faith, unlike Arafat[0].

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3

You can find details from other sources as well.[0][1][2][3][4][5][6] She quite often runs cover for antisemitism.

[0] https://www.newsweek.com/new-low-antisemitism-un-opinion-172...

[1] https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-geneva-race-an...

[2] https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world%2Fambassador-decries-...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/20/un-race-confer...

[4] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/eu-threatens-to-boycot...

[5] https://www.france24.com/en/20090419-growing-western-boycott...

[6] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-politics/australia-...

[0] https://unwatch.org/un-watch-documents-navi-pillays-bias/

The evidence for a Khazar origin is apparently quite weak, it's likely any Khazar link would be relatively minor if it even exists.[0] I think the Khazar's are more from the western Eurasian steppe region as opposed to near east(middle east). The original article I think was mentioning the Khazar hypothesis more as an alternative potential explanation that others have proposed.

The genetic links to the middle east are fairly strong on the paternal line.[1]

Obviously a lot of this is ongoing research of population genetics so our understanding of some of the details may change overtime but from the looks of it the paternal line ties to the middle east are strong enough that one can be fairly confident that the Ashkenazi have at minimum at least a partial middle eastern origin.

> This is the paper you linked to btw, just absolute mythical nonsense

This appears to be describing some of the tribal background that could potentially be relevant to researchers. Especially for cross referencing historical documents.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jews#Y-DNA_...

This part of the quote appears to indicate an overwhelming majority of Near Eastern ancestry, the remaining part of the quote is simply adding more details/context:

> the MSY results interpreted plausibly to suggest an overwhelming majority of Near Eastern ancestry on the Ashkenazi male line of descent

Do you see those citation links associated with the lines you quoted in the article?

Lets follow one[0] and see what publication it is referencing[1] so we can be sure we are correctly understanding this section.

Next lets look at the referenced article[1] to get some more context.

The article being referenced by the citation also clearly supports a Near East paternal lineage(in addition to European Ancestries) from the title alone:

> Multiple Origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y Chromosome Evidence for Both Near Eastern and European Ancestries

So it's clearly the case that Ashkenazi Jews have Near Eastern ancestry in addition to European.

I do have a bit of a background myself in biology but research papers like this shouldn't be that hard to follow even if you don't.

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3543#ref-CR22

[1] https://doi.org/10.1086%2F378506

As the "A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages" title implies the European ancestry is in regards to the maternal line specifically.

The article itself in fact clearly supports a Near East paternal lineage:

> the MSY results interpreted plausibly to suggest an overwhelming majority of Near Eastern ancestry on the Ashkenazi male line of descent

Your claim was "Not only would it be good for the Middle East, it would be good for the entire planet." in regards to Civil War and Total Collapse in Israel, which is very different that claiming it would be a good thing if Israel simply magically "goes away". Civil War and Total Collapse would have a lot of additional negative implications inherently attached.

> No more pedophile blackmail, no more political bribes, no more stealing my tax dollars, no more manipulating my media, no more removing my rights and most importantly no more genocide of Palestinians!

I don't see how Civil War and Total Collapse would be good for the Palestinians or the region in general even if what you were claiming were true.

You might not be aware but the super right wing Israeli's are basically all in favor of reducing Israel's reliance on the US because they feel this reliance puts too many restrictions on Israel since that support gives the US some ability to politically moderate Israel's actions.

> Let's put it to the test. No US support, only sanctions. Let's see how far they get.

This was basically the situation immediately after the founding of Israel when Israel was at its weakest. Israel was historically the most aggressive when it had the least amount of outside support.

You're avoiding answering how it's supposedly a good thing for the world for there to be a civil war and total collapse in Israel as you've claimed.

> The only country that has ever used nuclear bombs on a population is the US.

This is relevant how?

> Both the Soviet Union and South Africa had nuclear weapons and were successfully dissolved.

South Africa still exists as a state last I checked. The Soviet Union was an organized dissolution and Russia retained the Soviet nuclear arsenal while invading other states unprovoked. You've asserted that "Not only would it be good for the Middle East, it would be good for the entire planet." in regards to Civil War and Total Collapse in Israel, do you actually believe this to be the case? I suspect you actually don't because when asked you are unable to say how that would be a good thing for the world.

Ethnic cleansing did happen, but it wasn't just in one direction. Apartheid is race based discrimination, Israel mostly just has citizenship based discrimination these days(like most countries). War is also not the same thing as genocide.

> Supporting its "right to exist" is to support all of those things.

Do you think the US has a "right to exist"? You can make an equally if not more plausible claim that the US could only exist via ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide due to what happened to the Native Americans.

It's confusing because "Jewish" has both a religious and ethnic meaning depending on the context, while "Scientologist" would generally only have a religious meaning. This distinction is the source of a lot of confusion.

> they don't have a right to go genocide indigenous people to make one

I don't think anyone here is arguing that any group has the right to genocide any other group of people to create a new state, that is a straw man argument.

The actual arguments would be that war is not a genocide in addition to the fact that Jews are historically indigenous to the region. Israel also already exists so this isn't a matter of making a new state.

Did they actually republish you code or were they just creating wrappers that download/cache the code from your website to run locally?

The vast majority of Jews do support Israel having a right to exist.

> I’m told that’s antisemitism.

You seem to be conflating Jews supporting Israel having a right to exist with Jews supporting some particular actions taken by some Israeli's or Israeli government policies. One can support Israel having a right to exist while still being against specific government policies or specific actions taken by Israeli's.

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).

It was only created as a workaround to Google killing proper adblock related API support for manifest v3, it's definitely worse than regular ublock origin.

You appear to be somewhat implying that the settlers which are engaging in violence are mostly Ultra-Orthodox(Haredi) Jews. Which is weird since only about 30% of settlers are Ultra-Orthodox and they tend to mostly reside in settlements along the Green Line(which are generally the least problematic type of settlement) for mostly economic reasons. The Ultra-Orthodox also generally try and avoid military service and don't typically engage in violent clashes with Palestinians. I don't know why you seem to be blaming a group that is largely trying to avoid IDF service for "the circle of violence", they tend to clash mostly with Israeli police if anything when protesting against mandatory conscription.[0]

The group you're probably thinking of that causes a lot of the problems by deliberately picking fights(i.e those in outpost settlements that are typically illegal even under Israeli law) when you think of settlers are more National-Religious(Dati Leumi).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi_conscription_in_Israel

That's just not true.

The last post I commented on[0] wasn't Israel related.

> Is this really the place for propaganda ?

How is a question about the source of this report propaganda?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49940809

I'm pretty sure most countries spy on many countries.

> answering your own question as to why the world will be better off without them.

That wasn't my question, the question was how would Civil War and Total Collapse of a nuclear armed state like Israel be good for the entire planet as you've suggested?