I can't speak for Halal but in Israel Kosher is considered a scam by quite a few people. The idea that Kosher is given by a private entity isn't exactly correct. It's a rabbinical institute, not a private business. Their incentives are problematic.
In order to get a Kosher stamp you need an "observer" who is some guy you pay to hang around and make sure you do everything right. Sometimes the guy is actually helpful, but usually it's just some nephew of the Rabbi who hands out the kosher certificate.
Their main focus is to keep you purchasing only other products deemed kosher. Not the quality of the food or even cleanliness. If you annoy the wrong people you can lose your certificate and essentially get black listed. You can't open on a Saturday etc.
I used to joke that the easiest way to gauge the quality of the restaurant is in an inverse proportion to the size of its kosher sign. Most restaurants in Tel Aviv (excluding, Humus, Falafel or Shuwarma places) are not kosher.
I just spent 30 minutes trying to get a python package running on my Mac... Not feeling that. Pythons version compatibility is just awful and the mix of native is deeply problematic. Don't get me started on tooling and observability.
One major thing that's missing from this analysis is the rise of cheap mobile laser defense systems that can stop these missiles/drones pretty quickly. If the weather isn't ideal for lasers a ship can just move out of range.
Corrupt people like Khan inadvertently give Netanyahu legitimacy and hurt the voices within Israel that are trying to stop him. Biased reporting like the BBC is responsible is a huge part of the problem.
I'm sorry but why? War crimes are war crimes. Raping prisoners is raping prisoners, being right or left has nothing to do with it.
ICC investigation are needed to see if there is any substance to the allegations, whoever the prosecution is, and why would be left-leaning or right-leaning influence it?
If state/billionaire propaganda use it as propaganda props, that's not the props fault, and they would use other perceived slights instead.
The claim of war crimes is unverified and deeply one sided decided by a court presided by a country that was literally firing missiles at Israel at the time.
> Raping prisoners
This was contested. There was an assault that was illegal and included a sexual incident (although was not intended as such). It's terrible, sure and it's on trial right now. That has nothing to do with what I said. You're trying to turn the conversation into something else instead of focusing on the facts.
The fact is that you're strengthening one zero sum player (Hamas), which works against Palestinians. This doesn't strengthen Palestinians in any way. On the contrary, it forces them into conflict with Israel which isn't good for anyone.
This is a strategy of chaos agents in a world where two zero sum players are in conflict. The right strategy is to calm things and support the centrists without strengthening these a*holes. It isn't about Israel, it's about the terrible government Israel has right now. This isn't about Palestinians, it's about Hamas.
This must have been a misunderstanding on what i wrote, but i'm not a native speaker, also this could be cultural difference. I will try to expand on my first sentence since that where you disagree (?).
In my country, a prosecutor direct the police to find proofs of alleged crimes. In that case, multiple one including war crime, geneva convention on prisonner of war breachs, including but not limited to rape. If the prosecutor cannot do that, nothing can be judged. The faster the prosecutor do their job, the faster those thing can be judged. It is in in the interest of everybody involved (with the exception of guilty parties) that the prosecution can work unimpeded, so that judgement can be made faster. If not enough proof were found despite the prosecutor work, then the judges will be able to rule a dismissal. The identity of the prosecutor is a negligeable factor.
This is not a left-wing viewpoint, this is a right of law viewpoint (and it is _extremely_ damageable that some people conflate the two).
And with all due respect, "support the centrists"? Who do you call "centrist" here? The extreme centrists? The "moderate" bourgeoisie? The military new aristocracy?
But you're right in a sense, because what happen when those centrist are loosing their power base and they have to choose between loosing power or catering to the violent is now history.
> In my country, a prosecutor direct the police to find proofs of alleged crimes.
There's a trial in Israel going against Netanyahu for his corruption. That's how countries work. A leader isn't above the law.
However, your country can't be on trial by another country. Worse, Israel isn't a part of the ICC. It didn't sign any of the treaties and the ICC has no jurisdiction. So why is it in Israel?
Because the Palestinians joined the ICC. This is pretty problematic and one sided. The judge presiding the case was from Lebanon who was firing missiles daily at Israel... Not exactly jury of its peers.
> In that case, multiple one including war crime, geneva convention on prisonner of war breachs, including but not limited to rape.
That's what people who just read the initial headlines and social media spin say. The evidence is very flimsy and mostly based on reporting from Hamas controlled Gaza. In terms of standards for warfare. I haven't been there and I wouldn't trust most people who have (from either side). I'm sure there were war crimes (and I'm pretty sure Hamas did far worse) and I don't want to make excuses for them. But there's a huge difference between individual action and organized genocide/ethnic cleansing which are the false claims.
> This is not a left-wing viewpoint, this is a right of law viewpoint
Law is within the borders of a country. International law is a very different thing.
> (and it is _extremely_ damageable that some people conflate the two).
I very much agree. Imagine someone blaming from another country taking over your country... This is literally what the ICC is trying to do to Israel, and I'm saying this as a person who despises Netanyahu with every fiber of my being.
> And with all due respect, "support the centrists"? Who do you call "centrist" here? The extreme centrists? The "moderate" bourgeoisie? The military new aristocracy?
The people who literally go out and demonstrate against Netanyahu and his government every day. The people who are trying to get a deal made so they can see their children again who were kidnapped from their homes by Hamas. Those people!
> But you're right in a sense, because what happen when those centrist are loosing their power base and they have to choose between loosing power or catering to the violent is now history.
Centrist are indeed moving to the right thanks to the pro-Palestine demonstrators. They demonstrate to a lot of Israelis that there's only one country that accepts Jews and why it's crucial to fight for it. Israelis in general look at this as: "We tried giving Palestinians a country (twice arguably more), they attacked us repeatedly." This is pushing a lot of Israelis into the scary "it's either us or them" territory.
If you are an expert on international law you can correct me, but I was under the impression that jurisdiction applies to where the crime is committed, not where the perpetrator resides. So when an Israeli commits a war crime in Palestine, Palestinian laws apply, and if the Palestinian courts are unwilling, or unable to prosecute said crimes, ICC steps in and takes on the case. This is no different to how Putin is being charged for crimes he is committing in Ukraine, despite Russia not being a member of the ICC.
I think there is an exception if the Israeli (or Russia in the case of Putin) justice system would prosecute the crimes fairly, then the ICC passes on jurisdiction, but as we clearly see, there is no indication that that will happen.
> The people who literally go out and demonstrate against Netanyahu and his government every day.
That is fine and dandy, but completely irrelevant while he is not being charged for war crimes by the Israeli justice system. If he goes to prison for corruption that isn’t exactly justice for the war crimes he has ordered committed.
There is no overarching system of international law, appearances to the contrary. The signatories to the Rome statute agree to assist the ICC in investigating and prosecuting cases, which may or may not involve citizens of Rome signatory countries. The ICC isn't magic. Most of the world's population resides in non-member countries. Unlike an ordinary domestic court, the ICC cannot compel testimony; it can't even host an adversarial hearing in situations (like this one) where both parties don't agree to the premise of the ICC's legitimacy.
We could get more specific about the limitations and legitimacy of the ICC, if you wanted to.
The jurisdictional argument you're alluding to is based on this bit of the Rome Statute:
> the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute ... (a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred ...
The alleged crimes occurred in Gaza, so the ICC considers itself to have jurisdiction if the associated state is a signatory. The argument goes that the PLO signed the Rome Statue on behalf of the "State of Palestine", which claims Gaza as part of its territory.
The questionable part to me is that in reality, Hamas is the government of Gaza. The international community can declare another entity it prefers as the de jure government, but it's fairly meaningless when that other entity has never controlled or governed Gaza.
Even if we accept the idea that the ICC has jurisdiction under its own rules, that means nothing to a country like Israel which never accepted those rules, and also can't really expect a fair trial.
> The questionable part to me is that in reality, Hamas is the government of Gaza.
As far as I remember Hamas welcomed the ICC indictments against the Israeli officials (but opposed the now dropped indictments against the Hamas leaders). But also how is this different from the Russian de facto governance over Donbas and other Russian occupied regions in Ukraine, where the alleged crimes occurred? Or am I mistaken in believing that the indictments over Putin are less controversial?
With the ICC's indictment of Putin, my understanding is that at the time Ukraine hadn't formally ratified the Rome Statue yet (so the clause I quoted wouldn't apply), but they had accepted the ICC's jurisdiction in a more limited capacity which gave the ICC a slightly different way of asserting jurisdiction.
As far as I know, Hamas is not a party to the Rome Statue and also has not accepted ICC jurisdiction the way Ukraine did; Hamas welcoming a particular case doesn't really help with the ICC's jurisdictional claim.
(I'm also not sure the ICC would allow Hamas to become a party or accept jurisdiction, since they're operating in a sort of alternate reality where a different entity is the government of Gaza, but that's another matter.)
I’ve heard the story before that the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank applied to the ICC as a way to get back at Hamas, in the hope that the ICC would investigate Hamas. However reading the material here (primarily for the sibling thread) I’m starting to wonder if that narrative is true. It seems like from the get-go Israel—not Hamas—has been the primary target of investigation. The investigations I have looked at seem to primarily be focused on settler policy (including settler violence) in the West Bank, and Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza. Meanwhile there isn’t much investigation into Hamas. Even the 2024 indictments against Hamas members seem to not be based on internal investigations by the court, but rather by accusations in what smells like both-side-ism from afar. In fact that seems to be a pattern. The court finds war crimes committed by Israel, and then tags on crimes which Israel claims Hamas is doing (stuff like using human shields, etc.).
So what is interesting here, and perhaps runs counter to your guesses, is that I can‘t actually find Hamas disputing jurisdiction. Last November they disputed the impartiality of the court (i.e. what I call both-side-ism) but not jurisdiction. Israel has however disputed jurisdiction from the beginning, but not on the grounds you guessed above, rather their argument is based on the fact that Palestine is not a sovereign nation, so they cannot apply to become a member of the court. This was settled in 2021. Other member states had already recognized Palestine as a sovereign enough state to be a legitimate member in 2014, and a formal investigation into crimes committed in all Palestine territories began in 2015. This included Gaza (governed by Hamas) and East Jerusalem (governed by Israel). Meanwhile USA’s primary dispute seems to be that Israel prosecutes war crimes committed in the Palestinian Territories, so that the court should only have jurisdiction over crimes committed by Hamas in Gaza, not Israel’s crimes in the same territory. Although back in 2019, it argued with Israel that Palestine was not a sovereign enough state.
So in summary, from my reading, I found nowhere where anybody disputed the court’s jurisdiction in Gaza and East Jerusalem, while recognizing jurisdiction in the West Bank.
I wouldn't necessarily say that the State of Palestine is not a real state, but it just isn't a state whose territory includes Gaza under any reasonable interpretation, despite what some international lawyers say. It's unprecedented to say "we deem the actual (sort of) elected government illegitimate, and deem this other entity as the rightful government" when that other entity has never controlled, administered, or been popularly supported in the territory in question.
I'm not sure what you mean about the ICC relying on Israeli claims about Hamas? If the ICC wanted to go after Hamas leaders, aside from the questionable jurisdictional argument, is seems like the easiest case. There's no question that Hamas leaders were involved in taking hostages, for example, which is just one of many war crimes the ICC could prosecute.
> I think there is an exception if the Israeli (or Russia in the case of Putin) justice system would prosecute the crimes fairly, then the ICC passes on jurisdiction, but as we clearly see, there is no indication that that will happen.
Right now the Israeli court system is prosecuting the individual assaults from Sde Teiman (the rape claim). During the evidence stage it turns out that the allegations seem to be very overblown, there was an assault. Not rape. The problem is that it's very hart to have a properly functioning justice system when people from the extreme right are blaming you of "working with the enemy". External action and social media are causing a problem instead of focusing on specific wrongdoings.
This is deeply problematic and doesn't help.
> > The people who literally go out and demonstrate against Netanyahu and his government every day.
> That is fine and dandy, but completely irrelevant while he is not being charged for war crimes by the Israeli justice system. If he goes to prison for corruption that isn’t exactly justice for the war crimes he has ordered committed.
Because there is literally no evidence of that. The only evidence ICC brought forth is declaratory intent. Members of the government said some pretty horrible things. That is indeed awful, but not a war crime, genocide or even ethnic cleansing.
After the last ceasefire, Palestinians returned to their homes disproving a large part of the ethnic cleansing allegations. By modern definitions of war in an urban area this was relatively clean.
Like all western democracies Israel has separation of branches. The army is separate and even if a minister wants to perform a war crime, he can't just command it. There is a chain of command and the legitimacy of the orders is evaluated along the command chain.
That means war crimes do happen, like they do in every war. Due to social media and the nature of this specific war they are far more visible (and often faked). Should they be prosecuted, sure. But focusing on that alone is problematic as it again, incentivizes the worst players and escalates the conflict.
Like I said, I‘m not an expert on international law, but I have a feeling you might simply be wrong here. This is HN so I went and looked at the relevant documents[1][2], and from my reading I gathered that:
a) The jurisdiction was established way back in 2021[1], and
b) The court doesn’t deal with evidence directly when issuing indictments, but rather reasonable grounds[2], or as the news of the warrants stated:
> With regard to the crimes, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu, born on 21 October 1949, Prime Minister of Israel at the time of the relevant conduct, and Mr Gallant, born on 8 November 1958, Minister of Defence of Israel at the time of the alleged conduct, each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.
> The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.
The alleged crimes are summarized in [2] (I’m not quoting them here because it is basically 2/3 of the whole article, so go read it your self if you care). But I have to agree with the court there is reasonable grounds here. Other courts (like the ICJ) and human rights organizations, like the Human Rights Watch[3][4] and Amnesty International[5][6] have provided plenty of evidence to support the claim of reasonable grounds.
> But focusing on that [prosecution of war crimes] alone is problematic as it again, incentivizes the worst players and escalates the conflict.
> This is a political problem, not a legal problem.
I disagree. This is moral problem, and is fundamental to the rule of law. If Israel gets away with these crimes, it threatens the very foundation of the rule of law, and the whole international system is in peril. You can argue that was also the case with the Iraq war, and I would agree with you. But Israel’s crimes are so grave, and so obvious, that if we let that slide because of some vague—and honestly suspiciously convenient—notion of politics, there is nothing stopping bad actors from creating a political crisis to start the next set of atrocities.
> a) The jurisdiction was established way back in 2021, and
The ICC decided it has jurisdiction, since Israel isn't a member that is pretty problematic.
> b) The court doesn’t deal with evidence directly when issuing indictments, but rather reasonable grounds[2], or as the news of the warrants stated:
Sure. Again another reason why this is just insane. People accepted this when the court was dealing with a rouge dictator or warlord but it's an insane law to apply towards a western democracy. Imagine them issuing an arrest warrant for GW Bush or Tony Blair... Or Churchill for that matter.
I'm not comparing the a*hole Netanyahu to any of them. But the concept is the same. Israel is upheld to a standard that no other country on earth has ever been upheld to.
> the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare;
I agree this is awful. But that ignores the robbery and hoarding of food by Hamas. Israel lets in trucks with supplies which get robbed the moment they cross over. Hamas hoards supplies in the tunnels and lets the civilians starve as a tactic.
I agree that Israel should still let the trucks through despite that. However, blaming Israel alone essentially gives Hamas the incentive to keep stealing the supplies which they are doing.
Worse, Netanyahu points at that and blames the antisemites who blame Israel unjustly. So he's back at it again. That didn't help and made things worse.
> and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.
That's just general nonsense. This is a war that was started by an inhuman genocidal attack by a body whose own goal is the destruction of Israel (not freedom). Hamas is still holding hostages as of now and was still firing missiles not too long ago (as it has been for the past ±20 years. Before that it was blowing up busses and restaurants.
> The alleged crimes are summarized in [2] (I’m not quoting them here because it is basically 2/3 of the whole article, so go read it your self if you care).
This is all in relation to the deprivation of food/electricity/gas and water. I generally agree this is awful.
But that's exactly what the extreme right and Hamas are trying to do and the ICC has made things worse.
> But I have to agree with the court there is reasonable grounds here.
Reasonable grounds doesn't justify an arrest warrant. The only thing that worked was pressure from Biden. This should never have gone to trial which has made things far worse for everyone who is moderate on both sides.
> Other courts (like the ICJ) and human rights organizations, like the Human Rights Watch[3][4] and Amnesty International[5][6] have provided plenty of evidence to support the claim of reasonable grounds.
Most of the "evidence" is based from Gaza and is in-effect tainted. These organizations are deeply biased e.g. the article was literally from Beirut.
I get what you're saying, but blaming Israel for war crimes when the other side is a terrorist nation that is still holding hostage civilians... That's pretty insane.
>> > This is a political problem, not a legal problem.
> I disagree. This is moral problem, and is fundamental to the rule of law.
That's exactly the mistake.
First off, which law?
Sharia law like they have in Gaza where a gay person is buried alive using a spoon by his brother (real story)... The ICC law doesn't apply. Hell, even the Palestinian authority who joined the ICC hasn't been in control of Gaza since 2005.
But most importantly, who enforces the law? Who returns the hostages? Who disarms Hamas?
It's super easy to sit in a western country and pass judgement. Hold people to a standard that you will never live to. Where is the justice for the people in the tunnels?
Hamas can stop this at any moment in time by releasing the hostages. They want this conflict to continue. Netanyahu wants it to continue as well. These people give it fuel instead of chocking out the conflict.
> But Israel’s crimes are so grave, and so obvious,
You were too far from the Iraq war to actually know what really went down there. Also, notice that America lost Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc. It isn't because they don't have the best weapons. They do. It's because they don't fight to win. Here's why America is losing wars: https://www.amazon.com/If-Takes-Thousand-Years-Jihadists/dp/...
Israel just can't afford to lose here. Despite what Hamas fantasizes about, Israelis won't go back to Europe. Most Israelis were born in Israel and over half were chased out of Muslim countries.
I 100% agree that Israel should find a way to take care of the Palestinian civilians. To its credit it tried to do just that by going around Hamas to one of the local powerful families. Hamas assassinated the head of the family as a warning to the other families.
> that if we let that slide because of some vague—and honestly suspiciously convenient—notion of politics, there is nothing stopping bad actors from creating a political crisis to start the next set of atrocities.
The ICC trial didn't work and to my recollection never worked in stopping bad actors. Only in punishing them after the fact. I agree that the current Israeli government is a bad actor, but so is Hamas and I would argue much worse. Unlike Israel, Hamas is willing to sacrifice its own people and children for its ideology. Its ideology is the destruction of Israel. When you're dealing with an enemy like that it's very hard to stay within the lines.
Wars are terrible and the only way to stop them is to bring people to the table. That can only be accomplished with politics. That notion of justice you have... I wish I was able to still believe there was such a thing in the world. It is a rare thing even within the boarders of countries and not on the international stage.
First lets address this fundamental misunderstanding:
> Reasonable grounds doesn't justify an arrest warrant.
As I understand it Reasonable Grounds is a technical term used by prosecutors precisely to justify arrest warrants. It is literally the definition of Reasonable Grounds. The court argued that it had reasonable grounds to make this decision.
> People accepted this when the court was dealing with a rouge dictator or warlord but it's an insane law to apply towards a western democracy.
I don’t share your worldview of western supremacy or western exceptionalism. Western countries are just as capable of committing atrocities as anyone else.
> Israel is upheld to a standard that no other country on earth has ever been upheld to.
This is a strong claim which should be easy for you to back up with solid arguments if true. I’ve seen this stated a lot before, and it is most often just stated as true without question. But I doubt it is. If you compare to the USA, you might be right. USA is allowed to get away with a bunch of crimes against humanity, and is held to a very lax standard. I would hope Israel would be held to a higher standard than that. But if you compare to say Iran, or Russia, the argument falls apart. Israel is allowed to hold a nuclear arsenal, while Iran is meat with a whole loads of sanctions for developing a nuclear energy program used for civil power delivery. Israel is allowed to keep an occupation in the West Bank, annex the Golan heights, and blockade the Gaza strip, while Russia is correctly sanctioned for annexing Crimea and invading and occupying other parts of Ukraine. If Israel was held to a tougher standard we would see consequences for their Nuclear program and decades long occupation.
The rest of your post I only skimmed over. I saw a lot of excuses for Israel’s conduct, some of which have very flimsy evidence, and some have been flat out debunked over and over. I have no interest in arguing Israeli propaganda points with you, as you obviously believe them deeply, and I—as well as several of the worlds Governments (including Western Democracies[1]), human rights organizations, etc.—do not. Feel free to argue with them on the matter.
Funny, here we see US sanctions against somebody trying to prosecute the “terrible government Israel hs right now”, and you also suggesting corruption, weird way to bolster centrists and not strengthening the assholes.
That specific prosecutor is corrupt and there's evidence of his prejudice against Israel. His filing a complaint with the support of South Africa (funded by Iran) gives legitimacy to the Israeli right wings claims of anti-Israeli bias. They aren't wrong.
Israel is a democracy, it is trying to get the government out through the only way possible: protest. There will be an election next year. But until then there's very little you can do. Israel is not a member of the ICC and didn't sign the treaty. That makes sense since the UN is inherently biased against Israel by a huge margin.
Imagine if the ICC was trying to arrest Bush or Trump. Both terrible leaders who arguably committed war crimes. Hell, literally every American president in the past century with the exception of Carter would probably fit that bill. Probably most European countries too.
The current situation is difficult, but right now protestors are busy framing it as "Israels fault" which is both false and harmful to the Palestinians. Hamas is still holding hostages which is giving legitimacy to the war. This is giving them an incentive to keep holding these hostages as only Israel bares the blame. For the Israeli right wing this is also good. They want the global isolation which will push Israelis against the wall. They want Israelis to feel like "it's either us or them".
And Interrupted a Syrian speaker of all people. These protestors are delusional and doing harm to the cause of a two state solution. They are strengthening the worst actors in both sides to prolong this stupid conflict.
Multi-Threading is the worst solution, except for all the other solutions.
Avoiding multi-threading doesn't remove concurrency issues. It just moves them to a different point in the application execution. A point where you don't have debuggers and need to create overly fault-tolerant behavior for everything. This is bad for performance but worse for debugging. With a regular synchronous threaded application I have a clean, obvious stack trace to a failure in most cases. Asynchronous or process based code gives me almost nothing for production failures or even regular debugging.
If it existed there it would mean remote connection in some way. These planes aren't connected to the internet. For this to work you would need hardware.
The kill switch seems to stem from the lack of updates to radar-jamming for the F-16 [0]. Lack of software support also, to me, suggests dropping hardware support (and the spare parts required) sooner rather than later. Even if it remains "only software", itself a hell of a phrase for this site, that software needs updates as Russia updates it's radar frequencies. The plane is potentially a hell of a lot less useful without the jamming capabilities they were sold with
Not a new thing. In the 1980s, Australia cracked NCTR on the AN/APG-65 radar on the classic Hornet so that they could extend it to identify hostile aircraft in the region. They did this because Uncle Sam refused to assist.
Well... About a million dead and a million enslaved might disagree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Wars . He murdered/enslaved for political gain back home, then killed the people who opposed to him back in Rome to stop democracy.
I don't want to compare to these other guys because obviously it was a different time/culture and you can't really make such broad sweeping comparisons. I won't judge people for admiring him because I also appreciate a lot of his political and strategic savvy. But he was a very violent dictator.
"About a million dead and a million enslaved might disagree"
You might be very surprised at how differently ancient people viewed the world compared to yourself.
Sure, no one wants to be killed or enslaved but the societies of these very people behaved in precisely the same way as the Romans and most ancient societies did. These were not peace loving hippies being invaded by alien monsters.
Anyway, Caesar was not dictator when he fought in Gaul. He was a Roman proconsul/general fighting in his provinces the way all ancient Roman armies did, and was more inclined toward mercy than most, although he also fought a much bigger war than most.
In the civil war Caesar was fighting Pompey, the guy who used his military power to control the Roman government for the previous decade. And who would have continued controlling the government had he won. The narrative that Pompey was defending the republic against a tyrant is more ancient propaganda than reality.
A reasonable and accurate summary is that Julius Caesar led a violent army against violent enemies, fought a civil war with unprecedented clemency, and was a benevolent dictator until his assassination by the envious people he had granted clemency.
> Caesar was not dictator when he fought in Gaul. He was a Roman proconsul/general fighting in his provinces the way all ancient Roman armies did, and was objectively merciful than most, although fought a much bigger war than most.
He fought it against the wishes of the senate. Notice I didn't say he was a dictator "while fighting it".
> The Gauls and Germans his armies fought against were not some kind of peace loving hippies. Their armies waged war just as violently and invaded and slaughtered (including Romans) in the same way.
Sure. Notice the size of their armies in the link I provided vs. the count of dead people and enslaved people. These were civilians.
Also notice I specifically said I didn't judge him because he's a product of his time. I just criticized the parent post for misrepresenting him and comparing him to more contemporary figures.
> The narrative that Pompey was defending the republic against a tyrant is more ancient propaganda than reality.
Agreed. Both sides were terrible in that conflict. That doesn't make him a non-dictator because he won over another dictator wannabe.
> A reasonable and accurate summary is that Julius Caesar led a violent army against enemies, fought a civil war with unrivaled clemency, and was a benevolent dictator until his assassination by the envious people he had granted clemency.
I think that's revisionism. I don't know all of these things and they are very much a matter of perspective. Frankly, I don't care since none of that is grounded in fact. It's interpretation of facts.
The two facts I provided were: he was a dictator and he was violent.
Those are indisputable objective historic facts. Were others dictators and even more violent?
Sure. That doesn't dispute these facts. Notice I very specifically avoided passing judgement on him and on the OP article.
This is factually incorrect. He was a proconsul in command, fully authorized by the Senate.
You're probably referring to the fact that some of his political opponents in the Senate tried to score political points criticizing his war in Gaul. There was no real question of the legality then or now. False legal claims like this were standard practice and everyone took them for the partisan maneuvering they obviously were.
> Sure. Notice the size of their armies in the link I provided vs. the count of dead people and enslaved people. These were civilians.
These claims are all incredibly speculative. We actually have no real idea how many people (civilians or otherwise) died in these wars. Caesar himself is the primary source and we know for a fact that he tended to wildly exaggerate his numbers.
> Agreed. Both sides were terrible in that conflict. That doesn't make him a non-dictator because he won over another dictator wannabe.
> The two facts I provided were: he was a dictator and he was violent. Those are indisputable objective historic facts.
Another indisputable fact: he wasn't violent as dictator.
But it's important to understand that all of Gaul was tribal. The was no unified country. These tribes were invading each other's land constantly to loot, rape, kill, take hostages, enslave, and extract tribute.
Gallic tribes had famously sacked Rome, and if Rome hadn't become so powerful they would have happily done it again. German tribes had successfully invaded Roman territory as recently as around the time Caesar was born. They were a legitimate threat, especially to the Roman province, although it's also true Caesar's had other motivations.
Again, it's just much more complicated than when for example Hitler and Stalin jointly invaded the entirely peaceful country of Poland. Or when Putin invaded the entirely peaceful country of Ukraine.
In order to get a Kosher stamp you need an "observer" who is some guy you pay to hang around and make sure you do everything right. Sometimes the guy is actually helpful, but usually it's just some nephew of the Rabbi who hands out the kosher certificate.
Their main focus is to keep you purchasing only other products deemed kosher. Not the quality of the food or even cleanliness. If you annoy the wrong people you can lose your certificate and essentially get black listed. You can't open on a Saturday etc.
I used to joke that the easiest way to gauge the quality of the restaurant is in an inverse proportion to the size of its kosher sign. Most restaurants in Tel Aviv (excluding, Humus, Falafel or Shuwarma places) are not kosher.