That higher standard sounds similar to "Double reasonableness" from British tax law.

"Double reasonableness" is used to delete tax advantages for certain things which you say were correctly exempt from taxation or attracted significant tax advantages but the government alleges you were in fact just generally avoiding paying tax and whatever you were doing doesn't count. It's not a crime to have mistakenly believed you didn't owe tax, but, if a court finds against you, you would now owe the back tax, plus potentially penalties.

The "double" comes from a requirement that not only can the reasonable person (say, a juror) not think of any way that what you're doing isn't just avoiding tax, but they can't even imagine any other reasonable person who thinks what you were doing made sense for another reason beside avoiding taxes either.

The idea is this only triggers for people who are very obviously dodging tax, so that their scheme sounds completely ludicrous unless it is explained that they hoped to avoid taxation, rather than just being a slightly eccentric thing to do which happened to have tax benefits when they did it.

"I buy and sell used cars" makes you a used car dealer. No reason you shouldn't take advantage of used car tax treatments which are a significant benefit.

"I let somebody else do all the buying and selling" OK, I guess you just own the business? Nothing wrong with that, small business, entrepreneurship, excellent.

"I don't own the business or anything, I just get the advantageous tax treatment". Huh, well it's very good of the people actually doing the transactions to let you benefit while they go without, very generous indeed, but at least you're ensuring a healthy market in used cars.

"Oh, there's just one car. That car is just bought and sold over and over again to make up the amount of money I requested". See, now that's ludicrous, why would anybody believe you had some reason to do this except to avoid paying taxes?

> I think the recommendation also included extermination, which is similar to genocide, but also does not require intent, but I think the voted against that.

Persecution is the charge probably most similar to genocide minus a lot of the intent requirements (which was granted). The requirements for extermination (which was rejected) is basically they have to be resposible for > 50 illegal deaths (not sure on the exact number, but somewhere in the double digits). The icc granted the murder charge, which is the lesser version of exterminatin when it is only < 50 ish deaths.

The effectiveness, and moreover the underlying sincerity of these "warnings" have been widely and severely criticized. Meanwhile, the IDF has gone right on bombing people even when they went to areas they were told would be "safe". At the end of the day -- they're just lip service, basically.

Gaza evacuation warnings from IDF contain many errors, BBC finds - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68687749

Israel's warning system and evacuation alerts leave Gaza residents confused - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-21/israel-gaza-map-block...

They Were Told They Were in a Safe Area. Then Came the Missiles - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/15/world/middleeast/israel-h...

I understand where you're coming from, and the need to put pieces together so that the image of oneself or their identity is acceptable.

However, while doing that, you're just ignoring the number of killed people. Unfortunately, there's no way to assemble that kind of image of Israel in this situation, where it's not red in blood of Palestinian civilians. Not to say that it's any different on the other side, and not engaging with any justifications for either side - just pointing out that you're ignoring some large and ugly parts of reality in how you represented your view of the situation.

It’s not war in terms of international law if it’s internal. Not clear cut that it’s not internal, but there’s nuance.

They don't always warn. There's many different people in IDF with different opinions, some want to warn first, others don't.

Ironically the IDF are probably most guilty of making tiktok footage that causes long term damage to people's views of Israelis.

The charges in question are that of targeting hospitals and hindering aid from reaching Gaza. Netanyahu and Gallant are being charged with the policy of targeting hospitals and hindering aid. The videos we have of people dying are only related to the crime if they show how hospitals or aid convoys were targeted. Of which we have plenty. For example the flour massacre is only one of many instances of aid being targeted which resulted in hundreds of civilians dying. And the fact the the four massacre was not an isolated incident, but followed a pattern of other links in the aid chain being targeted or otherwise prevented from being delivered to civilians is a very good argument for that this is actually a policy, of which Netanyahu and Gallant are guilty.

The charges are not of war crimes, but of crimes against humanity. A war crime is an event which individual soldiers or commanders, or generals are guilty of. Crimes agains humanity is criminal policy which politicians are charged for.

There's video that comes out every single day of dead children and civilians. Those buildings are civilian and not empty.

[flagged]

> I disagree that there is an incredible amount of video evidence of war crimes that are relevant here.

You can disagree with the facts all you like; it won't change them. Those videos and statements exist, whether you believe in them or not. You can see them on Twitter, on TikTok, on Instagram, or YouTube.

And there's more every single day.