The ICC was made to the image of the Nuremberg trials against the Nazis. It was created to fight crimes against humanity and war crimes by a large group of countries. With notable exceptions of China, Russia, North Korea, and most other tinpot dictatorships - and the US. Funny, isn't it, to be in this kind of neighborhood...
this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
80 points (90.8% liked)
News
23311 readers
3475 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Ever time I think he's reached peak fascist, he goes one better. What an insufferable evil cunt
We need to fight for a rules based order!
No, not like that!
Seriously, what is the appropriate way for the world to respond to Israel?
Grassroots economic protest (bds) is literally illegal in parts of the US.
Any move in the UN security council is met with a US veto.
An ICJ investigation application is met with condemnation.
An ICC warrent application is met with not only condemnation, but a reiteration of the standing US threat to invade the Hague, or otherwise use "any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court" [0]. Also the mere issuing of a warrent that will likely never be excersized is already being met with the threat of sanctions.
Is there anything that the US thinks is an appropriate way of opposing Israel?
Yes! After Israel engaged in a clear act of war against Iran and Syria by bombing high ranking Iranian military officials in Syria [1], Iran launched an innefective pro-forma counter attack. The US was very clear on our position. No US military support for an Israeli reprisal. Israel shoul just "take the win" and call it a day.
In Ukraine, a country facing a much more existential threat than Israel [2], the US's position has been very clear: "no using US resources to strike within thrme borders of your attacker".
For all of its rhetoric, the actual position of the US and Israel is clear. The only form of opposition to Israeli action that they will respect is the threat of military violence. [3].
Hopefully the rules based order has enough support to stand up against the US opposition. But it is really not good that that is the conversation we are having.
[0] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ206/pdf/PLAW-107publ206.pdf sec 2008
[1] The details of this strike are arguably a war crime. However weather you agree with that assessment or not, launching a missile into another country and killing military leaders is about as classic "act of war" as you can get.
[2] This is not a statement on the morals or goals of Russia compared with Gaza. Simply a statement of their military capabilities and ability to see those goals to fruition.
[3] Of course, following through on such a threat would be met with an in-kind response, but neither the US nor Israel seem to want to be fighting a capable enemy right now.
There is an answer if you’re honestly asking. The State Department needs to issue Biden with a conclusive report of war crimes that he can use as a platform for withdrawal of support. POTUS doesn’t listen to news or foreign intelligence over their own State Department.
Remember when the Democratic party was responsible for creating and championing the ICC? (Bill Clinton)
Remember the outrage when Dubya and co then insisted that the US be given veto power over it, and the outrage from Democrats over that?
Because this Pepperidge Farm sure as fuck remembers.
Kind of. Clinton administration participated in negotiations and signed the Rome Statute but was very explicitly critical of it and never sent the treaty to the Senate for actual approval. Official US government position and the position of both parties has been to generally shit on the court ever sense.
I was there, too, and I remember and this shit is fucking disgraceful.
we're going to attack those investigating war crimes
Do they think this is a winning strategy while also admitting Israel is causing a famine?
Israel is a state actor that has not signed on to the ICC, just like the US. Hamas is a non-state actor over which the ICC claims jurisdiction, just like the Taliban and any number of other terrorist groups. The US is really afraid of setting a precedent here that might impact it in the future.
I just want to put this general information out there to counter any potential misinformation pushers here or anywhere on this topic.
The ICC recognizes the Palestinian Authority and the State of Palestine as a state actor, not Hamas. And the PA ratified the Rome Statute in 2015, submitting their instrument of accession. Other partially recognized states are also free to join the Rome Statute if they choose, such as Taiwan, Kosovo, and more. The former is actually considering to do so as of last year in order to have more protections against China.
So, yes, Palestine is fully allowed recognition and jurisdiction by the ICC. This was helped by the UN making the State of Palestine an official non-member observer state in 2012.
Long way of saying it is supporting and aiding genocide that it desperately wants the world to go back to ignoring like the last seven decades.
How specifically are US interests served by a genocide of Palestinians? They aren't. The US doesn't care about Palestine at all, but it would be better off if Israel weren't doing the indefensible. The US just wants Israel as an ally to assist in projecting power in the Middle East.
I sympathize with the desire to end what Israel is doing, but the first step is understanding the national interests at play. It's not an excuse for anything, but it's necessary to understand the dynamics at play in order to try and change those dynamics.
The problem with this argument is that it requires people to want to understand. To them, and rightfully so, Genocide = Bad. The reality is the situation is complex on a worldwide scale, with many powers at play in the background. BUT that still doesn't change that bad is happening. It only provides a reason for it, not justification.
There is also an excellent chance that there is information we are not privy to, and a much smaller chance that some greater good is being done by taking these stances. I just really doubt that's the case. Either way, voters and large parts of the World are stuck. Here is the U.S. most of us know what we have to do and that leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth because many of us innately understand what is the morally right choice.
Still gonna vote for Biden. He HAS done some good and the alternative is a very obvious hard no. However, I am also seriously considering supporting his removal after he is voted in for a second term unless some significant and correct action is taken, or fundamentally groundbreaking information is released. That said, the literal long term best course of action those of us in the U.S. can take is the come together and for the next four years collectively lean on the voting booths and our representatives, and against corporations and large for-profit organizations.
US interests have been served because of genocide. US interests are military defense contracts, testing and aligning police standards, and commercial development of settlements in Israel. Plus having military installations in the region, as you said. All of this is predicated on the apartheid and genocide of the Palestinian people. The dynamics are understood.
Exactly what percent of the US weapons industry output do you think has been dropped on Gaza? It's almost nothing. The money is in stock piling high tech weaponry to counter major militaries. The sales that matter have nothing to do with Gaza.
We had military presence in Israel before the genocide. The apartheid is irrelevant to that presence. Why would the US care about "testing and aligning police standards"? You think Gaza serves as a model for something we want to do in the future? No, it's a repeat of ineffective strategies and tactics we used in the past. We know how to do urban warfare, and we're pretty damn good at knocking down buildings.
The US has counciled restraint on Israel since day one, and that is genuine. We have simply declined to force restraint through anything but the most meager of pressure campaigns. We ignore the injustices because doing otherwise is inconvenient. My purpose in saying so isn't to exonerate the US, because I don't think it does. I just think that understanding national motivations is important to trying to impact future policy.
Is your assertion that the US and Israel will no longer be allies if the US doesn't support Netanyahu's actions? Isn't Israel's government made up of a lot more than a single man's actions, and doesn't Israel have a lot more to lose by losing us as an ally than we do by losing them? I say we call their bluff and let this murderer go to jail. The Israeli government will clean up the mess he made and still be our ally.
The US and Israel are still allies even though the US hasn't supported Netanyaho's actions, so no. The fact that the US is still being an ally is the very evidence people are using to say the US supports Netanyaho.
Unfortunately, it's not just Netanyaho as a bad apple. Netanyaho is massively unpopular, but the genocide is not. Israel's actions in Gaza have broad support among citizens of Israel.
The thing is, there are tons of US bases in the Middle East other than the ones in Israel. Qatar (who has their own moral issues, but is not actively commiting genocide), for example, has some of the largest US bases in the area. So, the question should be asked: do we really need to keep a country doing a genocide as our ally to maintain power projection in the Middle East? I think the US could get by just fine.
I think the US could get by just fine with no presence in the Middle East at all. But if we are going to be in the Middle East, Israel is a far more capable ally than Qatar. And what do we do if Qatar does something horrific tomorrow? Pack up and move to Saudi Arabia? Is there really anyplace in the world we can form serious alliances without unsavoury partners? Could we even ally with ourselves?
I think the US could be a lot more honest about what Israel is doing, and we could put a whole lot more pressure on them to stop doing it. We should be doing more of both, but our alliance is exactly what gives us the leverage to do that. That is, unless we want to get involved militarily. But if we are going to do that, there are plenty of other places in the world that are just as worthy.
Israel is doing something horrific (genocide) today, that's the difference. As stated, those countries do have their own issues. But none are currently participating in a genocide of this scale.
And yes, I would prefer if we did pull out of being allied to countries that do genocide. We can also do other things, like not supporting them by giving them the weapons they need, without fully falling out. There's a lot of options that we just aren't doing, many more options than just military action. Israel will continue at least as long as the US is supplying weapons.
But the US can't/won't pick up and move it's military bases every time the winds shift and someone else is committing atrocities.
I personally agree that I wish we were more selective with whom we form alliances. It's not like Israel just started abusing Palestine last year anyways. That's just not how foreign policy works today. There are other models that could be used, but the US isn't likely to do so unilaterally. Right now, every country in the world makes foreign policy decisions based almost exclusively on their own interests and to maximize their power and influence.
Yes, I also agree the US can and should be doing more to pressure Netanyaho. Even in the current foreign policy landscape it's pretty obvious that this genocide does not serve US interests. Biden is unfortunately a relic of the 80s/90s and is honestly not the president we should have elected. He's miles better than Trump (who's policies helped ignite this "war"), but that's a low bar
Very well said.
What a joke.