'It's surreal': How US sanctions lock ICC judges out of daily life

> That's actually a pattern for colonialist occupation projects, its kind of a two-birds-with-one-stone thing for the colonial power. The colonization of Liberia also was very much this (as was the colonization of parts of what later became the USA.)

There's a number of differences that make this comparison problematic. Israel's current Jewish population immigrated from many different countries, largely due to fleeing anti-semitism in those countries. The reason for them fleeing(anti-semitism) also very much exists to this day, especially when it comes to those Muslim majority countries many fled from after Israel gained independence, so any prospect of them returning is not remotely realistic.

> And the (British, of course, this is very much a recurrent Anglo pattern) project for the colonization of Israel started long before the the refugee crisis that helped realize it occurred.

While the UK may have held the mandate for Palestine for a period of time the majority of Jewish immigration to Palestine prior to the end of the mandate(and after) did not actually come from the UK or even other Anglo countries. This seems to be a rather important distinction as the immigration was arguably much more multi-source than the typical Anglo pattern colonialism.

In any case it seems to be quite clear that the extreme UN bias against Israel largely comes not from the colonial aspects of Israel's creation but rather from the various degrees of anti-semitism that is pervasive in many countries to this day.

> This isn't really accurate from a strict reading of the Rome Statute, there are treaty obligations for party states

Which are members voluntarily, and are enforcing whatever law they want on their own, national territory; not outside of it.

> Since the US considers the ICC a serious threat to sovereignty

Again: Fact is, the ICC is writing policy recommendations. Member states decided to adopt/agree with them, and enforce them on their own territory. It is a US invention to claim this a threat to the US national sovereignty. Nobody is arguing to enforce ICC rulings on United States territory.

> Making friends is not really the end goal of foreign policy.

You can claim that it isn't, OK. But I don't get how you can write it as if that was a hard fact. You make it sound as if that was a universal definition, which it isn't. Nobody, and no country (as in "the sum of its citizens"), likes it when others enter their boundaries and act like they have permission to make or enforce rules there without a contract/agreement. It's fine if you don't like the friend/enemy wording. It still is a hostile act.

> largely due to fleeing anti-semitism in those countries

I thought it was mainly being expelled after the creation of Israel. Sometimes with encouragement of Israel.

> In any case it seems to be quite clear that the extreme UN bias against Israel largely comes not from the colonial aspects of Israel's creation but rather from the various degrees of anti-semitism that is pervasive in many countries to this day.

Israel rather than being the victim of racism is a major perpetrator of it. In fact, the Israel project foments anti Semitism around the world. This is especially sad for those non-Zionist Jews who want to live their lives in peace free of discrimination.

> Not at all, not even remotely. I'm alarmed anyone can sincerely interpret it that way and ignore what prompted those resolutions. It is simply proof that UN resolutions do nothing. Israel continues its abhorrent behavior regardless of how many resolutions happen.

UN resolutions do nothing in general, that's not particularly specific to Israel, however the sheer overwhelming amount of them being anti-Israel resolutions is solid evidence of anti-Israel bias.

> But it does. I can't see any reason why it doesn't except if you want me to ignore reality.

There are many horrible conflicts throughout the world(i.e. Sudan, Syria, Myanmar), the Israel-Palestinian conflict is quite far from the worst by virtually all metrics, no reasonable person could ever think twice the amount of UN resolutions against Israel compared to the rest of the world combined is remotely reasonable.

> Only because it refuses to do anything of substance to curb its behavior.

The UN doesn't have much power in general, still doesn't justify the extreme anti-Israel bias especially when there are so many other conflicts that are much worse.

> UNWatch lost any credibility it had when it insists on ignoring reality and arguing that literally salting the earth/water supply of millions and annihilating countless children is something you cannot ever condemn and if you do you are being a bully.

UNWatch is focused on the UN, obviously the conflict has had a lot of terrible back and forth retaliations, did UNWatch deny that ever?

> If I keep committing crimes and keep being arrested for those crimes does it make any sense to complain about the police arresting me all the time instead of realizing my own behavior is why I keep being arrested? According to you that makes perfect sense.

By that logic the Jews being arrested by the Nazi police....should have just accepted their behavior(being Jewish) as being the problem? You're making it out as if the UN is some sort of unbiased law enforcement organization when it is nothing of the sort.

> Which are members voluntarily, and are enforcing whatever law they want on their own, national territory; not outside of it.

A big reason for the ICC being created was to have an organization that could enforce certain laws that national courts would have trouble enforcing on their own. Obviously states can choose to violate the treaty but it certainly was the intent that ICC arrest are enforceable.

> Again: Fact is, the ICC is writing policy recommendations. Member states decided to adopt/agree with them, and enforce them on their own territory. It is a US invention to claim this a threat to the US national sovereignty. Nobody is arguing to enforce ICC rulings on United States territory.

The ICC is a court, it's not just writing policy recommendations. The ICC has made it clear they intend to pursue Americans and US allies and restrict their movement at a minimum by preventing them from entering countries that are signatories to the Rome Statute. Just because they aren't trying to abduct Americans on US soil doesn't mean they don't intend to go after Americans or American allies that are non-parties.

By your logic the US sanctions are also just policy recommendations, companies simply decide to adopt them and enforce them at the recommendation of the US.

> You can claim that it isn't, OK. But I don't get how you can write it as if that was a hard fact. You make it sound as if that was a universal definition, which it isn't. Nobody, and no country (as in "the sum of its citizens"), likes it when others enter their boundaries and act like they have permission to make or enforce rules there without a contract/agreement. It's fine if you don't like the friend/enemy wording.

The US clearly views the ICC as an external entity attempting to enforce rules without a contract or agreement.

> It still is a hostile act.

Sanctions and ICC arrest warrants/investigations can both be considered hostile acts.