741–750 of 1001 posts
>In his first response to the ICC issuing a warrant for his arrest on allegations of war crimes, Benjamin Netanyahu’s office has described the ruling as “absurd and false lies” and said the decision is “antisemitic.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/nov/21/internati... If Netanyahu and Gallant really think they are innocent, and the allegations are absurd and false, they should cooperate with the ICC. Have…
[flagged]
(before you jump into discussion, remember that this only about these two individuals) ICC and the prosecutor are on very solid ground here. The prosecutor asked opinions from a impartial panel of experts in international law. The panel included people like Theodor Meron (former Legal adviser for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Helene Kennedy, Adrian Fulford. Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant provided plenty of ev…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't you place that exact same argument on the side of the Palestinians, and add more weight to their claim - where the international community so far has allowed this, due to reason (whether money involved in politicians toeing a line or not), and so the courts decisions and political bias are more likely to favour Netanyahu over the Palestinians? There never seems to be much critical thinking on the quick one-line…
You can claim anything, but i don't think it means much if you don't back it up with some arguments. Like this is basically only the second time that a sitting head of state of a functioning country has had a warrant issued against them. Its fairly unprecedented. I don't agree with the claims the icc is biased against israel, but the fact they are acting at all certainly shows they aren't biased for them.
Now Netanyahu has done enough blatantly, what's argued by some to be the most video/photographed-recorded genocide in history, the hierarchy and people resource hierarchy of the ICC hasn't fallen to Israeli political pressure (or whatever other tactics Mossad is known to use to try to get their way).
Once again, your final point is more neutral - where you could only really honestly say that if in a vacuum, if you're not looking behind the scenes with how much pressure Israel has put publicly and privately on members of the ICC to not file nor then issue charges, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Dang has already addressed this: > It's common, if not inevitable, for people who feel strongly about $topic to conclude that the system (or the community, or the mods, etc.) are biased against their side ( https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que ...). One is far more likely to notice whatever data points that one dislikes because they go against one's view and overweight those relative to others…
"In your eyes there will never be an opposing viewpoint to yours that you don't consider "anti-Israel". It'll always seem as such to you regardless of any rational explanation." - You don't know me, my opinions or my thought, what I'm for or against.
>In his first response to the ICC issuing a warrant for his arrest on allegations of war crimes, Benjamin Netanyahu’s office has described the ruling as “absurd and false lies” and said the decision is “antisemitic.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/nov/21/internati... If Netanyahu and Gallant really think they are innocent, and the allegations are absurd and false, they should cooperate with the ICC. Have…
I first thought you were going to point out how the misuse of the word "antisemitic" is especially problematic here: Do the vast majority of people not understand correlation vs. causation? Because Netanyahu is Jewish does not mean an action against him is because he's Jewish. That they are willing to use such "cry wolf" tactics, abusing it, dilutes their credibility at minimum - and then should bring their integrity…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The scale of torture and killing perpetrated by the IDF and illegal settlers inside Palestinian territory is several orders of magnitude larger, and the right of an occupied people to resist violently is protected by international law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, nobody really knows until the trial (if one ever happens). Its easy to be convincing when you are just listening to the prosecution - it gets harder once the defense has the opportunity to poke holes. Keep in mind the conviction rate at ICC is pretty low. > The prosecutor asked opinions from a impartial panel of experts in international law. The court already disagreed with said panel on one of the charges (c…
[flagged]
I really don't think this belongs on the front page. It is a highly divisive political issue with strong radicalisation at the edges of any discourse on it. I have my own strong opinions on it, but arguing it does not in my opinon belong on the front page here. There are plenty of places you can go and have this discussion in as heated of a version as you prefer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My question, though, is does pushing these kinds of toothless resolutions make any difference beyond showing that the ICC essentially has no power to enforce its warrants? It's clear that the most powerful militaries in the world (US, Russia, essentially China too) have declared the "rules-based world order" dead. Does it do anyone any good to pretend this hasn't happened? It reminded me of the post Elizabeth Warren…
There was never a 'rules-based world order'. We live purely in Pax Americana and every government exists at the pleasure of the United States. If the US wanted to, and if it did it correctly, it could easily conquer most countries. Afghanistan happened because America lost the will, not the ability. Had America gone the normal colonial route, Afghanistan would look a lot different today.
It could possibly conquer many countries by largely destroying them as was done to Germany and Japan, but since the US is a democracy and a sizable portion of its people have morals and aren't sociopaths, it's politically impossible to fight a war this way in the modern era without some kind of extreme provocation. Even immediately after 9/11, I think most Americans would not have signed on to a campaign of total war in Afghanistan with multiple millions dead.
And even back when America did pretty well take the gloves off, doing nearly everything it could short of nuclear weapons in Korea and Vietnam, it still couldn't win. So I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that any decent-sized country could be conquered easily even if the 'will' was there.