91–100 of 203 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Israel’s minister of national security has explicitly said he wants to ethnically cleanse Gaza. https://x.com/NTarnopolsky/status/1792891809498022385
Do you speak hebrew? I don't see subtitles to that video, where do you get that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe that law is slightly more limited - they reserve the right to invade anyone who attempts to prosecute US citizens and particularly US military in international courts. I don't think it extends this type of protection to allies. At least the infamous "Hague Invasion Act" doesn't.
Section 2008 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ206/html/PLA... > (a) Authority.--The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of 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. > (b) Persons Authorized To Be Freed.--The authority of subsection (a) shall…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait is that a statement in support of Hamas? Or is it just unethical actions from Palestinians that get that treatment? Otherwise wouldn't an occupation followed by a blockade count as an unethical action that doesn't merit an ethical response?
The day ICJ goes after the political and financial supporters of Hamas and orders Hamas to stop using the people of Palestine as live shields to bear the brunt of the Israeli wrath will be the day when I will agree with the ICJ.
I'm sure most criminal suspects and their supporters [0] feel the same way, and would love for their personal judgement to be so favored. Putin, for example.
0: This is a sensitive topic, so to be extra clear, I am referring to the criminal case against Bibi in the ICC and the genocide case against Israel and Hamas in the ICJ, and those who support the defendants in the 1st of those and half or more of the defendants in the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
India has nuclear weapons and more economic power than the UK. And yet the UK has a veto, and India does not. Also, only one of the P5 powers had nuclear weapons when the UN Charter was signed.
The UN was created when india was a subservient colony of britain. When veto powers were being given out, india didn't exist as an independent country. That's why the UK has veto power while india doesn't. There definitely needs to be a rebalancing of power within the UN but none of the P5 want their power diluted. And they have the all powerful veto power.
There is no reason we can't replace another government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
That may be so, but I doubt it, this was Hamas's most successful attack in history, and will never happen again, with or without Israel's genocide of unrelated Palestinians. The claim that Israel definitively saved >35,000 lives by killing as many, is simply implausible. And that's to say nothing of the denial of (and attacking of) supplies. Having said that, none if it justifies the crimes or racial discrimination I…
If you don't buy that though, it still seems reasonable enough for Israel to prioritize their own security. It may not be morally correct from a utilitarian perspective, but it's what pretty much any country would do, just as any parent would save their own child first in an emergency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Section 2008 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ206/html/PLA... > (a) Authority.--The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of 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. > (b) Persons Authorized To Be Freed.--The authority of subsection (a) shall…
What does covered mean here? Who is covered?
> (3) Covered allied persons.--The term ``covered allied persons'' means military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand), or Taiwan, for so long as that government is not a party to the International Criminal Court and wishes its officials and other persons working on its behalf to be exempted from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
> (4) Covered united states persons.--The term ``covered United States persons'' means members of the Armed Forces of the United States, elected or appointed officials of the United States Government, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government, for so long as the United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The day ICJ goes after the political and financial supporters of Hamas and orders Hamas to stop using the people of Palestine as live shields to bear the brunt of the Israeli wrath will be the day when I will agree with the ICJ.
'I will agree with the court when it agrees with me and does what I want' is certainly a position. I'm sure most criminal suspects and their supporters [0] feel the same way, and would love for their personal judgement to be so favored. Putin, for example. 0: This is a sensitive topic, so to be extra clear, I am referring to the criminal case against Bibi in the ICC and the genocide case against Israel and Hamas in t…
My dad was once judged as a terrorist for his role in resisting a racist, apartheid government. He was interestingly transformed into a senior officer of the army that spent decades indiscriminately bombing anywhere he was supposedly operating from. He was broken by the guilt of visiting villages out of starvation only to have the blood of innocent families on his hands for showing solidarity with his struggle. The people who would throw similar accusations of using human shields to justify their barbarity were now his colleagues, brothers in arms who he would spend the rest of his career fighting alongside.
One of his superiors, Nelson Mandela, had a lot to say about Palestine. The world celebrates his efforts to convince people like my father to forgive at the cost of leaving a trauma that will persist through the souls of their descendants.
This brazen denial of the reality that a fellow human will relentlessly defend is beyond clinic insanity for people who have significantly less emotional attachment to this conflict than myself. The lack of self awareness for the sake of self-preservation alone is concerning.
I'm glad all of this self indicting astro-turfing has been shared publicly. I want peace for all humanity, but I can't see anyone making a sound case for truth and reconciliation when the dust settles, and it is time for accountability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nakba happened (which is illegal to even talk about in Israel) This is very inaccurate, the actual law is described here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba_Law#Provisions
> 4. Referring to the Israeli Independence Day or the founding day of the country as a day of mourning. So you are not allowed to call it the Nakba, or describe it as anything but something to celebrate as long as you receive funding from the government. I don’t know how the media, libraries, schools or other institutions work in Israel, but in Iceland this would pretty much amount to a ban, as almost all media, and…
skill issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UN was created when india was a subservient colony of britain. When veto powers were being given out, india didn't exist as an independent country. That's why the UK has veto power while india doesn't. There definitely needs to be a rebalancing of power within the UN but none of the P5 want their power diluted. And they have the all powerful veto power.
We've switched who has veto powers before. Soviet Union to Russia and the Republic of China to the People's Republic of China. There is no reason we can't replace another government.