Israel has set humanity back so far. All of the progress toward human rights that have developed since WWII have been shredded in favor of Zionism. They were mostly just an illusion but that illusion is gone.
64,000 children killed and counting just so the war criminal Natenyahu could stay in power. I really hope the illusion is gone, but as long as the US keeps supporting that government it's going to be very hard to take a proper moral stance on it for anyone else.
murder and genocide are just lifestyle choices, you say. Or is it culturally inherent? What you are implying is far more racist. Equating Israel with the whole of the jewish people is exactly the playbook of anti-semites and Bibi supporters, trying to tie all jew, religious or cultural, to the flaming wreck that is Israel.
You have read the treaty of Rome? The ICC only applies to nations who agree to have it applied. And even then it's not followed by countries. Well, and they make it apply to Israel, of course, because changing and special-casing laws to convict Jews is an old European tradition [2].
Meanwhile the UN GA keeps screaming for 3 things:
1) for the ICC stay away from "internal affairs" (stuff happening in countries who haven't agreed to the treaty of Rome)
Even the Netherlands demanded the ICC stay away from the siege of Srebrenica (because a Dutch commander and deployment, "Dutchbat", oversaw the massacre they were there to prevent. The commander who oversaw this total disaster was promoted and knighted instead, and then de-knighted some years later) [1]
2) to convict Israel (Which has retreated from the treaty of Rome)
3) to convict Russia (which is guilty of crimes in Ukraine, which do fall under the treaty of Rome)
At least the Russia stuff is somewhat admirable. Until you start looking at what happens on the ground (gets to the UN SC, where Russia and China and sometimes France object to do anything to Russia, and of course the UN GA refuses to do anything for money reasons)
The UN, like it's predecessor the League of Nations, just does nothing. Worse: it is constantly used as an excuse to do nothing about serious situations, like currently Sudan, for example. The UN is a great ideal, a "world police", that countries DO NOT WANT, especially not dictatorships and muslim countries. And the organization is in practice constantly used as the exact opposite of the ideal it supposedly represents. The world, very much, does not want peace at this point, or at the very least you can say, it's not willing to give up any economic reward for peace, certainly not elsewhere. Of course, these days, the UN's predecessor (same buildings, same people), the League of Nations, is not just blamed for doing nothing, but was the organization behind the treaty of Versailles, now generally considered the cause of WW2, as it caused the decades-long economic disaster that remade the Weimar Republic into the third reich.
And when the UN does interfere, well, the last 3 places they interfered were Lebanon, Haiti, and Sudan. I wonder how things are going in those 3 places? The first one was "the Congo problem", Katanga in Congo in Africa. I wonder what happened there when the UN withdrew ...
[2] the Dreyfus affair (which, by the way, is a particularly egregious instance of this happening as part of a systematic campaign to do so in France, not an isolated incident)
Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Palestine are not too different really. In both cases the former is being persecuted for the crimes on the territory of the latter. What's different is that Israel is a democracy with an independent judicial - ICC shouldn't interfere with such countries IMO
As pointed out, every country gets the choice to join the ICC or not. If they don't join, like the whole "muslim world" has refused to join, they cannot be sued. That's why Iran, or China, or even Saudi Arabia for that matter ... has seen no convictions for massacring their own population. And Palestine cannot join according to the rules for multiple reasons.
Of course, the court violated their own rules, as it European tradition, to get Jews convicted.
Palestinians that were ethnically cleansed from their homes can’t vote in the state that was created on top of Palestine, so it’s not really a democracy.
Even if you see it this way, it's not a prerequisite for being a democracy. Athens were a democracy, USA were a democracy before 1865. The point here is their rulers are not above the law and they have their own judges to persecute them
First, Palestine has terror organizations which it HAS to fight according to UN rules. Does it really even need to be stated that there's problems there? (no doubt it's all Israel's fault according to you, but ...)
Second, if territory is in dispute, even just in practice, ALL parties must agree. Neither party agrees (not even Hamas: they have very publicly declared they will never deliver anyone at all to the ICC). Palestine has made it very clear they're only interested in using the ICC to get sanctions on Israel, and consider everything they do internal affairs.
Third, the whole deal of the UN is that redrawing borders is not allowed, and if for any reason you do want to redraw borders, you need support of the whole UNSC. No change was ever accepted (not by Israel or Palestine either btw). Which has the result that according to the rules, there is no Palestinian territory (unless you mean Jordan).
Fourth, Palestine has accepted the treaty of Rome, then publicly declared, on TV, and on the internet, and ... that they were never going to respect it (never deliver anyone from their side to the ICC). The treaty of Rome states that unless a commitment is made, no complaint can be accepted.
I would add that Palestine is not exactly fighting on their own, and to put it mildly if they achieve any progress at all, the result will not be freedom for Palestinians. In other words, the whole conflict is a lie, and was from the very beginning. Nobody, least of all other muslims, are interested in helping Palestinians. They're interested in destroying "Israel" (but really Jews).
But these sorts of issues are a very common problem with the ICC. Russia is (well, was, given what happened last month) ALSO trying to use the ICC to get Zelensky convicted for human rights violations. And they're not the only one. UN members, even security council members are only interested in using the ICC as a weapon, and could not care less about any principle of justice. South Africa, also involved in the Israel/Palestine case, deliberately hosted Omar Al-Sharif, directly violating their ICC obligations. Venezuela has also declared that the ICC has no standing in Guyana, for example, because Guyana is really Venezuelan territory (a big piece with oil, I forgot the exact name). Mongolia hosted Putin, and even got a "guru" to put on a show advising Putin to use nuclear weapons ... As I pointed out, even the Netherlands destroyed an ICC persecution. The US ... and so on and so forth.
Alternative take: Human rights have not progressed since WWII. If a facade shatters the moment you put any pressure on it, it wasn't made out of anything stronger than sugar candy.
> The reason the Netherlands is said to be negotiating on this matter are the sanctions imposed by the US against thirteen judges and prosecutors, and against the ICC as a whole.
I don’t understand how this makes the Netherlands a terrorist state nor America the good guys.
The "terrorist state" here is the US using extortion to undermine the law. But if you put a convicted felon at the head of the state, then this doesn't seem surprising.
Europe is divided and conquered, even though it looks like a single entity, US can buy some politicians in some parts of the EU and they would go against any resolution against US.
You can't win a battle when you have 20 generals and require the force of 20 in the way, when each has its own agenda and incentives and some of them are easy to buy
Let’s just dismantle it, it was a theatre anyway, only losers ever got there. I think keeping it around with reduced powers is worse than just totally dismantling it. Europe loves daddy a little bit too much.
You're right, but that linked piece isn't. Or, at least, the authors are either unaware, misinformed, or after some agenda. It's making a de jure argument. The ICC simply doesn't exist from the American perspective, because America is not a party to the treaty. The law it cites is, instead, congressional preauthorization to act if an American or an ally is captured.
As a citizen of a foreign country hosting US soldiers, the only lesson I learn from this is, if I ever get in trouble with a drunk US soldier, I jam my knife into his lungs and liver without hesitation or warning and make sure to let him bleed out before the police arrives.
Because they can just kill me for sport or fun without any repercussions at all now. I have a better chance dealing with the local prosecution and pretending self-defence.
Better if their mothers get a flag and no open casket than mine, right?
I don’t believe the intended goal is to create even more risks for the troops abroad, but that is what is happening if neither local courts nor ICC can any longer get hold of us soldiers murdering civilians for sport or fun.
And don’t say that never happens.
This will just make life for the good ones abroad incredibly more difficult.
The future solution will tjen be that the winner in a conflict will race to nab all enemies and execute them. That will be the only way to ensure "a punishment". Interring Putin, for example, would lead to pressure from Trump an Xi, in that order, to release him.
Looks like our future will be more bloody and violent as a result.
I think the Netaniahu case really damaged its legitimacy. Should have stay focused on dictators from failed states really. Not a reason to dismantle it of course, it's still an important institution without an alternative
Not only did my reasonable comment in this thread get flagged (after being upvoted!). I can no longer vouch for comments. The link is there, it just doesn’t do anything. Some site huh!
This usually means your account has been shadowbanned from casting flags and vouches. You'll also find yourself limited to posting 5 comments in a row.
It's because you posted what the moderators have determined is wrongthink. It was probably because you said Israel was bad, but there's no way to know for sure. You can email hn@ycombinator.com but they probably won't tell you.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Israel was an overreach for the court - hell, everything about Israel and international bodies is blatantly biased, if you try to take any baseline whatsoever. Africa's conflicts, Ukraine, previous wars etc. It works only if you consider Israel in a void, or in a category of its own. There were conflicts in Africa this summer that killed more people than died in all of Gaza's recent conflict, and got exactly 1% of the public indignation and UN resolutions.
International bodies are incredibly useful, but only if they avoid being used as political tools. And lately they've been delivering failure after failure. ICC, UN, WHO...
The correct solution in Israel was always UN troops. But that'd involve UN getting their hands dirty and doing something other than giving resolutions.
60 comments
[ 7.7 ms ] story [ 979 ms ] threadSo maybe we should be dismantling the Murdoch empire.
Meanwhile the UN GA keeps screaming for 3 things:
1) for the ICC stay away from "internal affairs" (stuff happening in countries who haven't agreed to the treaty of Rome)
Even the Netherlands demanded the ICC stay away from the siege of Srebrenica (because a Dutch commander and deployment, "Dutchbat", oversaw the massacre they were there to prevent. The commander who oversaw this total disaster was promoted and knighted instead, and then de-knighted some years later) [1]
2) to convict Israel (Which has retreated from the treaty of Rome)
3) to convict Russia (which is guilty of crimes in Ukraine, which do fall under the treaty of Rome)
At least the Russia stuff is somewhat admirable. Until you start looking at what happens on the ground (gets to the UN SC, where Russia and China and sometimes France object to do anything to Russia, and of course the UN GA refuses to do anything for money reasons)
The UN, like it's predecessor the League of Nations, just does nothing. Worse: it is constantly used as an excuse to do nothing about serious situations, like currently Sudan, for example. The UN is a great ideal, a "world police", that countries DO NOT WANT, especially not dictatorships and muslim countries. And the organization is in practice constantly used as the exact opposite of the ideal it supposedly represents. The world, very much, does not want peace at this point, or at the very least you can say, it's not willing to give up any economic reward for peace, certainly not elsewhere. Of course, these days, the UN's predecessor (same buildings, same people), the League of Nations, is not just blamed for doing nothing, but was the organization behind the treaty of Versailles, now generally considered the cause of WW2, as it caused the decades-long economic disaster that remade the Weimar Republic into the third reich.
And when the UN does interfere, well, the last 3 places they interfered were Lebanon, Haiti, and Sudan. I wonder how things are going in those 3 places? The first one was "the Congo problem", Katanga in Congo in Africa. I wonder what happened there when the UN withdrew ...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutchbat
[2] the Dreyfus affair (which, by the way, is a particularly egregious instance of this happening as part of a systematic campaign to do so in France, not an isolated incident)
Of course, the court violated their own rules, as it European tradition, to get Jews convicted.
First, Palestine has terror organizations which it HAS to fight according to UN rules. Does it really even need to be stated that there's problems there? (no doubt it's all Israel's fault according to you, but ...)
Second, if territory is in dispute, even just in practice, ALL parties must agree. Neither party agrees (not even Hamas: they have very publicly declared they will never deliver anyone at all to the ICC). Palestine has made it very clear they're only interested in using the ICC to get sanctions on Israel, and consider everything they do internal affairs.
Third, the whole deal of the UN is that redrawing borders is not allowed, and if for any reason you do want to redraw borders, you need support of the whole UNSC. No change was ever accepted (not by Israel or Palestine either btw). Which has the result that according to the rules, there is no Palestinian territory (unless you mean Jordan).
Fourth, Palestine has accepted the treaty of Rome, then publicly declared, on TV, and on the internet, and ... that they were never going to respect it (never deliver anyone from their side to the ICC). The treaty of Rome states that unless a commitment is made, no complaint can be accepted.
I would add that Palestine is not exactly fighting on their own, and to put it mildly if they achieve any progress at all, the result will not be freedom for Palestinians. In other words, the whole conflict is a lie, and was from the very beginning. Nobody, least of all other muslims, are interested in helping Palestinians. They're interested in destroying "Israel" (but really Jews).
But these sorts of issues are a very common problem with the ICC. Russia is (well, was, given what happened last month) ALSO trying to use the ICC to get Zelensky convicted for human rights violations. And they're not the only one. UN members, even security council members are only interested in using the ICC as a weapon, and could not care less about any principle of justice. South Africa, also involved in the Israel/Palestine case, deliberately hosted Omar Al-Sharif, directly violating their ICC obligations. Venezuela has also declared that the ICC has no standing in Guyana, for example, because Guyana is really Venezuelan territory (a big piece with oil, I forgot the exact name). Mongolia hosted Putin, and even got a "guru" to put on a show advising Putin to use nuclear weapons ... As I pointed out, even the Netherlands destroyed an ICC persecution. The US ... and so on and so forth.
I hope our next President seeks legal action against them over this gross transgression.
This is silly hyperbole.
I don’t understand how this makes the Netherlands a terrorist state nor America the good guys.
However, the Netherlands did nothing to push back, and are now just as guilty.
You can't win a battle when you have 20 generals and require the force of 20 in the way, when each has its own agenda and incentives and some of them are easy to buy
The title is wrong. Negotiating to do something is not the same as doing the thing.
What's next after ICC, start of slavery?
Who even put them in place? Whose interests did they further?
Good riddance.
The ICC prosecutes genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression when states are unable or unwilling to do so themselves.
> Who even put them in place?
125 states are party to the Rome Statue that created the ICC.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...
This is done just to please some foreign pals.
Because they can just kill me for sport or fun without any repercussions at all now. I have a better chance dealing with the local prosecution and pretending self-defence.
Better if their mothers get a flag and no open casket than mine, right?
I don’t believe the intended goal is to create even more risks for the troops abroad, but that is what is happening if neither local courts nor ICC can any longer get hold of us soldiers murdering civilians for sport or fun.
And don’t say that never happens. This will just make life for the good ones abroad incredibly more difficult.
> a) granting immunity to heads of state;
> b) excluding the Court's jurisdiction over nationals of non-state parties, even when they commit crimes on the territory of a state party; and
> c) denying the Court's jurisdiction over cases covered by national legislation.
Basically, no skin in the game for the decision makers, a will to power for the foot soldiers, and a panopticon for everyone else.
This may be a hard sell as 2/3rds majority is required to bring any Rome Statue amends into force.
International bodies are incredibly useful, but only if they avoid being used as political tools. And lately they've been delivering failure after failure. ICC, UN, WHO...
The correct solution in Israel was always UN troops. But that'd involve UN getting their hands dirty and doing something other than giving resolutions.