Because the built-in function of the international rules-based order is "rules for thee, not for me". Let's not forget that this is the first warrant request of a Western official since the court's founding.
this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
78 points (100.0% liked)
Global News
3624 readers
888 users here now
What is global news?
Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.Country prefix
Country prefix can be added tothe title with a separator (|, :, etc.) where title is not clear enough from which country the news is coming from.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.Companion communities
- !legalnews@lemmy.zip - International and local legal news.
- !technology@lemmy.zip - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
- !interestingshare@lemmy.zip - Fascinating articles, captivating images, satisfying videos, interesting projects, stunning research and more.
- !europe@feddit.org - News and information about Europe.
Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's easy to see why the US is defending Israel over the ICC, the US never ratified the treaty that gives the ICC any political power and we ignore anything they do. It wouldn't matter if it was Israel or George W. Bush or even Obama, we ignore everything they do.
They were all about supporting the ICC when they issued an arrest warrant for Putin. It just shows that the 'rules based international order' was always a sham. International law exists to give a legal veneer over the pure power politics that were always at play.
Short answer: it isn't, some far right news outlets and reactionaries on Twitter don't represent the entire civilization,
Short answer: it isn’t
The power structures that make 'the west' a bloc in the international system are 100% defending Israel's genocide.
We're giving them weapons, vetoing on their behalf in the UN, denying that the text book genocide going on is a genocide. Netanyahu's war crimes are as obvious and publicly committed as trump's money laundering and election subversion, yet biden is pretending that the ICC warrant is unjustified.
Despite a growing number of brutally beaten protestors, it's still true to say that the west is supporting israeli war crimes.
If your country was suddenly invaded and had 1200 mostly civilian, including women and children gunned down in one of your cities, including shooting up a concert, and your country had the means to stop it from happening again, would they? Even if it meant other likely innocent people would die in the process as well? Would your country be willing to wipe another country off the map in order to make sure that your people were never attacked and killed again?
So that's the reason. Isreal was attacked with no regard by a country that ran by a group of people after the goal of completely eliminating Isreals existence.
Now the entire middle easts history is convoluted as hell and many sides have fought with many others. The "blame game" puck could be passed around 100 times. But what would you feel your country would be justified to do if they were invaded by surprise like that? Would they make sure it couldn't happen again? Would you feel it was justified? It may not be a clear yes or no answer, or where a line should be drawn.
<...> your country had the means to stop it from happening again, would they?
By killing more civilians? Oh yes, that will definitely make sure it will never happen again. That might work in fiction, but in real life, it just guarantees more violence in the future.
Even if it meant other likely innocent people would die in the process as well?
That's a war crime. If the country is willing to do that, they should be willing to accept the punishment for it.
Would your country be willing to wipe another country off the map in order to make sure that your people were never attacked and killed again?
Has the history not taught you anything? Peaceful Palestinians who had nothing to do with Hamas, who had their entire families slathered, are NOW more likely to blame Israel for their crimes and join the Hamas (or someone new) in retaliation. Israel is the obstacle to peace, not the other way around. Ignorant people like you who justify civilian killings are the reason monsters like Netanyahu are in power in the first place. His own people don't like him and want him to step down, since when he was offered to bring the hostages in December, February, and April he refused. He needs this war to go forever, since the minute it ends he's done himself.
Would you have a problem with dropping a bomb on a school in your city if people there were taken hostage by some terrorists? By Israel's actions, that would be justified killing.
So that's the reason. Isreal was attacked with no regard by a country that ran by a group of people after the goal of completely eliminating Isreals existence.
Most people don't an issue with targeting people responsible for civilian deaths. Hamas and IDF are militants, and Israel has absolute right to attack them in the name of "self-defense" or even simple vengeance. On the other hand, dropping bombs on schools, hospitals, religious buildings or residential buildings where civilians are is a war crime.
Without justice, there cannot be peace.
End Israeli apartheid.
Holy strawman gish gallop, Batman!
The author of the article effectively refutes all of your novel of deflection with one sentence:
The proposed charges are not about whether Israel can defend itself but how, that is, not by committing war crimes.
Later on, he encapsulates the very thing that all of civilized society is based on:
regardless of the perceived justness of one’s cause, it never justifies war crimes.
Never. Under any circumstances. Ever.
Your question without all the rhetoric is: Does self defence justify elimination of an entire nation, country, ethnicity or people? The simple answer is no. Elimination of a nation, country, people or ethnicity is the textbook definition of genocide. If you read the article, you would know that ICC is charging hamas for war crimes as well as the Israeli regime, because war crimes by one party do not justify war crimes by the other party. So you do not need to think where the line should be drawn. The line already exists and Israeli regime has crossed it.
Except Palestine isn't a country, and Israel had already killed more Palestinians over the course of the year before Oct 7 happened. Gaza is an occupied territory, and you shouldn't be surprised if an occupied people decided to kill occupiers (most of which were actually active IDF personnel).
And then there's the question of the response. With the benefit of hindsight, how would you rate the US response to 9/11? Did the actual response make the US safer? Was killing and maiming millions of completely uninvolved people in 20 years of war worth it?
My country was invaded by terrorists on September 11th, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people. We waged war on the entire region the terrorists came from, eventually killing the leader of the group, and nothing changed. All our bombing did nothing, all our sacrifices of innocent people were for naught.
Amazingly, killing a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the terrorists that attacked your country is a bad move, and only serves to create more terrorists as people watch their loved ones die by your hand and grow to hate you.
If your takeaway from America's terrible actions post-9/11 is that we should've been even more brutal and wiped out the entire mostly-innocent population of the middle east, you've got the wrong takeaway.
..
Disgusting genocide apologist spotted!