Just a reminder: the ICC was founded in the aftermath of WWII, when Jews had no voice and no one fighting for them.
Israel’s finance minister, one of the most senior ministers in the government:
“No one in the world will allow us to starve two million civilians to death, even though it may be justified and moral, until our hostages are returned.”
Israel’s defense minister:
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.”
So sad to see that the Israel of Yitzhak Rabin only exists in traces anymore. He was not perfect, but after Peres it mostly went downhill... Ehud Olmert comes to mind as a positive influence in Israeli politics though.
Ehud Olmert was corrupt tho, he did have a plan to leave the west bank, it will be interesting to think where would we have been if it happens. Probably back to occupying sooner or later because of rocket attacks.
Thank you for speaking up, the political leadership indeed is a shame and it's important for citizens to speak out and let the world know that these blood-hungry bastards do not represent their citizens.
“The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an intergovernmental organisation and international tribunal seated in The Hague, Netherlands. Established in 2002
[…]
The establishment of an international tribunal to judge political leaders accused of international crimes was first proposed during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 following the First World War”
The story of Palestine is also weird and profoundly depressing, a group supporting the national socialists in world war 2 and still pretty much supporting national socialism 70 years later. Good consistent track record there.
> Just a reminder: the ICC was founded in the aftermath of WWII, when Jews had no voice and no one fighting for the
Founded in 2002. From the article: "The ICC was established in The Hague in 2002 as the court of last resort to prosecute individuals responsible for the world’s most heinous atrocities: war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression. It takes on cases when nations are unable or unwilling to prosecute crimes on their territory."
when israel and america both went on their insane run through gaza, venezuela and iran, the second thing i thought after feeling sorry for those people, was feeling sorry for israelis and americans. its going to be a rough ride getting out of this for both nations' people.
edit: and indeed the west in general, that has largely said and done nothing while watching events unfold.
Moshe Feiglin (Former Knesset Member): In May 2025, former Likud MP Moshe Feiglin sparked widespread international outrage during a live interview on Israeli TV Channel 14. He explicitly stated, "Every child, every baby in Gaza is an enemy"
Michal Waldiger (Knesset Member): Also in May 2025, during a heated parliamentary session, Religious Zionist Party MK Michal Waldiger responded to a speech condemning the deaths of children by stating, "Yes, they will also have to kill them, because there is no choice," later adding that they are "all enemies like the Nazis"
Nissim Vaturi (Deputy Speaker of the Knesset): In January 2024, Vaturi claimed on the Knesset Channel that "any child" born in Gaza is "already a terrorist" from the moment of birth
For every single person killed in the tragic attack on Israel in October, Israel has killed 64 children[0] (so far). To some people(including here, this argument keeps erupting all the time) this is a completely normal and acceptable trade off. People keep bringing up civilian casualties in Germany and Japan as if we can bend our morality this way. The number speaks for themselves.
I think your comment is more ambiguous than you realise. Who is the "them" at the end of your sentence?
Some would argue that Hamas continues to exist because no one has prosecutes its members.
Some would argue that Hamas exists because no one prosecutes those in the Israeli government (the "them" of the parent comment) who persecute Palestinians in a way that is bound to cultivate terrorism.
It's really sad seeing the international order, erected primarily by the US as a driving force after WW2, now being torn down by the current US administration to the detriment not only of global safety but also the US itself.
Giving up the best soft-power levers they had in an attempt to replace them with coarse, obvious and ineffective hard-power beat-sticks is not only foolish but history shows never works well or long term.
How is that "rules for thee and not for me" of they didn't sign up and didn't want the ICC to have any jurisdiction for unsigned states (including for other countries)
Edit: I guess you could point out Biden justifying Putin's warrant as a hypocrisy.
When has the US respected jurisdictions? The US for years have sent drones to foreign jurisdictions and executed people outside of any combat zone with no due process whatsoever. And according to news reports, some of the people killed were guilty by being in close physical proximity to a target. This is an affront to the rule of law, to say the least.
That aside, you know exactly what my point is. Just because there's a military conflict doesn't mean it's legal to kill anyone, anywhere, under any circumstances.
I don't know what the parent was thinking about, but the examples where the USA intervenes militarily in some country under the guise of justice while refusing any accountability for itself are many. The latest example to date is capturing Maduro because he's supposedly the leader of a drug gang to have him tried in a US court. So the concept of supranational justice and "assault on state sovereignty" is fine when it is in the interest of the USA.
Keep in mind that the US has never joined the ICC. China, Russia, India and, in fact, a large portion of the world (including the Arab world) aren't part of it.
The ICC, irrespective of its merits, represents a somewhat narrow point of view.
The first gulf war, the one that happened 4 years after the US government sold Iraq war helicopters very cheaply, and help them improve their chemical weapons to use against Iran. Two years after it gave Iraq targets for their brand new cyclosarin weapons, as well as political support to prevent Iraq from loosing.
The US has really degenerated into a strongman state hasn’t it? This is more like what they tell us to expect from China, but what we actually get from the US.
Which goes to show that China under Xi is probably the best "super power" enemy the US could ever hope for. What happens after Xi is anyone's get but I doubt it will be so benign.
From everything we know about China, there is no succession plan, so I guess no one knows what it will be like, but the odds are it won't be as stable as it is now. I hope I'm wrong.
Succession is going to pick someone from standing committee, i.e the candidate pool is known, and the pipeline to that pool is known. At minimum it's going to be a career bureaucrat with decades of experience, and with anticorruption drive, likely clean candidates even if it skips generations. What they won't have is miscellaneous candidate with unknown governance ability parachuted in on popularity vote.
Which country besides the US has the audacity to think it has extraterritorial rights to interfere with legal practices elsewhere? To me, it is obvious that this is violent behavior and will lead to defensive action by others, and more violence, not more peace.
If it was the “hard power” it claims, what is it that makes “it” so afraid? To me, it is fairly obvious that this is how a threatened being behaves, in “childish ways”, before it fully falls apart.
You may not have intended it this way, but your top paragraph could easily be repurposed as a talking point for the current administration. What does the I in ICC stand for?
It's more low key than America but they set up secret police stations to keep an eye on Chinese communities all over the world. Officially they only help investigate crimes against their citizens but they also harass and spy on known political opponents.
The PRC is strongarming educational institutions. Look up the Drew Pavlou case at Queensland University. There are similar reports from New Zealand, Canada and the UK.
The ICC itself and its member states believe they have extraterritorial rights to interfere with legal practices elsewhere, which is sort of the whole point.
The ICC claims rights in territories where the sovereign power in that territory has signed and incorporated a treaty that grants those rights. ICC jurisdiction is domestic law.
And then there’s the whole bit about the ICC prosecutor who issued the warrants (Khan) issuing them as an attempt blackmail a fellow Muslim ICC employee who he was raping into keeping silent with “think of the Palestinian arrest warrants”: https://archive.is/YrxUF
Any country is free to issue warrants, and enforce them on their own territory. Any country is free to enforce other countries warrants on their territories or not. That’s what mutual legal assistance treaties are for.
There's been a lot of stuff bringing us back to the 2002-2008 era, with the occupation of Afghanistan, etc., now that the Brits are finally investigating the SAS men who murdered people in their beds etc., so I've been reading about the old El-Masri case and the CIA black sites in Europe, and the use of state secrets privilege to block El-Masri's lawsuit in the US, the Polish unwillingness to seriously investigate.
The only two good things are I think the ECtHR's willingness to demand an investigation, and one can question whether the CoM of the CoE have done their job in ensuring implementation, but they're at least regularly checking whether there are implementation attempts.
But what struck me was the endless deference of the ICC. They've limited their Afghanistan investigation to Afghani perpetrators even though they have access to vast numbers of Europeans with information about the black sites and the investigation of these things is even more tractable than investigating things in Afghanistan, and I think it's this deference that is the ICC's problem.
The ICC actually has powers sufficient to deal with the sanctions completely, with no need for aid from European states in any regard.
It's to the point where anyone participating in anything affecting the ICC's ability to do its job can be ordered arrested and confined indefinitely. The ICC can literally order the arrest of the workforce of an entire bank if it participates in anything having to do with retaliation against the ICC. The only thing preventing milder things like ordering the arrest of the CEO and board is the ICC's insane deference. They can also apply these things to the American political leadership who have passed the sanctions.
So I really don't understand the Americans. The ICC is doing exactly what they want. They're not even subpoenaing Europeans who sit right here with knowledge about the black sites and torture, even under intense criticism from victims who are of course pushing for investigation.
The article really misunderstands what sort of powers the ICC has. The ICC doesn't need the blocking statute to end enforcement of sanctions, they can order the arrest and indefinite detainment of anyone participating in retaliation against the court.
>The ICC can literally order the arrest of the workforce of an entire bank if it participates in anything having to do with retaliation against the ICC.
I would suggest that the reason that the ICC hasn't done this yet is not deference, but because they don't want to have to force a bank to choose between having their business essentially destroyed by being sanctioned by the US, and being arrested by the court.
Oh it's definitely a threat, and the damage is not potential but factual already. Consider 120+ children dead in a single airstrike on a school in Iran, or the current gasoline prices worldwide as a result of the unprovoked war they started. People killed, world economy damage, plus the damage to international alliances, institutions, and the rule of law. Just quick 3 examples of the actual damage, and that's only this year!
They're threatening multiple countries, sovereign territories and invaded/attacked two countries in a matter of 1 year.
If this is not a "threat", then what is your definition of one? If anything you could argue this is a step ABOVE threat, since US no longer threats like e.g. North Korea does, but it actively acts as a bully on a world-wide stage.
I've lived in the US for many years and while I appreciate my time there, I can definitely say that as of today, the US is the actual cancer of the world.
I think it's something to do with them issueing an arrest warrant in November 2024 for Netanyahu for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity as part of the ICC investigation in Palestine.
They are concerned that they will be the target for war crimes, such as sinking fishing ships in the Caribbean and Pacific, targeting civilian infrastructure in Iran, and the like.
The USA has a robust legal system that draws its powers from the people, who elect legislators that can rectify situations where the law is wrong or if the courts have wronged someone incorrectly. From the perspective of US citizens, as a non-signatory country, there is no higher authority than the US justice system.
Other countries can’t just say that they’ve decided on laws and a justice system to prosecute Americans (in the absence of a US agreed treaty), and if they threaten to detain Americans anyway they are engaging in hostile aggression against the USA, especially if this is done in a politicized way.
> The USA has a robust legal system that draws its powers from the people, who elect legislators that can rectify situations where the law is wrong or if the courts have wronged someone incorrectly.
Not sure why this is relevant, since the same holds true for any democratic country, no?
Americans have no say on its laws and procedures, and it is not accountable to the American people. Many of its member states are themselves semi-democratic or totally autocratic. People such as Afghani women, for example, have no rights at home and by extension no say on the procedures of the ICC, but they can be judged by it, because their dictators are signatories and do have a say.
> Americans have no say on its laws and procedures, and it is not accountable to the American people.
Maybe I'm missing your point, but what stops Americans from having a say in its laws and procedures? If the US signed on, Americans would have the same voice as everyone else, no? Though I guess its voice would actually still be louder, because the ICC draws its power from the member countries.
Regarding the accountability - yes, it's not solely accountable to the American people. That's the core idea behind an international court: it is not beholden to any single country.
> Many of its member states are themselves semi-democratic or totally autocratic. People such as Afghani women, for example, have no rights at home and by extension no say on the procedures of the ICC, but they can be judged by it, because their dictators are signatories and do have a say.
While I get the idea, I'm not convinced that the absence of an ICC-like institution would in any way help disenfranchised people with gaining these rights. As the last few years have shown, the US - left to its own devices - will gleefully support an ongoing genocide.
> If the US signed on, Americans would have the same voice as everyone else, no?
But you can’t force them to accept a foreign sovereignty. It would be like the USA saying that US federal law now applies to Greenland, and they have a right to participate in federal elections.
> I'm not convinced that the absence of an ICC-like institution would in any way help disenfranchised people with gaining these rights.
I’m not convinced that the ICC is capable of helping anyone. They can run tribunals after-the-fact, if some other power has already taken care of the perpetrator, which may be useful in some situations, like when a devastated country doesn’t have the resources to run a trial themselves, but it can’t prevent or stop anything from happening. Doing that would usually mean the ICC would have to raise an army and go to war.
For example, in 2024 the ICC issued arrest warrants for the leaders of Hamas. Palestine, which is a signatory, did nothing to try and arrest them. Neither did any of the other ICC countries, because executing that warrant would require going to war in Gaza (which is what Israel did). Neither has the warrant for Netanyahu made any difference.
> But you can’t force them to accept a foreign sovereignty.
...No, that's why the ICC requires us to sign on.
We voluntarily accept a joint sovereignty over each other.
The problem is that for the past 80 years or so, the US has gotten very, very comfortable forcing other nations to accept our sovereignty. Over them. The powers that be really, really don't want to give that up and be accountable to anyone.
That's not sustainable, it's not ethical, and it's guaranteed to lead to more conflict down the line.
The ICC as currently constituted may be imperfect, but IMO it is a good step forward toward a world where we are all accountable to each other, and we collectively enforce an agreed-upon set of ethics for every country's operations.
I don't know the legal technicalities, but It may be. We must not forget that most people killed by ICE were from other countries.
The list of people killed whereas in ICE detention comprises 67 people just in the last 3 years. Plus the two US citizens executed in the streets [1]. Some died after being denied medical treatments that needed for survive, other were chocked to dead, or shoot, and other were found "unresponsive in the cells", or died with collapsed lungs, kidney failures and other symptoms that shout "being beaten to pulp". This people were also human beings.
And some commit suicide. An example:
"Ge was in ICE custody for 5 days, and was found hanging by the neck in a shower stall. The county coroner report later determined his feet and hands to be bound, but ruled the cause to be suicide and noted rare, known cases of self-restraint in suicide cases"
People killed by ICE comprises citizens from USA, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Ukraine, Colombia, Vietnam, China, Venezuela, Cambodia, Haiti, Nicaragua, Honduras, Ethiopia or Iran.
Because both T & N that have utter disrespect for law & order when it affects themselves. For example: both have to remain in political power as this immunity from law shields them from running trials that would probably end them in prison.
Trump, a.k.a. Evil President Camacho, is not the only one. Even Bill Clinton, which I, as a conservative, consider the last US real stateman, was more interested in neutering the ICC than really joining it.
Because Trump's best bro, Putin, and his good friends in the Israeli government find themselves inconvenienced by it.
The US isn't subject to it, as it didn't sign up, but he's probably also worried that Americans who are accused of war crimes and then travel to countries which are signatories may find themselves arrested and tried.
It's a big mistake that they never dragged those responsible for the Gulf Wars to the ICC. At least formally. I think Italy formally declared some U.S. military as war criminals?
It's better that they rip the badaid off like this. The EU cannot stand by if all of the ICC is hit. It's gonna be painful for all of us in Europe for a little while, but this is far better than letting any more single individuals have their lives ruined for doing their (legal!) jobs for European institutions. This has already happened too many times, and is truly shameful – let this conflict rage for real now, so that it's a burden we all have to bear together!
Fully agree. EU needs to get their act together and start getting independent. It's absurd that I cannot pay cashless without using American companies. Or that people lose their bank account because someone in America does something.
Edit: They also need to force banks to make a decision. Do you want to do business in the EU? Then you must not close accounts bank accounts because someone in US puts someone on a list. If that means you lose business in the US, so be it. Make a decision which market you want to operate in. If you want to leave EU, do it. Others will take your place.
> It's absurd that I cannot pay cashless without using American companies
The infrastructure for it exists with instant SEPA transfers, and Wero is slowly developing into a useful system for retail payments, but without the EU mandating that banks and retailers must support it alongside Visa it will take a while for meaningful penetration to happen.
Yeah, it's good that it is progressing. But my hopes are really on the digital Euro. I hope the EU doesn't fall for the lobbying against it by the (Wero) banks.
If both houses switch then he will be distracted fighting them for the rest of his term; if they don't we no longer need to treat the US as a functioning democracy.
And then what? Things will magically go back to the way they were? I doubt it. The US has seriously damaged its international reputation. It has burned bridges. It has started literal wars. Removing the Orange Danger would be a good start, but it will by no means by the end the problem.
Exactly. Trump isn't the problem. Trump is a symptom. I'm far more terrified that the US will sigh and go "puh, glad that's over and will never again be a problem" than I am of Trump.
The problem is that the EU is not a country, it is a bloc. Each member state is a sovereign nation.
It is up to each member state to decide how to respond to an increasingly hostile US.
Which is why foreign actors such as US and Russia always seem to undermine the EU and foment dissent in the bloc. A unified Europe would be much harder to push around.
That is a problem, for the EU, from a perspective of power and effectiveness. The problem for the US is, in part, due to the concentration of power in the presidency, for foreign affairs.
If the US chooses someone sane next time, reestablishing institutional power, and diffusing power to avoid chaos in the future, will have to be part of the plan.
> The problem is that the EU is not a country, it is a bloc. Each member state is a sovereign nation.
Yes, but
> It is up to each member state to decide how to respond to an increasingly hostile US.
is not true. A member state cannot, for example, decide that it's fine to import and sell US beef. It is perfectly possible to introduce EU laws that protect the population of Europe from the US using European banks as a weapon against law-abiding people.
> Which is why foreign actors such as US and Russia always seem to undermine the EU and foment dissent in the bloc. A unified Europe would be much harder to push around.
It's a scale. I, too, wish for a more tightly integrated Europe, but that doesn't mean there is no integration whatsoever today.
> It is perfectly possible to introduce EU laws that protect the population of Europe from the US using European banks as a weapon against law-abiding people.
Yes it is but it's going to be necessary to have an alternative first.
Right now especially in point of sale solutions there's a practical monopoly by visa and mastercard within the EU and it's going to take years to replace that with a local solution.
While the EU does impose a lot of regulations on trade (thankfully I might add), foreign policy in general is still up to each member state. It's how we had Orban for years licking Putin's asshole.
I am very much in favor of a more integrated EU, including to a sort of federalization. Only with more integration we can stand up to other great powers.
> "The Trump Administration has been clear: the International Criminal Court is a corrupt and fatally politicized supranational court that has maliciously abused its authority and exceeded its mandate," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement.
I've never really thought about the ICC at all other than just knowing that the few countries that possess both hard power (military) and soft power (economic) have refused to join or recognize the ICC since its inception in 2002.
Why would China and USA both not recognize it? It seems like they're the only ones that really matter.
They don’t recognize it because they don’t have to. Why would you voluntarily agree to be bound by laws and subject to a court system if you have the option to just say you didn’t want to?
I'll preface it with the only part of the US argument against the ICC that is somewhat principled and reasonable: there is some concern that it'd be used for political prosecution of US service members or decision makers outside of constitutional guarantees like a jury trial
I don't think it actually would happen if it joined but since it's the US I can also imagine someone being pushed to (or doing it for some personal fame) to bend the procedural rules to at least launch an investigation that wouldn't generally be launched if the facts were the same in another western country.
That being said, their accusations towards the ICC as it has operated so far (as opposed to why they don't join) are mostly pretextual and right now they're mostly motivated by their alliance with Israel which is being investigated over Gaza
This will further push the EU towards sovereignty, not just on a tech front but through the financial sector. Similar to their sanctions of the Iranian airlines - these are attacks on civilian and human rights infrastructure that other countries actually find value and alignment with.
Probably (hopefully) we'll look back on this as the start of the end of US soft influence.
Almost none of the US's recent actions are new or a "turning point". All what the Trump government changed was to throw the gloves off and make it blatantly, stupidly obvious, and to act haphazardly and without thorough preparation.
ICC, embrace-extinguishing EU, exploiting Middle East, South America as colonies - these are not 180 turns, just playing the same game faster and dumber. Notable exceptions may be Canada or Greenland, but even there one might suspect they just surfaced a previously well disguised agenda.
The ICC is a waste of money and resources, and pure bullshits. It has barely achieved anything except sentencing 23 people for an absurdly low number of years.
> Champions of the court say it deters would-be war criminals, bolsters the rule of law, and offers justice to victims of atrocities. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/role-icc
Israeli here.
Just a reminder: the ICC was founded in the aftermath of WWII, when Jews had no voice and no one fighting for them.
Israel’s finance minister, one of the most senior ministers in the government:
“No one in the world will allow us to starve two million civilians to death, even though it may be justified and moral, until our hostages are returned.”
Israel’s defense minister:
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.”
Someone should prosecute those bastards.
If Milosevic was backed by Pennsylvania Avenue, he would still be in power today.
[flagged]
Nitpick: the ICC is not in Amsterdam, it's in Den Haag.
There's an argument to be made that the man sitting in Pennsylvania Avenue is a modern-day Milosevic himself. I'm sure they'd get along swimmingly.
if he was a bit more into guns he would probably join the Sarajevo safari
So sad to see that the Israel of Yitzhak Rabin only exists in traces anymore. He was not perfect, but after Peres it mostly went downhill... Ehud Olmert comes to mind as a positive influence in Israeli politics though.
Ehud Olmert was corrupt tho, he did have a plan to leave the west bank, it will be interesting to think where would we have been if it happens. Probably back to occupying sooner or later because of rocket attacks.
ICJ was founded on the aftermath not ICC.
Thank you for speaking up, the political leadership indeed is a shame and it's important for citizens to speak out and let the world know that these blood-hungry bastards do not represent their citizens.
ICC was established in 2002, hardly "in the aftermath."
> Just a reminder: the ICC was founded in the aftermath of WWII
I don’t think that’s correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court:
“The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an intergovernmental organisation and international tribunal seated in The Hague, Netherlands. Established in 2002
[…]
The establishment of an international tribunal to judge political leaders accused of international crimes was first proposed during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 following the First World War”
Trump is saying this daily about Iran. Saying stuff and doing stuff is not the same thing. Should someone prosecute Trump?
Bush also had similar statements after 9-11, don't think he was prosecuted.
I’m pretty sure they’re past the point of prosecution.
Why not? Survivors of the the Nazi regime were famously put on trial and executed. I'd say it's too early for that, the regime hasn't fallen yet.
Many of them moved to Argentina and died of old age. Unironically it seems to be the country selected as escape route again.
The story of Israel is both poetic in a weird way and also profoundly depressing.
A state founded to protect a group of people from national socialism ends up... implementing national socialism itself 70 years later.
I guess we'll see if it also ends in the same way
The story of Palestine is also weird and profoundly depressing, a group supporting the national socialists in world war 2 and still pretty much supporting national socialism 70 years later. Good consistent track record there.
[flagged]
You're not allowed to talk about Jewish xenophobia.
Guys like Ben Gvir and Smotrich talk pretty openly about it all the time, people just don't want to listen for some reason.
They're not and never have been our friends, they detest us
What a brazen lie clearly intended to create some holocaust sympathy play.
WWII ended in 1945.
The law creating ICC was adopted in 1998 and the actual creation of ICC happened in 2002.
Some aftermath.
> Just a reminder: the ICC was founded in the aftermath of WWII, when Jews had no voice and no one fighting for the
Founded in 2002. From the article: "The ICC was established in The Hague in 2002 as the court of last resort to prosecute individuals responsible for the world’s most heinous atrocities: war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression. It takes on cases when nations are unable or unwilling to prosecute crimes on their territory."
I hope Israel will. You know how to deal with Nazis.
when israel and america both went on their insane run through gaza, venezuela and iran, the second thing i thought after feeling sorry for those people, was feeling sorry for israelis and americans. its going to be a rough ride getting out of this for both nations' people.
edit: and indeed the west in general, that has largely said and done nothing while watching events unfold.
Another Israeli here. Wholeheartedly agree.
Moshe Feiglin (Former Knesset Member): In May 2025, former Likud MP Moshe Feiglin sparked widespread international outrage during a live interview on Israeli TV Channel 14. He explicitly stated, "Every child, every baby in Gaza is an enemy"
Michal Waldiger (Knesset Member): Also in May 2025, during a heated parliamentary session, Religious Zionist Party MK Michal Waldiger responded to a speech condemning the deaths of children by stating, "Yes, they will also have to kill them, because there is no choice," later adding that they are "all enemies like the Nazis"
Nissim Vaturi (Deputy Speaker of the Knesset): In January 2024, Vaturi claimed on the Knesset Channel that "any child" born in Gaza is "already a terrorist" from the moment of birth
For every single person killed in the tragic attack on Israel in October, Israel has killed 64 children[0] (so far). To some people(including here, this argument keeps erupting all the time) this is a completely normal and acceptable trade off. People keep bringing up civilian casualties in Germany and Japan as if we can bend our morality this way. The number speaks for themselves.
[0] https://www.unicefusa.org/stories/more-50000-children-killed...
[flagged]
I think your comment is more ambiguous than you realise. Who is the "them" at the end of your sentence?
Some would argue that Hamas continues to exist because no one has prosecutes its members.
Some would argue that Hamas exists because no one prosecutes those in the Israeli government (the "them" of the parent comment) who persecute Palestinians in a way that is bound to cultivate terrorism.
Who is them and who is us? People are dying and we’ve been tricked to treat this as if it were a football game.
And how lucky Israel allowed and facilitated the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars to them.
And a time machine I guess? :P
It's really sad seeing the international order, erected primarily by the US as a driving force after WW2, now being torn down by the current US administration to the detriment not only of global safety but also the US itself.
Giving up the best soft-power levers they had in an attempt to replace them with coarse, obvious and ineffective hard-power beat-sticks is not only foolish but history shows never works well or long term.
The US has always been actively hostile to the ICC [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...?
The US never signed up to the ICC, rules for thee and not for me as usual from our Yankee 'friends'
How is that "rules for thee and not for me" of they didn't sign up and didn't want the ICC to have any jurisdiction for unsigned states (including for other countries)
Edit: I guess you could point out Biden justifying Putin's warrant as a hypocrisy.
When has the US respected jurisdictions? The US for years have sent drones to foreign jurisdictions and executed people outside of any combat zone with no due process whatsoever. And according to news reports, some of the people killed were guilty by being in close physical proximity to a target. This is an affront to the rule of law, to say the least.
Conducting war is not subject to jurisdictions almost by definition so I'm unsure what your point is.
The last time the US has declared war is 1942.
That aside, you know exactly what my point is. Just because there's a military conflict doesn't mean it's legal to kill anyone, anywhere, under any circumstances.
How that relates to rules to thee but not for me or jurisdiction of ICC?
I don't know what the parent was thinking about, but the examples where the USA intervenes militarily in some country under the guise of justice while refusing any accountability for itself are many. The latest example to date is capturing Maduro because he's supposedly the leader of a drug gang to have him tried in a US court. So the concept of supranational justice and "assault on state sovereignty" is fine when it is in the interest of the USA.
Keep in mind that the US has never joined the ICC. China, Russia, India and, in fact, a large portion of the world (including the Arab world) aren't part of it.
The ICC, irrespective of its merits, represents a somewhat narrow point of view.
The problem is that the US used its soft power for evil, not for good. WW2 was the last war where the US were the good guys.
With the US' war of aggression on Iran, it just doesnt care what it loses in its quest to support Israel.
Agreed mostly but there's some exceptions. Like the first gulf war, America did come to the aid of Kuwait as it was attacked by Iraq.
Of course this was motivated by oil interests and not human rights but I can't call them the 'bad guys' here.
The first gulf war, the one that happened 4 years after the US government sold Iraq war helicopters very cheaply, and help them improve their chemical weapons to use against Iran. Two years after it gave Iraq targets for their brand new cyclosarin weapons, as well as political support to prevent Iraq from loosing.
That one had a UN mandate.
The US saw the opportunity to entrench itself by putting bases in the Gulf states.
Is supporting one ally a war of aggression? Explain your criteria.
The US has really degenerated into a strongman state hasn’t it? This is more like what they tell us to expect from China, but what we actually get from the US.
This is what the propaganda, from school to hollywood, taught us to expect from China and USSR.
Total speedrun.
Which goes to show that China under Xi is probably the best "super power" enemy the US could ever hope for. What happens after Xi is anyone's get but I doubt it will be so benign.
Why wouldn't it be so "benign"? Unlike the USA, China seems to have pretty sane leadership in general.
Their handling of COVID was not proportional and caused a lot of harm. Not that the US president at the time did any better.
From everything we know about China, there is no succession plan, so I guess no one knows what it will be like, but the odds are it won't be as stable as it is now. I hope I'm wrong.
Succession is going to pick someone from standing committee, i.e the candidate pool is known, and the pipeline to that pool is known. At minimum it's going to be a career bureaucrat with decades of experience, and with anticorruption drive, likely clean candidates even if it skips generations. What they won't have is miscellaneous candidate with unknown governance ability parachuted in on popularity vote.
> with anticorruption drive
The future of the world depends on that.
Which country besides the US has the audacity to think it has extraterritorial rights to interfere with legal practices elsewhere? To me, it is obvious that this is violent behavior and will lead to defensive action by others, and more violence, not more peace.
If it was the “hard power” it claims, what is it that makes “it” so afraid? To me, it is fairly obvious that this is how a threatened being behaves, in “childish ways”, before it fully falls apart.
You may not have intended it this way, but your top paragraph could easily be repurposed as a talking point for the current administration. What does the I in ICC stand for?
If that's a talking point it's a stupid one. The Rome Statutes are only valid in territories that have agreed to be bound by them.
It isn't bound, Hamas didn't agree to be bound by ICC.
And the local drug dealer says he's a sovcit but is still somehow in jail. What's your point?
But the equivalent don't hold there is no one enforcing ICC warrants in Gaza and Yahya Sinwar wasn't in jail.
Counter point: ICC enforces laws within its members territories.
Don't like it, don't do genocide or dont visit its member countries.
The PRC.
Where?
It's more low key than America but they set up secret police stations to keep an eye on Chinese communities all over the world. Officially they only help investigate crimes against their citizens but they also harass and spy on known political opponents.
In 2021 they ran a campaign that forced over 200k overseas Chinese to return to the mainland or risk punishment against their family: https://safeguarddefenders.com/en/blog/110-overseas-230000-c...
Manchester https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63972640
and several others in UK
This directly involves Chinese citizens and the Chinese consulate, and diplomatic immunity exists everywhere.
The US is sanctioning a foreign court over actions that do not even involve the US itself. There is no comparison here.
The PRC is strongarming educational institutions. Look up the Drew Pavlou case at Queensland University. There are similar reports from New Zealand, Canada and the UK.
The ICC itself and its member states believe they have extraterritorial rights to interfere with legal practices elsewhere, which is sort of the whole point.
The ICC claims rights in territories where the sovereign power in that territory has signed and incorporated a treaty that grants those rights. ICC jurisdiction is domestic law.
The ICC is issuing warrants against non-members. In fact, the issuance of the warrants against the Israelis even violates the ICCs own rules and precedent: https://www.timesofisrael.com/appealing-icc-arrest-warrants-...
And then there’s the whole bit about the ICC prosecutor who issued the warrants (Khan) issuing them as an attempt blackmail a fellow Muslim ICC employee who he was raping into keeping silent with “think of the Palestinian arrest warrants”: https://archive.is/YrxUF
Any country is free to issue warrants, and enforce them on their own territory. Any country is free to enforce other countries warrants on their territories or not. That’s what mutual legal assistance treaties are for.
There's been a lot of stuff bringing us back to the 2002-2008 era, with the occupation of Afghanistan, etc., now that the Brits are finally investigating the SAS men who murdered people in their beds etc., so I've been reading about the old El-Masri case and the CIA black sites in Europe, and the use of state secrets privilege to block El-Masri's lawsuit in the US, the Polish unwillingness to seriously investigate.
The only two good things are I think the ECtHR's willingness to demand an investigation, and one can question whether the CoM of the CoE have done their job in ensuring implementation, but they're at least regularly checking whether there are implementation attempts.
But what struck me was the endless deference of the ICC. They've limited their Afghanistan investigation to Afghani perpetrators even though they have access to vast numbers of Europeans with information about the black sites and the investigation of these things is even more tractable than investigating things in Afghanistan, and I think it's this deference that is the ICC's problem.
The ICC actually has powers sufficient to deal with the sanctions completely, with no need for aid from European states in any regard.
It's to the point where anyone participating in anything affecting the ICC's ability to do its job can be ordered arrested and confined indefinitely. The ICC can literally order the arrest of the workforce of an entire bank if it participates in anything having to do with retaliation against the ICC. The only thing preventing milder things like ordering the arrest of the CEO and board is the ICC's insane deference. They can also apply these things to the American political leadership who have passed the sanctions.
So I really don't understand the Americans. The ICC is doing exactly what they want. They're not even subpoenaing Europeans who sit right here with knowledge about the black sites and torture, even under intense criticism from victims who are of course pushing for investigation.
The article really misunderstands what sort of powers the ICC has. The ICC doesn't need the blocking statute to end enforcement of sanctions, they can order the arrest and indefinite detainment of anyone participating in retaliation against the court.
>The ICC can literally order the arrest of the workforce of an entire bank if it participates in anything having to do with retaliation against the ICC.
I would suggest that the reason that the ICC hasn't done this yet is not deference, but because they don't want to have to force a bank to choose between having their business essentially destroyed by being sanctioned by the US, and being arrested by the court.
the united states is a threat to the world.
is it really a `threat` (ie potential damage)?
id say it is harmful. like a cancerous tumor that now went into hypergrowth
Oh it's definitely a threat, and the damage is not potential but factual already. Consider 120+ children dead in a single airstrike on a school in Iran, or the current gasoline prices worldwide as a result of the unprovoked war they started. People killed, world economy damage, plus the damage to international alliances, institutions, and the rule of law. Just quick 3 examples of the actual damage, and that's only this year!
They're threatening multiple countries, sovereign territories and invaded/attacked two countries in a matter of 1 year.
If this is not a "threat", then what is your definition of one? If anything you could argue this is a step ABOVE threat, since US no longer threats like e.g. North Korea does, but it actively acts as a bully on a world-wide stage.
I've lived in the US for many years and while I appreciate my time there, I can definitely say that as of today, the US is the actual cancer of the world.
Is a cancerous tumour not a threat to life?
Can anyone explain to me why the trump administration hates the ICC so much?
I think it's something to do with them issueing an arrest warrant in November 2024 for Netanyahu for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity as part of the ICC investigation in Palestine.
They are concerned that they will be the target for war crimes, such as sinking fishing ships in the Caribbean and Pacific, targeting civilian infrastructure in Iran, and the like.
The USA has a robust legal system that draws its powers from the people, who elect legislators that can rectify situations where the law is wrong or if the courts have wronged someone incorrectly. From the perspective of US citizens, as a non-signatory country, there is no higher authority than the US justice system.
Other countries can’t just say that they’ve decided on laws and a justice system to prosecute Americans (in the absence of a US agreed treaty), and if they threaten to detain Americans anyway they are engaging in hostile aggression against the USA, especially if this is done in a politicized way.
> The USA has a robust legal system that draws its powers from the people, who elect legislators that can rectify situations where the law is wrong or if the courts have wronged someone incorrectly.
Not sure why this is relevant, since the same holds true for any democratic country, no?
Correct, but it doesn’t hold true for the ICC.
Americans have no say on its laws and procedures, and it is not accountable to the American people. Many of its member states are themselves semi-democratic or totally autocratic. People such as Afghani women, for example, have no rights at home and by extension no say on the procedures of the ICC, but they can be judged by it, because their dictators are signatories and do have a say.
> Americans have no say on its laws and procedures, and it is not accountable to the American people.
Maybe I'm missing your point, but what stops Americans from having a say in its laws and procedures? If the US signed on, Americans would have the same voice as everyone else, no? Though I guess its voice would actually still be louder, because the ICC draws its power from the member countries.
Regarding the accountability - yes, it's not solely accountable to the American people. That's the core idea behind an international court: it is not beholden to any single country.
> Many of its member states are themselves semi-democratic or totally autocratic. People such as Afghani women, for example, have no rights at home and by extension no say on the procedures of the ICC, but they can be judged by it, because their dictators are signatories and do have a say.
While I get the idea, I'm not convinced that the absence of an ICC-like institution would in any way help disenfranchised people with gaining these rights. As the last few years have shown, the US - left to its own devices - will gleefully support an ongoing genocide.
> If the US signed on, Americans would have the same voice as everyone else, no?
But you can’t force them to accept a foreign sovereignty. It would be like the USA saying that US federal law now applies to Greenland, and they have a right to participate in federal elections.
> I'm not convinced that the absence of an ICC-like institution would in any way help disenfranchised people with gaining these rights.
I’m not convinced that the ICC is capable of helping anyone. They can run tribunals after-the-fact, if some other power has already taken care of the perpetrator, which may be useful in some situations, like when a devastated country doesn’t have the resources to run a trial themselves, but it can’t prevent or stop anything from happening. Doing that would usually mean the ICC would have to raise an army and go to war.
For example, in 2024 the ICC issued arrest warrants for the leaders of Hamas. Palestine, which is a signatory, did nothing to try and arrest them. Neither did any of the other ICC countries, because executing that warrant would require going to war in Gaza (which is what Israel did). Neither has the warrant for Netanyahu made any difference.
> But you can’t force them to accept a foreign sovereignty.
...No, that's why the ICC requires us to sign on.
We voluntarily accept a joint sovereignty over each other.
The problem is that for the past 80 years or so, the US has gotten very, very comfortable forcing other nations to accept our sovereignty. Over them. The powers that be really, really don't want to give that up and be accountable to anyone.
That's not sustainable, it's not ethical, and it's guaranteed to lead to more conflict down the line.
The ICC as currently constituted may be imperfect, but IMO it is a good step forward toward a world where we are all accountable to each other, and we collectively enforce an agreed-upon set of ethics for every country's operations.
The investigation into both Netanyahu, and American soldiers in Afghanistan.
Bombing school in Iran, killing people on boat of venezuela coast. ICE murder people on streets.
The latter is a domestic issue, nothing to do with the ICC probably.
But the same domestic issue is most likely going to ensure that the lunatics will stay in power.
You can check Philippines president Duterte ICC case.
I don't know the legal technicalities, but It may be. We must not forget that most people killed by ICE were from other countries.
The list of people killed whereas in ICE detention comprises 67 people just in the last 3 years. Plus the two US citizens executed in the streets [1]. Some died after being denied medical treatments that needed for survive, other were chocked to dead, or shoot, and other were found "unresponsive in the cells", or died with collapsed lungs, kidney failures and other symptoms that shout "being beaten to pulp". This people were also human beings.
And some commit suicide. An example:
"Ge was in ICE custody for 5 days, and was found hanging by the neck in a shower stall. The county coroner report later determined his feet and hands to be bound, but ruled the cause to be suicide and noted rare, known cases of self-restraint in suicide cases"
People killed by ICE comprises citizens from USA, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Ukraine, Colombia, Vietnam, China, Venezuela, Cambodia, Haiti, Nicaragua, Honduras, Ethiopia or Iran.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_in_ICE_detentio...
This list does not include people that died shortly after being liberated or that was shoot at the frontier.
It's been every administration. Obama and Biden refused it also
Sure, but there is a difference between not wanting to take part and actively trying to sabotage it for everyone else.
Bush, Obama and Biden wanted to keep the US out of it. Trump wants to destroy it.
Because Evil Camacho is a buffon, and does in clear light what others have the decency to do in civilized ways.
There is something seriously wrong when in a court POTUS (self-)pardon powers do not work.
Because
- they issued a non-revocable arrest warrant for Netanyahu
- Afghanistan is a member and once threatened to prosecute US military staff for human rights violations.
Its not just the Trump adminstration, the "Hague Invasion Act" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...) was signed into American law in 2002 by G.W. Bush.
Impunity is a drug.
Because both T & N that have utter disrespect for law & order when it affects themselves. For example: both have to remain in political power as this immunity from law shields them from running trials that would probably end them in prison.
Trump, a.k.a. Evil President Camacho, is not the only one. Even Bill Clinton, which I, as a conservative, consider the last US real stateman, was more interested in neutering the ICC than really joining it.
Because Trump's best bro, Putin, and his good friends in the Israeli government find themselves inconvenienced by it.
The US isn't subject to it, as it didn't sign up, but he's probably also worried that Americans who are accused of war crimes and then travel to countries which are signatories may find themselves arrested and tried.
"The US isn't subject to it"
American citizens are subject to ICC jurisdiction if they commit crimes in an ICC-member country. Like US soldiers in Afghanistan.
Which is what freaks the US government out.
Sure, and then what'll actually happen? Nothing, if those soldiers are in the US or other non-signatory country.
Only if they travel to ICC jurisdiction countries will anything actually occur.
That’s > 150 countries including Japan, Europe, Australia, Brasil, Mexico, Canada, etc.
It crimps their style.
This will result in an erosion of the effectiveness of US sanctions.
It's a big mistake that they never dragged those responsible for the Gulf Wars to the ICC. At least formally. I think Italy formally declared some U.S. military as war criminals?
It's better that they rip the badaid off like this. The EU cannot stand by if all of the ICC is hit. It's gonna be painful for all of us in Europe for a little while, but this is far better than letting any more single individuals have their lives ruined for doing their (legal!) jobs for European institutions. This has already happened too many times, and is truly shameful – let this conflict rage for real now, so that it's a burden we all have to bear together!
Fully agree. EU needs to get their act together and start getting independent. It's absurd that I cannot pay cashless without using American companies. Or that people lose their bank account because someone in America does something.
Edit: They also need to force banks to make a decision. Do you want to do business in the EU? Then you must not close accounts bank accounts because someone in US puts someone on a list. If that means you lose business in the US, so be it. Make a decision which market you want to operate in. If you want to leave EU, do it. Others will take your place.
> It's absurd that I cannot pay cashless without using American companies
The infrastructure for it exists with instant SEPA transfers, and Wero is slowly developing into a useful system for retail payments, but without the EU mandating that banks and retailers must support it alongside Visa it will take a while for meaningful penetration to happen.
Yeah, it's good that it is progressing. But my hopes are really on the digital Euro. I hope the EU doesn't fall for the lobbying against it by the (Wero) banks.
No. Wait for the midterms and hope it can be done without catastrophic consequences.
Why would those make a difference? The US elected the same corrupt madman twice. Why would things suddenly improve after this election?
If both houses switch then he will be distracted fighting them for the rest of his term; if they don't we no longer need to treat the US as a functioning democracy.
And then what? Things will magically go back to the way they were? I doubt it. The US has seriously damaged its international reputation. It has burned bridges. It has started literal wars. Removing the Orange Danger would be a good start, but it will by no means by the end the problem.
Exactly. Trump isn't the problem. Trump is a symptom. I'm far more terrified that the US will sigh and go "puh, glad that's over and will never again be a problem" than I am of Trump.
The problem is that the EU is not a country, it is a bloc. Each member state is a sovereign nation.
It is up to each member state to decide how to respond to an increasingly hostile US.
Which is why foreign actors such as US and Russia always seem to undermine the EU and foment dissent in the bloc. A unified Europe would be much harder to push around.
That is a problem, for the EU, from a perspective of power and effectiveness. The problem for the US is, in part, due to the concentration of power in the presidency, for foreign affairs.
If the US chooses someone sane next time, reestablishing institutional power, and diffusing power to avoid chaos in the future, will have to be part of the plan.
> The problem is that the EU is not a country, it is a bloc. Each member state is a sovereign nation.
Yes, but
> It is up to each member state to decide how to respond to an increasingly hostile US.
is not true. A member state cannot, for example, decide that it's fine to import and sell US beef. It is perfectly possible to introduce EU laws that protect the population of Europe from the US using European banks as a weapon against law-abiding people.
> Which is why foreign actors such as US and Russia always seem to undermine the EU and foment dissent in the bloc. A unified Europe would be much harder to push around.
It's a scale. I, too, wish for a more tightly integrated Europe, but that doesn't mean there is no integration whatsoever today.
> It is perfectly possible to introduce EU laws that protect the population of Europe from the US using European banks as a weapon against law-abiding people.
Yes it is but it's going to be necessary to have an alternative first.
Right now especially in point of sale solutions there's a practical monopoly by visa and mastercard within the EU and it's going to take years to replace that with a local solution.
While the EU does impose a lot of regulations on trade (thankfully I might add), foreign policy in general is still up to each member state. It's how we had Orban for years licking Putin's asshole.
I am very much in favor of a more integrated EU, including to a sort of federalization. Only with more integration we can stand up to other great powers.
Banking regulation is not foreign policy though.
> "The Trump Administration has been clear: the International Criminal Court is a corrupt and fatally politicized supranational court that has maliciously abused its authority and exceeded its mandate," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement.
I've never really thought about the ICC at all other than just knowing that the few countries that possess both hard power (military) and soft power (economic) have refused to join or recognize the ICC since its inception in 2002.
Why would China and USA both not recognize it? It seems like they're the only ones that really matter.
They don’t recognize it because they don’t have to. Why would you voluntarily agree to be bound by laws and subject to a court system if you have the option to just say you didn’t want to?
I'll preface it with the only part of the US argument against the ICC that is somewhat principled and reasonable: there is some concern that it'd be used for political prosecution of US service members or decision makers outside of constitutional guarantees like a jury trial
I don't think it actually would happen if it joined but since it's the US I can also imagine someone being pushed to (or doing it for some personal fame) to bend the procedural rules to at least launch an investigation that wouldn't generally be launched if the facts were the same in another western country.
That being said, their accusations towards the ICC as it has operated so far (as opposed to why they don't join) are mostly pretextual and right now they're mostly motivated by their alliance with Israel which is being investigated over Gaza
If you like doing illegal things, why would you voluntarily submit to a framework for punishing illegal things?
As a reminder, 125 countries are a member of the ICC. Here is a partial list of countries not in the ICC:
- USA
- Israel (active war)
- Russia (active war)
- Iran (active war) - signed but not ratified
- Sudan(active war) - signed but not ratified
- Yemen (active war) - signed but not ratified
- Saudi Arabia (active war)
- North Korea (passive war)
- India (recent war)
- Pakistan (recent war)
- Vietnam
- Myanmar
- Ethiopia
- China
- Turkey
- Qatar
This will further push the EU towards sovereignty, not just on a tech front but through the financial sector. Similar to their sanctions of the Iranian airlines - these are attacks on civilian and human rights infrastructure that other countries actually find value and alignment with.
Probably (hopefully) we'll look back on this as the start of the end of US soft influence.
Yes, these moves can only be self-defeating in the long term.
Perfectly exemplified by Russia pushing Sweden and Finland towards NATO in a matter of 1 or 2 years.
This fuckery of US sanctions should end. Nations should stop enslaving themselves to the US.
Almost none of the US's recent actions are new or a "turning point". All what the Trump government changed was to throw the gloves off and make it blatantly, stupidly obvious, and to act haphazardly and without thorough preparation.
ICC, embrace-extinguishing EU, exploiting Middle East, South America as colonies - these are not 180 turns, just playing the same game faster and dumber. Notable exceptions may be Canada or Greenland, but even there one might suspect they just surfaced a previously well disguised agenda.
The ICC is a waste of money and resources, and pure bullshits. It has barely achieved anything except sentencing 23 people for an absurdly low number of years.
Commit 28 crimes against humanity? To jail! For 12 years! https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3070nlqnq3o
Enlist child soldiers? 14 years! - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Lubanga_Dyilo
> Champions of the court say it deters would-be war criminals, bolsters the rule of law, and offers justice to victims of atrocities. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/role-icc
lol. lmao.
Try to change my mind if you want.