4 ms·

Not super meaningful in reality - any country looking to arrest either man should tread carefully. The American Service-Members' Protection Act authorizes the

Not super meaningful in reality - any country looking to arrest either man should tread carefully. The American Service-Members' Protection Act authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". Israel is listed in the act as covered. Any means explicitly includes lethal force, which is why the act is nicknamed the "Invade the Hague" act.

ssijak 2y ago
The Netherlands said that they would arrest anybody accused. That would be peculiar to see, what would actually happen if anybody of the accused were to travel there.
- wslh 2y ago
  [flagged]
- com 2y ago
  The Dutch have a very lackadaisical attitude to law, and at the very same time a very principled cut-off-my-nose-to-spite-my-face rule of law mentality. If I were a senior Israeli or Hamas leader I’d avoid the place for a couple of decades in case of sealed charges.
  - sgjohnson 2y ago
    > If I were a senior Israeli or Hamas leader I’d avoid the place for a couple of decades in case of sealed charges. If the Netherlands granted diplomatic immunity to said leaders before their visit, and then decided to arrest them, that by itself would be an act of war. And even worse, it would ruin basically the only treaty every country has agreed to - the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
    - sudosysgen 2y ago
      In practice the Netherlands, by announcing openly they would be arrested before their arrival, had refused to grant them diplomatic immunity. So it is going to be extremely difficult to argue such an arrest would be against the Vienna convention. The Vienna convention explicitly states that the receiving state can declare before arrival that a diplomat will not be granted immunity.
      - sgjohnson 2y ago
        Well, obviously. In which case Netanyahu is simply not going to go there.
  - EdSchouten 2y ago
    > The Dutch have a very lackadaisical attitude to law What do you mean by this specifically?
    - com 2y ago
      There are many laws on the books that are ignored or in practice re-interpreted in the ground so that enforcement is only attempted in the most egregious situations. Case in point: the “gedoogbeleid” for soft drugs. Contrary to many people’s belief, possession, sale etc of these are not legalised in the way that we see in many other jurisdictions. Yet, teenagers sit on the side of the canal near my old home getting happily stoned with their friends and say “hi” to passing police and “handhaving” city rule enforcement officers. They buy from the “coffeeshop” whose coffee making is more theoretical than practical, even though sales of the weed they buy are against the law. Sometimes inspectors will visit the shop to ensure that no tobacco is being smoked, but not being concerned about weed, with the threat of large fines or even loss of license to sell soft drugs (illegal, remember?) being withdrawn. It’s all quite curious.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  [flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sofixa 2y ago
[flagged]
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y ago
  Nuclear war with whom?
  - sofixa 2y ago
    The EU has a mutual defence clause, and one of the EU's member states, France, has nuclear strike capabilities, including at least one submarine with nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles on constant patrol somewhere in the oceans. I doubt it would get to it, but if the US legitimately invades the Netherlands to rescue war criminals, France is more likely to side with the Netherlands than with the US.
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y ago
      You really think France would risk nuclear war with the US over Netherlands?
      - sofixa 2y ago
        Yes. Very low chances, but if there's one country in Europe which would be willing to go as far to stand up to the US, it's France. It's always been fiercely independent - cf. military procurement, it does what it needs for itself and maintains its supply chains; withdrawing from the NATO command structure; it has always had an independent but aligned foreign policy (e.g. not joining the Iraq war); and French leaders have often, and especially the current one, Macron, been very outspoken about being EU and Europe first and how we should distance ourselves from the US and not rely as much on them. In comparison, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Poland, Turkey (biggest European NATO militaries) all have American bases, and extensively use American military hardware.
alexisread 2y ago
The question here is why is only Israel covered in this act? Also anti-BDS legislation in finance, regardless of ethical etc. concerns? The US gives $4bn/year to Israel gratis, and so far $20bn in weapons over the course of this conflict, including advanced weapons like the F35 WITH source code access (which no other F35 partner has) - why? There have been no investigations of US deaths WRT settler violence, aid workers killed etc. Normally with any US death it's a huge issue. What does Israel do in return to make it such a favoured country? eg. 20bn in disaster relief aid to Florida would be probably more welcome by US citizens.
- threemux 2y ago
  It's not only Israel. It's all of NATO plus "major non-NATO allies" specifically Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  We give Jordan $1.6B/year, what does it give in return? What about Ethiopia at $2B/yr?
  - talldayo 2y ago
    We gave Pakistan and Iran a few billion dollars in military aid a while back. What we got in return was a Bangladesh genocide and an Islamic revolution. Lesson learned: arms sales can be used to ideologically justify butchering civilians if the government receiving that aid is not held accountable.
  - alexisread 2y ago
    You could ask the same questions about that yes, but whataboutism does not answer the questions here. For Ethiopia it's flagged as humanitarian aid, and likely for Jordan as a result of the neighbouring Syria war. None of that is arms though, and critically more than the aid, why the legislation? What justifies making it illegal to stop investing in a country despite it's actions? Surely that's a commercial decision rather than a legislative one?
kklisura 2y ago
Honestly, I would so like someone to test that!
gist 2y ago
> any country looking to arrest either man should tread carefully. I'd imagine that if they were detained the IDF would put out quite a bit of effort to get them sprung from prison ... at any cost. (Imagine if a former US leader was put in prison anywhere but the US).
- newspaper1 2y ago
  So you think Israel will start attacking European countries? I don't think that would work out well for them.
cwkoss 2y ago
It would be a chance to become a hero of humanity that 99% of the world would cheer on...
r00fus 2y ago
I'm sure if they try it will go down perfectly well with the rest of the world. It's not like the US has a monopoly on finances or force globally. China and BRICS are waiting in the wings.

ssijak 2y ago

The Netherlands said that they would arrest anybody accused. That would be peculiar to see, what would actually happen if anybody of the accused were to travel there.

wslh 2y ago
[flagged]
com 2y ago
The Dutch have a very lackadaisical attitude to law, and at the very same time a very principled cut-off-my-nose-to-spite-my-face rule of law mentality. If I were a senior Israeli or Hamas leader I’d avoid the place for a couple of decades in case of sealed charges.
- sgjohnson 2y ago
  > If I were a senior Israeli or Hamas leader I’d avoid the place for a couple of decades in case of sealed charges. If the Netherlands granted diplomatic immunity to said leaders before their visit, and then decided to arrest them, that by itself would be an act of war. And even worse, it would ruin basically the only treaty every country has agreed to - the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
  - sudosysgen 2y ago
    In practice the Netherlands, by announcing openly they would be arrested before their arrival, had refused to grant them diplomatic immunity. So it is going to be extremely difficult to argue such an arrest would be against the Vienna convention. The Vienna convention explicitly states that the receiving state can declare before arrival that a diplomat will not be granted immunity.
    - sgjohnson 2y ago
      Well, obviously. In which case Netanyahu is simply not going to go there.
- EdSchouten 2y ago
  > The Dutch have a very lackadaisical attitude to law What do you mean by this specifically?
  - com 2y ago
    There are many laws on the books that are ignored or in practice re-interpreted in the ground so that enforcement is only attempted in the most egregious situations. Case in point: the “gedoogbeleid” for soft drugs. Contrary to many people’s belief, possession, sale etc of these are not legalised in the way that we see in many other jurisdictions. Yet, teenagers sit on the side of the canal near my old home getting happily stoned with their friends and say “hi” to passing police and “handhaving” city rule enforcement officers. They buy from the “coffeeshop” whose coffee making is more theoretical than practical, even though sales of the weed they buy are against the law. Sometimes inspectors will visit the shop to ensure that no tobacco is being smoked, but not being concerned about weed, with the threat of large fines or even loss of license to sell soft drugs (illegal, remember?) being withdrawn. It’s all quite curious.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
[flagged]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

sofixa 2y ago

[flagged]

RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y ago
Nuclear war with whom?
- sofixa 2y ago
  The EU has a mutual defence clause, and one of the EU's member states, France, has nuclear strike capabilities, including at least one submarine with nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles on constant patrol somewhere in the oceans. I doubt it would get to it, but if the US legitimately invades the Netherlands to rescue war criminals, France is more likely to side with the Netherlands than with the US.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y ago
    You really think France would risk nuclear war with the US over Netherlands?
    - sofixa 2y ago
      Yes. Very low chances, but if there's one country in Europe which would be willing to go as far to stand up to the US, it's France. It's always been fiercely independent - cf. military procurement, it does what it needs for itself and maintains its supply chains; withdrawing from the NATO command structure; it has always had an independent but aligned foreign policy (e.g. not joining the Iraq war); and French leaders have often, and especially the current one, Macron, been very outspoken about being EU and Europe first and how we should distance ourselves from the US and not rely as much on them. In comparison, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Poland, Turkey (biggest European NATO militaries) all have American bases, and extensively use American military hardware.

alexisread 2y ago

The question here is why is only Israel covered in this act? Also anti-BDS legislation in finance, regardless of ethical etc. concerns? The US gives $4bn/year to Israel gratis, and so far $20bn in weapons over the course of this conflict, including advanced weapons like the F35 WITH source code access (which no other F35 partner has) - why? There have been no investigations of US deaths WRT settler violence, aid workers killed etc. Normally with any US death it's a huge issue. What does Israel do in return to make it such a favoured country? eg. 20bn in disaster relief aid to Florida would be probably more welcome by US citizens.

threemux 2y ago
It's not only Israel. It's all of NATO plus "major non-NATO allies" specifically Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand
IncreasePosts 2y ago
We give Jordan $1.6B/year, what does it give in return? What about Ethiopia at $2B/yr?
- talldayo 2y ago
  We gave Pakistan and Iran a few billion dollars in military aid a while back. What we got in return was a Bangladesh genocide and an Islamic revolution. Lesson learned: arms sales can be used to ideologically justify butchering civilians if the government receiving that aid is not held accountable.
- alexisread 2y ago
  You could ask the same questions about that yes, but whataboutism does not answer the questions here. For Ethiopia it's flagged as humanitarian aid, and likely for Jordan as a result of the neighbouring Syria war. None of that is arms though, and critically more than the aid, why the legislation? What justifies making it illegal to stop investing in a country despite it's actions? Surely that's a commercial decision rather than a legislative one?

kklisura 2y ago

Honestly, I would so like someone to test that!

gist 2y ago

> any country looking to arrest either man should tread carefully. I'd imagine that if they were detained the IDF would put out quite a bit of effort to get them sprung from prison ... at any cost. (Imagine if a former US leader was put in prison anywhere but the US).

newspaper1 2y ago
So you think Israel will start attacking European countries? I don't think that would work out well for them.

cwkoss 2y ago

It would be a chance to become a hero of humanity that 99% of the world would cheer on...

r00fus 2y ago

I'm sure if they try it will go down perfectly well with the rest of the world. It's not like the US has a monopoly on finances or force globally. China and BRICS are waiting in the wings.