5 ms·

> The OIC effectively controls the ICC That's a pretty crazy claim. 125 countries have joined the ICC. The OIC only has 57 members (not all of them even have a

> The OIC effectively controls the ICC That's a pretty crazy claim. 125 countries have joined the ICC. The OIC only has 57 members (not all of them even have a Muslim majority). Of the three judges who issued the arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, two are European (one is French, the other Slovenian). The US has the same problem with the ICC as it does with the ICJ: the US government does not want to be subject to international law. The US is used to acting as a superpower, in whatever way it wants. It just fundamentally does not accept the premise that its actions should be in any way constrained by international law. In this particular instance, the problem the US has with the ICC is that the US is Israel's primary backer. The US provides the money, weapons and diplomatic support that Israel needs to continue its war against the Palestinians and occupation of the Palestinian territories. The US itself is heavily implicated in the crimes that the ICC is prosecuting here.

mytailorisrich 1y ago
Countries are sovereign and what is called "international law" are voluntary agreements among countries.
- spwa4 1y ago
  Following such agreements, once signed, is also voluntary. And the track record, to put it mildly, is not good. In this situation, just to name one example, hamas and the PA have both promised to arrest any terrorists they know of (because in trade they would gain the right to sue Israel), as well as respecting Israel's borders. Needless to say, their efforts are considered less than convincing. And it's not limited to this conflict. Other examples include that in order to "join the international order", ie. the WTO, China promised to not support any companies with state support and to charge all companies normal company taxes. And while I'm not aware of definitive proof, nobody seriously believes they are doing this. The agreement also outlaws what they're (very publicly) doing with loans in the belt and road initiative, by the way. Or other examples: the US, France, the UK and other countries specifically signed that if Russia invaded Crimea that they would do some combination of: 1) declare war on Russia (this is in all agreements) 2) support Ukraine economically 3) support Ukraine militarily 4) commit to attack Russia physically and help free Crimea "kinetically" In trade for Ukraine denuclearizing. Whilst there are different agreements, let's just simplify and say that any particular agreement contains 3 out of those 4 provisions. And while all countries (except of course Russia) have indeed supported Ukraine, none of them have followed through on their commitment to declare war on Russia. I took a year of law school, because, you know, bored. And I do remember one professor (who was a sitting supreme court judge at the time, btw), described international law as "fiction, a guideline at best". The problem being that nobody, except the US and Israel, have any real intention of following through on international agreements. Of course, this was before the current iteration of the conflict, even before 2014. On one hand, his opinion has not changed ... but it's because he has since left us.
  - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
    > hamas and the PA have both promised to arrest any terrorists they know of ... Needless to say, their efforts are considered less than convincing. The Palestinian Authority works extremely closely with the Israelis to hunt down anyone who engages in armed resistance against Israel. Just think of how incredible that is. The PA, which is run by the Palestinian Liberation Organization, supposedly dedicated to freeing the Palestinians from Israeli oppression, is working with the Israelis to prevent Palestinians from resisting an occupying military force. The PA has burned a huge amount of political capital doing this, and is now widely hated by the Palestinians. It's seen as a collaborationist organization. So when you demand that the PA work even more slavishly for Israel than it already does, I don't know what you're seriously expecting. > China promised to not support any companies with state support China did not make a blanket commitment to end all state support to its companies. Not even the United States or Western European countries have made such a commitment. China promised to carry out many different types of economic reforms, and it did indeed carry out very deep and painful reforms. The Chinese economy is drastically different than it was in the 1990s. Most of the big state monopolies have been broken up, private companies play a much larger role than before, and foreign investment is much easier. > the US, France, the UK and other countries specifically signed that if Russia invaded Crimea that they would do some combination of No, the US, France and UK never committed to defend Ukraine militarily. The Budapest Memorandum just said that each country agreed not to attack Ukraine, and that they would discuss with one another if there were any violations of the agreement. > The problem being that nobody, except the US and Israel, have any real intention of following through on international agreements. Huh? The US and Israel are not known for following through on international agreements. The US might have had some sort of reputation many decades ago, but that reputation is thoroughly shot through now. Israel never did. It has always been a loose cannon on the international stage.
    - spwa4 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
- arresin 1y ago
  And? This agreement was good and just and is being broken for a garbage reason.
  - jaoane 1y ago
    “Good and just” are subjective.
    - spwa4 1y ago
      The agreement between the US and the ICC has been broken a LOOOONG time ago: https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/05/06/united-states-unsigning-treaty-war-crimes-court https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/05/06/united-states-unsigning-... This paints a stark negative picture of the US. However, of course, as soon as you consider intent of signing ... and the fact that some signatories to the Rome statute, like Palestina or South Africa, have signed it without any intent to carry out their side of the agreement, and that the ICC has in fact accepted these members (kind of). The idea of the ICC ... was supposedly the same idea that created Gaza in 2007. If you give them something in trade for cooperating with the treaty, they'll cooperate. Of course, reality was they greedily accepted what they got (e.g. Palestina immediately tried suing Israel), but never carried out their side of the agreement. Palestina, for example, in their "Martyr fund", paid out money to people the ICC said they should arrest, but never took any action and several times publicly declared they would never arrest any Palestinian, no matter what they did, for the ICC. (their "Martyr's fund" paid money to Palestinians according to how many Jews they had killed and/or wounded [1], which the PA committed a $330 million per year budget for). South Africa has now twice publicly protected people they should arrest (Omar Al Bashir and Putin) against the ICC. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_...
      - mytailorisrich 1y ago
        Perhaps this illustrates one of the reasons why the US withdrew... I imagine many very 'nice' countries would try to go after the Great Satan.
      - 1y ago

mytailorisrich 1y ago

Countries are sovereign and what is called "international law" are voluntary agreements among countries.

spwa4 1y ago
Following such agreements, once signed, is also voluntary. And the track record, to put it mildly, is not good. In this situation, just to name one example, hamas and the PA have both promised to arrest any terrorists they know of (because in trade they would gain the right to sue Israel), as well as respecting Israel's borders. Needless to say, their efforts are considered less than convincing. And it's not limited to this conflict. Other examples include that in order to "join the international order", ie. the WTO, China promised to not support any companies with state support and to charge all companies normal company taxes. And while I'm not aware of definitive proof, nobody seriously believes they are doing this. The agreement also outlaws what they're (very publicly) doing with loans in the belt and road initiative, by the way. Or other examples: the US, France, the UK and other countries specifically signed that if Russia invaded Crimea that they would do some combination of: 1) declare war on Russia (this is in all agreements) 2) support Ukraine economically 3) support Ukraine militarily 4) commit to attack Russia physically and help free Crimea "kinetically" In trade for Ukraine denuclearizing. Whilst there are different agreements, let's just simplify and say that any particular agreement contains 3 out of those 4 provisions. And while all countries (except of course Russia) have indeed supported Ukraine, none of them have followed through on their commitment to declare war on Russia. I took a year of law school, because, you know, bored. And I do remember one professor (who was a sitting supreme court judge at the time, btw), described international law as "fiction, a guideline at best". The problem being that nobody, except the US and Israel, have any real intention of following through on international agreements. Of course, this was before the current iteration of the conflict, even before 2014. On one hand, his opinion has not changed ... but it's because he has since left us.
- DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
  > hamas and the PA have both promised to arrest any terrorists they know of ... Needless to say, their efforts are considered less than convincing. The Palestinian Authority works extremely closely with the Israelis to hunt down anyone who engages in armed resistance against Israel. Just think of how incredible that is. The PA, which is run by the Palestinian Liberation Organization, supposedly dedicated to freeing the Palestinians from Israeli oppression, is working with the Israelis to prevent Palestinians from resisting an occupying military force. The PA has burned a huge amount of political capital doing this, and is now widely hated by the Palestinians. It's seen as a collaborationist organization. So when you demand that the PA work even more slavishly for Israel than it already does, I don't know what you're seriously expecting. > China promised to not support any companies with state support China did not make a blanket commitment to end all state support to its companies. Not even the United States or Western European countries have made such a commitment. China promised to carry out many different types of economic reforms, and it did indeed carry out very deep and painful reforms. The Chinese economy is drastically different than it was in the 1990s. Most of the big state monopolies have been broken up, private companies play a much larger role than before, and foreign investment is much easier. > the US, France, the UK and other countries specifically signed that if Russia invaded Crimea that they would do some combination of No, the US, France and UK never committed to defend Ukraine militarily. The Budapest Memorandum just said that each country agreed not to attack Ukraine, and that they would discuss with one another if there were any violations of the agreement. > The problem being that nobody, except the US and Israel, have any real intention of following through on international agreements. Huh? The US and Israel are not known for following through on international agreements. The US might have had some sort of reputation many decades ago, but that reputation is thoroughly shot through now. Israel never did. It has always been a loose cannon on the international stage.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
arresin 1y ago
And? This agreement was good and just and is being broken for a garbage reason.
- jaoane 1y ago
  “Good and just” are subjective.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    The agreement between the US and the ICC has been broken a LOOOONG time ago: https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/05/06/united-states-unsigning-treaty-war-crimes-court https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/05/06/united-states-unsigning-... This paints a stark negative picture of the US. However, of course, as soon as you consider intent of signing ... and the fact that some signatories to the Rome statute, like Palestina or South Africa, have signed it without any intent to carry out their side of the agreement, and that the ICC has in fact accepted these members (kind of). The idea of the ICC ... was supposedly the same idea that created Gaza in 2007. If you give them something in trade for cooperating with the treaty, they'll cooperate. Of course, reality was they greedily accepted what they got (e.g. Palestina immediately tried suing Israel), but never carried out their side of the agreement. Palestina, for example, in their "Martyr fund", paid out money to people the ICC said they should arrest, but never took any action and several times publicly declared they would never arrest any Palestinian, no matter what they did, for the ICC. (their "Martyr's fund" paid money to Palestinians according to how many Jews they had killed and/or wounded [1], which the PA committed a $330 million per year budget for). South Africa has now twice publicly protected people they should arrest (Omar Al Bashir and Putin) against the ICC. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_...
    - mytailorisrich 1y ago
      Perhaps this illustrates one of the reasons why the US withdrew... I imagine many very 'nice' countries would try to go after the Great Satan.
    - 1y ago