3 ms·

> MAGA What's even in it for America? This is "Make Israel Great Again" politics.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> What's even in it for America? Washington has brokered a peace deal that it’s very proud of and expects a Nobel Peace prize for if it holds. At this point, we’re dealing with one man’s ego more than any policy position of the United States.
- churchill 1y ago
  Stop the self-deception. America hates accountability so much that it has laws on the books guaranteeing that it'll invade the Hague (killing thousands of Dutch citizens, inevitably) if US servicemembers are ever detained there for crimes against humanity. This is just a rogue state going mask-off. Imagine if China or Russia even suggested the same willingness during a press conversation, let alone making a law to that effect.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - nmstoker 1y ago
    [Edited] I see you corrected it now! Previously: I think you mean Dutch citizens, given that the Hague is in the Netherlands and not Switzerland.
    - churchill 1y ago
      Thanks!
- wombatpm 1y ago
  Well let’s not forget the extrajudicial murders in international waters the US is currently performing.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > let’s not forget the extrajudicial murders in international waters the US is currently performing Sure. Every one of the great powers is currently engaging in killings that are highly illegal under international law.
    - tastyface 1y ago
      > On the flight home, Stephen Miller — then a senior advisor to the president — sat down across from me and the head of the U.S. Coast Guard. What followed was a conversation I’ll never forget. > “Admiral,” Miller asked, “the military has aerial drones, correct?” > “Yes,” the Admiral answered. > “And some of those drones are equipped with missiles, correct?” > “Sure,” the Admiral said, beginning to catch on. > Miller pressed further: “And when a boat full of migrants is in international waters, they aren’t protected by the U.S. Constitution, right?” > The Admiral clarified that while technically true, international law still applied. > “Then tell me why,” Miller said, “can’t we use a Predator drone to obliterate that boat?” > The Admiral, a veteran of military command, was dumbfounded. “Because it would be against international law,” he replied. You can’t kill unarmed civilians just because you want to. > Stephen Miller didn’t appear interested in the legal implications. Indeed, he seemed more interested in whether anyone could stop Trump from committing such acts. > “Admiral,” he concluded, “I don’t think you understand the limitations of international law.” (From: https://archive.ph/20250922161327/https://www.treason.io/p/read-one-step-closer-to-bombing-civilians https://archive.ph/20250922161327/https://www.treason.io/p/r...) And then: "Stephen Miller takes leading role in strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug boats" (From: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/29/stephen-miller-venezuela-drug-boat-strike https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/29/stephen-mill...) "Every great power" is not currently doing this kind of shit. This is a straight-on white supremacist murder party.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > "Every great power" is not currently doing this kind of shit. This is a straight-on white supremacist murder party What the fuck do you think Russia is doing in Ukraine and Africa? Israel in Gaza? China in Xinjiang and Tibet? International law is currently not protective against great powers. And not every issue in the world collapses into the American White-Black dichotomy.
- C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 1y ago
  It's not a peace deal. It doesn't address any Palestinian concern other than a novel one that is stopping 2 years of constant bombardement (replaced by low-intensity fighting via proxy militias, and smaller scale killings of people who even approach the newly-declared border). Palestinian resistance got nothing out of it, as Israel has abducted and thrown into prisons more people over the past 2 years than it has released through the hostage swaps.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > It's not a peace deal. It doesn't address any Palestinian concern other than a novel one that is stopping 2 years of constant bombardement That's true for any negotiated, i.e. conditional, armistice. If you want one side to be happy, you have to press for unconditional surrender. Palestine doesn't have the capability to force Israel to unconditionally surrender. In any case, what we call it is irrelevant. (What the Norwegian Noble Committee calls it is irrelevant.) What matters is what the President thinks. And he thinks it's a peace deal that could make him a Nobel laureate. Which gives him an interest in not letting, as he sees it, an ICC judge mess with his deal. > Palestinian resistance got nothing out of it No shit. The October 7 attacks were terrorist attacks. The literature on terrorism is they extremely rarely achieve their political goals.
    - C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 1y ago
      > That's true for any negotiated, i.e. conditional, armistice. If you want one side to be happy, you have to press for unconditional surrender. Palestine doesn't have the capability to force Israel to unconditionally surrender. It's still not a peace deal. It does look more akin to surrender of fighting by the palestinian resistance, motivated by the civillian population reaching a breaking point because of the starvation and bombing. Moral of the story is that collective punishment works, I suppose. > The October 7 attacks were terrorist attacks There is no logically-consistent definition you can provide that would make that raid a terrorist attack without also capturing Israel's actions as terrorist attacks. The aggressive actions they took that day have been outdone 100-fold by Israel. The prisoners they took were a drop in the sea compared to the number of people Israel held in "administrative detention" alone, let alone all the people they randomly snatch with some bogus accusations. The state in which those prisoners returned compared to the state in which palestinian prisoners returned are day and night. When their acts are compared objectively, the conclusions never go in Israel's favor.

> What's even in it for America? Washington has brokered a peace deal that it’s very proud of and expects a Nobel Peace prize for if it holds. At this point, we’re dealing with one man’s ego more than any policy position of the United States.

churchill 1y ago
Stop the self-deception. America hates accountability so much that it has laws on the books guaranteeing that it'll invade the Hague (killing thousands of Dutch citizens, inevitably) if US servicemembers are ever detained there for crimes against humanity. This is just a rogue state going mask-off. Imagine if China or Russia even suggested the same willingness during a press conversation, let alone making a law to that effect.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- nmstoker 1y ago
  [Edited] I see you corrected it now! Previously: I think you mean Dutch citizens, given that the Hague is in the Netherlands and not Switzerland.
  - churchill 1y ago
    Thanks!
wombatpm 1y ago
Well let’s not forget the extrajudicial murders in international waters the US is currently performing.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > let’s not forget the extrajudicial murders in international waters the US is currently performing Sure. Every one of the great powers is currently engaging in killings that are highly illegal under international law.
  - tastyface 1y ago
    > On the flight home, Stephen Miller — then a senior advisor to the president — sat down across from me and the head of the U.S. Coast Guard. What followed was a conversation I’ll never forget. > “Admiral,” Miller asked, “the military has aerial drones, correct?” > “Yes,” the Admiral answered. > “And some of those drones are equipped with missiles, correct?” > “Sure,” the Admiral said, beginning to catch on. > Miller pressed further: “And when a boat full of migrants is in international waters, they aren’t protected by the U.S. Constitution, right?” > The Admiral clarified that while technically true, international law still applied. > “Then tell me why,” Miller said, “can’t we use a Predator drone to obliterate that boat?” > The Admiral, a veteran of military command, was dumbfounded. “Because it would be against international law,” he replied. You can’t kill unarmed civilians just because you want to. > Stephen Miller didn’t appear interested in the legal implications. Indeed, he seemed more interested in whether anyone could stop Trump from committing such acts. > “Admiral,” he concluded, “I don’t think you understand the limitations of international law.” (From: https://archive.ph/20250922161327/https://www.treason.io/p/read-one-step-closer-to-bombing-civilians https://archive.ph/20250922161327/https://www.treason.io/p/r...) And then: "Stephen Miller takes leading role in strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug boats" (From: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/29/stephen-miller-venezuela-drug-boat-strike https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/29/stephen-mill...) "Every great power" is not currently doing this kind of shit. This is a straight-on white supremacist murder party.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > "Every great power" is not currently doing this kind of shit. This is a straight-on white supremacist murder party What the fuck do you think Russia is doing in Ukraine and Africa? Israel in Gaza? China in Xinjiang and Tibet? International law is currently not protective against great powers. And not every issue in the world collapses into the American White-Black dichotomy.
C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 1y ago
It's not a peace deal. It doesn't address any Palestinian concern other than a novel one that is stopping 2 years of constant bombardement (replaced by low-intensity fighting via proxy militias, and smaller scale killings of people who even approach the newly-declared border). Palestinian resistance got nothing out of it, as Israel has abducted and thrown into prisons more people over the past 2 years than it has released through the hostage swaps.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > It's not a peace deal. It doesn't address any Palestinian concern other than a novel one that is stopping 2 years of constant bombardement That's true for any negotiated, i.e. conditional, armistice. If you want one side to be happy, you have to press for unconditional surrender. Palestine doesn't have the capability to force Israel to unconditionally surrender. In any case, what we call it is irrelevant. (What the Norwegian Noble Committee calls it is irrelevant.) What matters is what the President thinks. And he thinks it's a peace deal that could make him a Nobel laureate. Which gives him an interest in not letting, as he sees it, an ICC judge mess with his deal. > Palestinian resistance got nothing out of it No shit. The October 7 attacks were terrorist attacks. The literature on terrorism is they extremely rarely achieve their political goals.
  - C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 1y ago
    > That's true for any negotiated, i.e. conditional, armistice. If you want one side to be happy, you have to press for unconditional surrender. Palestine doesn't have the capability to force Israel to unconditionally surrender. It's still not a peace deal. It does look more akin to surrender of fighting by the palestinian resistance, motivated by the civillian population reaching a breaking point because of the starvation and bombing. Moral of the story is that collective punishment works, I suppose. > The October 7 attacks were terrorist attacks There is no logically-consistent definition you can provide that would make that raid a terrorist attack without also capturing Israel's actions as terrorist attacks. The aggressive actions they took that day have been outdone 100-fold by Israel. The prisoners they took were a drop in the sea compared to the number of people Israel held in "administrative detention" alone, let alone all the people they randomly snatch with some bogus accusations. The state in which those prisoners returned compared to the state in which palestinian prisoners returned are day and night. When their acts are compared objectively, the conclusions never go in Israel's favor.