3 ms·
He continuously armed the direct perpetrators of the genocide; supported them financially, with logistics, and intelligence; threatened their adversaries from g
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 1y ago
He continuously armed the direct perpetrators of the genocide; supported them financially, with logistics, and intelligence; threatened their adversaries from getting involved; vetoed multiple UN security council resolutions that attempted to impose a ceasefire.
He was a direct participant in the genocide. If you're murdering someone on the street and I am standing next to you watching your back, fighting off anyone who tries to stop you, I am an accomplice in that murder, and an active participant, even if it's not my hands that are around the victim's neck, but yours. I am what enables your hands to be on their neck instead of being used to defend you from others trying to help the victim.
All ensuing crimes of Israel are thus also crimes of Joe Biden, and that's A LOT of war crimes; a clear-cut for ICC.
- davkan 1y agoIs there any precedent for the ICC prosecuting accessory to genocide? Have they prosecuted any of the actual state parties to the Rome statute who are still providing arms to Israel? I don’t think it’s as clear cut as you say it is.
- vidarh 1y agoBefore making a case for accessory to genocide, they'd first need a binding judgement that it is a genocide, presumably. I agree it probably isn't as clear cut, or at least not as simple.
- ta20240528 1y agoThe ICJ ruled that its plausibly genocide. Based on work done by other UN agencies.
- vidarh 1y agoThe problem is a decision it is plausible it is one isn't a ruling that it is one. There is no legal basis for deciding someone is an accessory just because it is plausible. Personally I consider it a genocide, and wish there was a legal basis for going after people as accessories, but there just isn't yet.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]