2 ms·

Overstep? ICC members make judgements that are abided by ICC member states. They have every authority to make those judgments, and it does not matter what the

Overstep? ICC members make judgements that are abided by ICC member states. They have every authority to make those judgments, and it does not matter what the busted idiocracy US of A, acting as a pathetic supplicant state for their boss Israel, thinks about it. Maybe Trump can complain to his unbelievably pathetic Board of Peace. Christ. The war criminal Netanyahu can stick to the rogue shitholes he is welcomed at. The US -- which btw is currently engaged in BLATANTLY criminal activities in a number of venues -- can get fucked. The US has *ZERO* authority to tell members of the ICC who or what they can declare a warcrime, or who members of the ICC will hold to account if they enter their country. What a bizarre take. And yes, the US can sanction whoever they want, but such actions are far from free.. When every American firm is sent packing, enjoy the results. And yes, American payment processors are discovering in super-rapid quicktime how this rogue cabal of war criminal, paedos and criminal grifters are destroying their future.

kyboren 8mo ago
ICC claims[0] that since: - The Palestinian Authority claims to represent 'Palestine' - UNGA Resolution 67/19 "Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self- determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" - They consider Gaza "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" (despite the fact that Gaza has certainly not been occupied by Israel for decades and a completely separate entity from the PA exercises sovereignty there) Therefore 'Palestine' is a State Party properly represented by the PA and covered by its accession to the Rome Statute, and thus the ICC totally have jurisdiction over Gaza and non-party state Israel's actions there. Beyond the absurd sophistry and incoherent reasoning, Israel is--once again--not a signatory to the ICC. Asserting jurisdiction over a sovereign entity without their consent is a violation of state immunity[1], a legal concept predating the ICC by over 600 years. I'd say that qualifies as an overstep. [0]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/palestine/210215-palestine-q-a-eng.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/p... [1]: https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1106 https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/97801992316...
- llm_nerd 8mo ago
  Bizarre that you cite state immunity like this is some fundamental truth. Talk about sophistry. Do you understand what a "legal concept" is? And if you think the US of all places observes the notion of state immunity for other states, that's just a fucking howler. "Beyond the absurd sophistry and incoherent reasoning" There is literally nothing incoherent about the reasoning. "Palestine" is a member since 2015, and literally no one aside from Israel-bots have any confusion about what that means. The fact that Israel, a rogue nuclear armed global pariah, isn't is *utterly irrelevant*. Netanyahu is to be held accountable if they step foot in any Western nation beside its partner in crime Idiocracy supplicant.
  - dlubarov 8mo ago
    > "Palestine" is a member since 2015, and literally no one aside from Israel-bots have any confusion about what that means. Except that the people who joined on behalf of Palestine have never controlled Gaza, while the government that actually controls Gaza never accepted the ICC's jurisdiction. I can similarly declare myself the king of Gaza, and decree that Gaza is under the jurisdiction of my newly invented Court of Daniel, and it would make about as much sense from a legal perspective.
    - llm_nerd 8mo ago
      >Except that the people who joined on behalf of Palestine have never controlled Gaza They literally, directly controlled Gaza until 2006. So what's with the lies? There is good evidence that they lost control because Netanyahu covertly supported Hamas. Riling up fundies to do vile things is good business when your goal is getting a massively armed idiocracy simp nation to do your bidding.
      - dlubarov 8mo ago
        It was Israel who controlled Gaza before they withdrew, and Egypt before that. PA helped with with local policing and civil administration; that's not the sort of effective control that's relevant here.
tick_tock_tick 8mo ago
> And yes, the US can sanction whoever they want, but such actions are far from free.. Honestly the biggest problem that's coming out of all of this is the US is finding out most of its actions actually are free... Like everyone know the US was "stronger" and better positioned than Europe 10 years ago but it's just gotten ridiculously skewed. With Europe losing basically all ability to push back against the US because of their poor decision making we've lost a critical moderating influence on the USA.

kyboren 8mo ago

ICC claims[0] that since: - The Palestinian Authority claims to represent 'Palestine' - UNGA Resolution 67/19 "Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self- determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" - They consider Gaza "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" (despite the fact that Gaza has certainly not been occupied by Israel for decades and a completely separate entity from the PA exercises sovereignty there) Therefore 'Palestine' is a State Party properly represented by the PA and covered by its accession to the Rome Statute, and thus the ICC totally have jurisdiction over Gaza and non-party state Israel's actions there. Beyond the absurd sophistry and incoherent reasoning, Israel is--once again--not a signatory to the ICC. Asserting jurisdiction over a sovereign entity without their consent is a violation of state immunity[1], a legal concept predating the ICC by over 600 years. I'd say that qualifies as an overstep. [0]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/palestine/210215-palestine-q-a-eng.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/p... [1]: https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1106 https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/97801992316...

llm_nerd 8mo ago
Bizarre that you cite state immunity like this is some fundamental truth. Talk about sophistry. Do you understand what a "legal concept" is? And if you think the US of all places observes the notion of state immunity for other states, that's just a fucking howler. "Beyond the absurd sophistry and incoherent reasoning" There is literally nothing incoherent about the reasoning. "Palestine" is a member since 2015, and literally no one aside from Israel-bots have any confusion about what that means. The fact that Israel, a rogue nuclear armed global pariah, isn't is *utterly irrelevant*. Netanyahu is to be held accountable if they step foot in any Western nation beside its partner in crime Idiocracy supplicant.
- dlubarov 8mo ago
  > "Palestine" is a member since 2015, and literally no one aside from Israel-bots have any confusion about what that means. Except that the people who joined on behalf of Palestine have never controlled Gaza, while the government that actually controls Gaza never accepted the ICC's jurisdiction. I can similarly declare myself the king of Gaza, and decree that Gaza is under the jurisdiction of my newly invented Court of Daniel, and it would make about as much sense from a legal perspective.
  - llm_nerd 8mo ago
    >Except that the people who joined on behalf of Palestine have never controlled Gaza They literally, directly controlled Gaza until 2006. So what's with the lies? There is good evidence that they lost control because Netanyahu covertly supported Hamas. Riling up fundies to do vile things is good business when your goal is getting a massively armed idiocracy simp nation to do your bidding.
    - dlubarov 8mo ago
      It was Israel who controlled Gaza before they withdrew, and Egypt before that. PA helped with with local policing and civil administration; that's not the sort of effective control that's relevant here.

tick_tock_tick 8mo ago

> And yes, the US can sanction whoever they want, but such actions are far from free.. Honestly the biggest problem that's coming out of all of this is the US is finding out most of its actions actually are free... Like everyone know the US was "stronger" and better positioned than Europe 10 years ago but it's just gotten ridiculously skewed. With Europe losing basically all ability to push back against the US because of their poor decision making we've lost a critical moderating influence on the USA.