> The crimes prosecuted by the ICC are accepted by the US as matters of universal jurisdiction under international law, so the US can have no legitimate objection to (1) any country exercising jurisdiction over them wherever they are alleged to occur
There's plenty of legitimate objections such as not trusting a foreign court to appropriately decide international law.
> (2) any country exercising its sovereign power to delegate its exercise of jurisdiction over them anywhere to an international tribunal, like the ICC, either generally, under specified terms (such as those in the Rome Statute), or ad hoc.
In the case of Afghanistan, neither the US nor the Taliban are delegating that sort of authority to the ICC.
> And they certainly have the least basis for doing so when the country on whose territory they are alleged to have occurred, and who would thus have jurisdiction whether or not they were matters of universal jurisdiction under international law, does so.
IMO that's a pretty weak argument, especially when you have states being prosecuted which are non-signatories to the Rome Statute or are not full UN member states like in the case of Palestine.
> The actual objection is not the broad principle you are trying to articulate, but it is to the idea of Israel being accountable under international law for crimes for which it has the full support of the US government, irrespective of any theory of law.
The UN has a very well documented history of bias against Israel.[0] It seems entirely reasonable to me that neither the US nor Israel would trust a UN court, especially for anything related to wars involving Israel.
> Saying a country made up heavily of refugees fleeing persecution is just a colonialist occupation project is pretty ridiculous IMO.
That's actually a pattern for colonialist occupation projects, its kind of a two-birds-with-one-stone thing for the colonial power. The colonization of Liberia also was very much this (as was the colonization of parts of what later became the USA.) And the (British, of course, this is very much a recurrent Anglo pattern) project for the colonization of Israel started long before the the refugee crisis that helped realize it occurred.
> That's actually a pattern for colonialist occupation projects, its kind of a two-birds-with-one-stone thing for the colonial power. The colonization of Liberia also was very much this (as was the colonization of parts of what later became the USA.)
There's a number of differences that make this comparison problematic. Israel's current Jewish population immigrated from many different countries, largely due to fleeing anti-semitism in those countries. The reason for them fleeing(anti-semitism) also very much exists to this day, especially when it comes to those Muslim majority countries many fled from after Israel gained independence, so any prospect of them returning is not remotely realistic.
> And the (British, of course, this is very much a recurrent Anglo pattern) project for the colonization of Israel started long before the the refugee crisis that helped realize it occurred.
While the UK may have held the mandate for Palestine for a period of time the majority of Jewish immigration to Palestine prior to the end of the mandate(and after) did not actually come from the UK or even other Anglo countries. This seems to be a rather important distinction as the immigration was arguably much more multi-source than the typical Anglo pattern colonialism.
In any case it seems to be quite clear that the extreme UN bias against Israel largely comes not from the colonial aspects of Israel's creation but rather from the various degrees of anti-semitism that is pervasive in many countries to this day.
> largely due to fleeing anti-semitism in those countries
I thought it was mainly being expelled after the creation of Israel. Sometimes with encouragement of Israel.
> In any case it seems to be quite clear that the extreme UN bias against Israel largely comes not from the colonial aspects of Israel's creation but rather from the various degrees of anti-semitism that is pervasive in many countries to this day.
Israel rather than being the victim of racism is a major perpetrator of it. In fact, the Israel project foments anti Semitism around the world. This is especially sad for those non-Zionist Jews who want to live their lives in peace free of discrimination.
> I thought it was mainly being expelled after the creation of Israel.
Fleeing pogroms in eastern Europe was one of the main reason for immigration to Palestine prior to Israeli independence and a big reason Zionism as a movement started in the first place. The immigration quotas on Jews by countries like the US(which was the preferred destination for those fleeing pogroms) was another factor that encouraged Zionism as well. The immigration by Jews from middle eastern countries was largely after the Israeli independence.
> Sometimes with encouragement of Israel.
There were push and pull factors, but push factors like the extreme anti-semitism throughout the middle east and north Africa subsequent to Israeli independence made it effectively inevitable that Jews would have to either move to Israel or leave the middle east/north Africa entirely.
> Israel rather than being the victim of racism is a major perpetrator of it.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel is itself a form of anti-semitism that's widespread throughout the world and especially the middle east.
> In fact, the Israel project foments anti Semitism around the world.
It's entirely reasonable that Jewish refugees would want a right to self determination after what happened to them in the pogroms and Holocaust.
> This is especially sad for those non-Zionist Jews who want to live their lives in peace free of discrimination.
Zionism is really only a thing because of anti-semitism. Jews have not had a good history living as minorities in much of the world.
For the lazy, that unwatch link can be summarized as "israel keeps doing awful things and refuses to stop but the UN is biased against israel because it doesn't condemn hamas in every single resolution that also mentions israel", aka "we know we are doing awful things but Hamas does too stop picking on us!"
> For the lazy, that unwatch link can be summarized as "israel keeps doing awful things and refuses to stop but the UN is biased against israel because it doesn't condemn hamas in every single resolution that also mentions israel", aka "we know we are doing awful things but Hamas does too stop picking on us!"
From the link it states "From 2015 through 2023, the UN General Assembly has adopted 154 resolutions against Israel and 71 against other countries.".
This is clearly a case of extremely blatant bias, no matter how bad you think Israel is, it certainly doesn't deserve twice the resolutions against it than the rest of the world combined. The UN has basically thrown out all credibility when it comes to anything related to Israel.
Not at all, not even remotely. I'm alarmed anyone can sincerely interpret it that way and ignore what prompted those resolutions. It is simply proof that UN resolutions do nothing. Israel continues its abhorrent behavior regardless of how many resolutions happen.
>it certainly doesn't deserve twice the resolutions against it than the rest of the world combined
But it does. I can't see any reason why it doesn't except if you want me to ignore reality.
>The UN has basically thrown out all credibility when it comes to anything related to Israel.
Only because it refuses to do anything of substance to curb its behavior. UNWatch lost any credibility it had when it insists on ignoring reality and arguing that literally salting the earth/water supply of millions and annihilating countless children is something you cannot ever condemn and if you do you are being a bully.
If I keep committing crimes and keep being arrested for those crimes does it make any sense to complain about the police arresting me all the time instead of realizing my own behavior is why I keep being arrested? According to you that makes perfect sense.
> Not at all, not even remotely. I'm alarmed anyone can sincerely interpret it that way and ignore what prompted those resolutions. It is simply proof that UN resolutions do nothing. Israel continues its abhorrent behavior regardless of how many resolutions happen.
UN resolutions do nothing in general, that's not particularly specific to Israel, however the sheer overwhelming amount of them being anti-Israel resolutions is solid evidence of anti-Israel bias.
> But it does. I can't see any reason why it doesn't except if you want me to ignore reality.
There are many horrible conflicts throughout the world(i.e. Sudan, Syria, Myanmar), the Israel-Palestinian conflict is quite far from the worst by virtually all metrics, no reasonable person could ever think twice the amount of UN resolutions against Israel compared to the rest of the world combined is remotely reasonable.
> Only because it refuses to do anything of substance to curb its behavior.
The UN doesn't have much power in general, still doesn't justify the extreme anti-Israel bias especially when there are so many other conflicts that are much worse.
> UNWatch lost any credibility it had when it insists on ignoring reality and arguing that literally salting the earth/water supply of millions and annihilating countless children is something you cannot ever condemn and if you do you are being a bully.
UNWatch is focused on the UN, obviously the conflict has had a lot of terrible back and forth retaliations, did UNWatch deny that ever?
> If I keep committing crimes and keep being arrested for those crimes does it make any sense to complain about the police arresting me all the time instead of realizing my own behavior is why I keep being arrested? According to you that makes perfect sense.
By that logic the Jews being arrested by the Nazi police....should have just accepted their behavior(being Jewish) as being the problem? You're making it out as if the UN is some sort of unbiased law enforcement organization when it is nothing of the sort.
>There are many horrible conflicts throughout the world(i.e. Sudan, Syria, Myanmar)
So? Are you saying no resolutions were passed regarding them?
>the Israel-Palestinian conflict is quite far from the worst by virtually all metrics
By what metrics exactly?
>UNWatch is focused on the UN
Nope. It is focused on pretending Israel has never done anything wrong ever and has been for a while now.
>The UN doesn't have much power in general, still doesn't justify the extreme anti-Israel bias
There is no extreme anti-Israel bias.
>especially when there are so many other conflicts that are much worse.
In the present? No there is not.
>By that logic the Jews being arrested by the Nazi police....should have just accepted their behavior(being Jewish) as being the problem.
Not in the slightest. Please don't intentionally misinterpret what I said to push such a ridiculous and sick idea. That's a ridiculous straw man.
Your retort would only make sense if my hypothetical didn't explicitly state "committing crimes and keep being arrested for them". You know that, you just wanted to to try and vilify me while dodging the question.
To try and dissuade any further attempt to strawman I'll clarify:
If I keep assaulting people on camera and keep being arrested for those assaulting people does it make any sense to complain about the police arresting me all the time instead of realizing my own behavior (assaulting people) is why I keep being arrested? According to you that makes perfect sense.
> So? Are you saying no resolutions were passed regarding them?
I'm saying that those conflicts are significantly worse than the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
> By what metrics exactly?
Deaths and human rights violations to start with.
> It is focused on pretending Israel has never done anything wrong ever and has been for a while now.
Where do you see them doing that?
> In the present? No there is not.
That's just not remotely factually accurate, here's just one to start with:
Sudan with Nearly 25 million affected by famine(far more than the combined population of Israel/Palestine) with 4 million children acutely malnourished(far more than the entire population of Gaza)[0]
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict doesn't even come close to these numbers in terms of deaths and humanitarian issues.
The fact that you think the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the worst conflict in the world right now I think really highlights the issue with bias.
> Your retort would only make sense if my hypothetical didn't explicitly state "committing crimes and keep being arrested for them".
Being Jewish was a crime worthy of arrest in Nazi Germany.
> If I keep assaulting people on camera and keep being arrested for those assaulting people does it make any sense to complain about the police arresting me all the time instead of realizing my own behavior (assaulting people) is why I keep being arrested? According to you that makes perfect sense.
The world has plenty of horrible conflicts, many far worse than the Israel-Palestinian conflict by essentially all metrics, and when the "police"(UN) only seem to care about "arresting"(Making UN resolutions against) Israel it shows how blatantly biased they(the UN) are.
There's plenty of legitimate objections such as not trusting a foreign court to appropriately decide international law.
> (2) any country exercising its sovereign power to delegate its exercise of jurisdiction over them anywhere to an international tribunal, like the ICC, either generally, under specified terms (such as those in the Rome Statute), or ad hoc.
In the case of Afghanistan, neither the US nor the Taliban are delegating that sort of authority to the ICC.
> And they certainly have the least basis for doing so when the country on whose territory they are alleged to have occurred, and who would thus have jurisdiction whether or not they were matters of universal jurisdiction under international law, does so.
IMO that's a pretty weak argument, especially when you have states being prosecuted which are non-signatories to the Rome Statute or are not full UN member states like in the case of Palestine.
> The actual objection is not the broad principle you are trying to articulate, but it is to the idea of Israel being accountable under international law for crimes for which it has the full support of the US government, irrespective of any theory of law.
The UN has a very well documented history of bias against Israel.[0] It seems entirely reasonable to me that neither the US nor Israel would trust a UN court, especially for anything related to wars involving Israel.
[0] https://unwatch.org/2024-unga-resolutions-on-israel-vs-rest-...