The ruling was essentially the US president can violate US and International law without being held accountable

I mean, this has been the case for a while, it’s good to get it in writing for when we have to name every rogue state

It’s not just the President, no matter hard you like to point the finger. The entire US government has been responsible for supporting Israel since Congress voted in favor of aid.

The problem the CCR is going to have, prosecuting as a US organization, is evidence of war crime. News reports and foreign court findings are inadmissible as evidence of crime in US court, and they clearly won’t have support from the State Department.

Because Americans are used to accountability, give me a fucking break

Republicans are already prepared to do more than abuse it. Haven’t you been paying attention?

It really does make me wonder if people genuinely believe something would come of this. Honestly I’d love for there to be some kind of consequence but it’s pretty laughable to think that anything will happen when the power dynamic is so skewed

Rules for thee and not for me is the founding basis for conservative politics

Edit: fixed a typo

The goal is to expose and to try every avenue available. Which should be the logic thing to do in face of a genocide.

Maybe something comes out of it. Probably not. But in the latter case at least it is evident, that there is no moral high ground with the US and its allies. It is evident that working with these terror states creates complicity in the most heinous crimes and other countries can be held accountable for it.

It can create an understanding for future generations that neoliberalism like it is endorsed by both US parties or so called “social democrats” or “greens” in countries like Germany is nothing but fascism with extra steps.

Hopefully get that Genocidal Geriatric behind bars for the rest of his miserable life.

But mostly dispel the illusion that the Democrats care about Justice no matter how hard they try to act on the Hunter Biden stuff.

And even bigger aspect of international law that people don’t seem to understand is who writes international law.

What we call “international law” is actually just a variety of treaties most countries have agreed to follow. So international law is actually just a vague consensus among the leaders of the countries of the world.

So international law doesn’t actually prohibit world leaders from doing the things they want to do. Because they wouldn’t agree to treaties that wouldn’t allow them to do what they want.

War is something countries do, so war is not against international law. But there are defined rules to conducting a war in international law. Sometimes there are civilian casualties in a war, so civilians casualties in a war doesn’t automatically mean the country broke international law. Blockades? That’s something countries want to do so that’s legal, in fact the rules around a blockade is defined in the oldest of international law.

Countries have militaries that wear uniforms so there’s additional protections for soldiers in uniform than there are for combatants that aren’t in uniform (like Hamas). Uniformed soldiers held captive are prisoners of war and must be released when the war is over. Non-uniformed combatants are basically stateless criminals and can be held indefinitely even after a war is concluded. Countries don’t need to take civilians hostage, so that’s against international law.

So Hamas taking hostages, civilian, off duty soldiers, even uniformed soldiers on duty, it’s all illegal. They aren’t following the rules of war and are criminals under international law.

As long as Israel follows the rules of conducting blockades and rules around how to conduct a war, these are legal under international law no matter how much people want to scream genocide.

Sometimes I do think Lemmy forgets that structured social pressure among leadership is a thing.

Like no, BDS isn’t going to suddenly cripple the Israeli economy, nor is Biden going to suddenly get arrested for war crimes.

But that doesn’t make these actions meaningless. Best case it compounds with other action over time into concrete progress, and worst case it at least provides conviction and encouragement to leaders trying to do the right thing.