How to tell if something is complete dogshit:
1: you see “the Washington post”
2: “opinion”
Can the Washington Post shut up about this? The ICC will just do as it does… it proclaims a warrant for war criminal’s arrest but it won’t do anything, as long as the war criminal stays within their nest…
Damn, they can’t handle a somewhat leveled playing field
Even with all their flaws, international law agencies have done many good things since WW2. One of the less talked about things that could come from this disaster is the whole world gives up on these organizations given that “looking good on the international stage” is no longer a priority for middle powered nations.
In principle i agree, except the ICC is not rooted in international law (aka the UN) and it doesn’t date back to WW2 (unlike the ICJ). Rather it was invented by the West in the 90s to go after Yugoslavia and African nations.
I have a hard time criticizing the UN; because it seems clear to me that the nations that make up the global majority do want to seek justice, but the UN is structured specifically to not allow them to act without the blessing of the “Great Powers”. And it’s the US, UK, and France that have longest list of historical crimes.
That standfirst is mental. I need to know what their argument could possibly be.
Edit: The article is available on archive.today. It’s shit.
It’s awful.
The author seems to lack any critical thinking skills or relevant historical knowledge and simply possesses a starry eyed trust in institutions (except the ICC apparently).
Either that or they are knowingly peddling bullshit.
they are knowingly peddling bullshit.
Nah, people at these ‘premier’ publications are true believers, they’re that dumb. It’s why they earn the big bucks, they’re a truly rare breed.
They’ve gone through their formative years, academic and professional lives, encased in pure, unadulterated neoliberal thought without a single ray of dialectical materialism or critical analysis that goes against their world view crossing into anything they consume. They read Thomas Friedman by the bed side, watch ‘West Wing’ on their downtime, patron chic/fine dining establishments, and if they interact with the average peasant they pat themselves on the back for not vomitting and being a true man of the people
These people will be sent to work on the fields in the countryside after the revolution. Those that aren’t shot, that is.
They think the ICC is good but only when applied to certain nations.
Thanks for the link.
Even if I take off my ML hat and pretend that I’m a centrist liberal, this still seems absurd.
I hestitate to find the full article and read it as I should watch my blood pressure today, but if anyone has what do they actually propose be the venue to hold Israel to account? The US? The UK?
Oh! Maybe Israel can do an internal audit and determine they are not guilty.
They said the ICC is only for when a country is incapable of investigating itself for crimes, which apparently Israel can do so we should just leave it to them instead of getting the international court involved.
quote from the article, hidden to protect your blood pressure
Israel needs to be held accountable for its military conduct in Gaza. After the conflict’s end — which is long overdue — there will no doubt be Israeli judicial, parliamentary and military commissions of inquiry. Israel’s vibrant, independent media will do its own investigations. Some Israeli reserve soldiers have already been arrested over accusations of abuse against Palestinian detainees. More investigations will follow. The ICC is supposed to become involved when countries have no means or mechanisms to investigate themselves. That is not the case in Israel
Holy shit, this only sounds reasonable if one never heard any israeli speak.
This is legitimately such an evil article that is steeped in Liberal respectability posturing.
At this point, I brace anytime the “editorial board” of WaPo, The Economist, NYT, etc feels the need to tell us their “opinions.”
