Colombia’s previous president accused Israel of meddling in their recent elections where a right wing trump supporter got elected, but I doubt the incoming president would bother investigating and they probably don’t have the same resources to look into it either.

Curious on what’s so scary about it for all of earth?

But how could the far right then fear monger to start closing off borders?

LoL, if I booby trapped my house and some invading force came in and set it off, that’s their own fault.

There’s no retaliation, it’s just Israelis being the cunts they are because that’s what they’ve always done.

Didn’t she defend her grandfather who was a Nazi collaborator? That’s not really an admirable trait

Not to take away from how spiteful Russia is, but double tapping - the strategy that Israel uses often - is usually in quicker succession, like within minutes because civilians get closer or when emergency personnel are already there. The drones here were over the course of 24hours, which is a much wider window.

This is the second attack on our warehouse in 24 hours.

Washington Institute is a pro-israel think tank.

Their statements now are not neutral statements/objective facts. They’re literally advisory statements to dictate strategy that would benefit Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), also known simply as The Washington Institute (TWI), is a pro-Israel American think tank based in Washington, D.C.,[3][4] focused on the foreign policy of the United States in the Near East.

Russia gave Syria S-300 and S-400 systems which could supposedly knock out some of the most advanced bomber jets, yet not one Israeli fighter was downed over Syria. And this is before F-35s existed.

Like you said, Israel playing both sides and both sides know it too.

When has the federal reserve influenced foreign policy then or even domestic policy? How exactly does it help Israel?

You’ve drawn a parallel…OK and then what? How does the majority of them being of Jewish background (and that’s assuming 1- they’re religious not just of the ethnicity and 2- that they’re Zionist) drive your point home exactly?

He’s playing both sides so he can always come out on top.

Especially since there’s a growing Republican base that’s against war and against funding going to Israel

I don’t think your method of open ended questions when pointing out some Jewish people as heads of banks (Rothschilds and heads of the federal reserve) hides from your antisemitism.

Example: A good portion of C-suite executives in tech are of indian descent. If they decide to start sending money to Modi or funding parties in the US because of their belief in Hindutva, doesn’t mean that it’s a global conspiracy or that “they control tech”.

They’re just rich assholes funding a fascist movement - not to mention the other rich assholes that put money behind movements like that for their own enrichment or ideas (like Zionist Christians who are a much bigger population than Jewish Zionists and very wealthy).

Wealthy benefactors will put down money for a cause they like, bad or good. And if it happens to be a good ROI, then that’s all the more reason they’d do it.

Making blanket statements of an ethnicity is racist. Especially when structured power dynamics exist and are very obvious.

Most of the Zionist immigration actually occurred before the Holocaust. In fact, the Zionists were actively refusing Jewish refugees because they would have “tainted” the movement.

https://palestinenexus.com/articles/eugenicism

From the late 19th century through the 1950s, Zionist leaders adopted a selective immigration policy designed to exclude ‘undesirable’ Jews.

Menahem Sheinkin described them as “miserable paupers, depressed and patched up, with bundles like rag-merchants, the poorest of the poor, who could not possibly be a blessing to the country.”

By the early 1900s, an office was established in Jaffa to screen Jews hoping to settle in Palestine. Menachem Sheinkin and Arthur Ruppin reviewed application letters sent from prospective migrants and told 61% of them not to come, primarily because they were too impoverished.

I sympathize with those who suffered due to antisemitism over millenia and during the holocaust. But I have zero sympathy for fascist colonials who created founding myths based off the suffering of others that they actively turned away.

When did they ever have it?

The US (and Republicans more specifically) has been threatening the ICC for a long time. Many sanctions were placed on ICC prosecutors and judges before the Epstein files were even a thing.

What banking system does Israel control and brag about?

No, they came here because there was a family dictatorship under the Assads for several decades who precede the Iranian regime and who invited Iran and Hezbollah as allies to help in the civil war to maintain power.

You’re not very informed.

That’s always a good thing

/S

Colonization is the act of displacing the local population for your own settlers.

It’s ok, bud. You can try to obfuscate Israel’s colonial actions. Just keep in mind that there are Canadians on Lemmy and we know what colonialism is.

They don’t decide jurisdiction, it’s already clear what their jurisdiction is (i.e. signatory states and others).

Sorry but you’ve shared a lot of emotional responses with very little in the way of facts - sometimes even complete inaccuracies. To be frank, I’m reading a lot of ignorance and assumptions rather than understanding. If that’s how you base your opinions then there’s not much point in engagement.

ICC doesn’t have jurisdiction for what states do within their own borders - every court has jurisdiction. If you don’t know them or have your own feelings about them, then that’s your own misconception of what the court’s function is.

In the end, even the creation of the ICC in 2002 was contentious because of what states viewed as infringement of sovereignty. It’s a very new international body that still doesn’t have the support it needs. Additionally, it’s judges and prosecutors are financially sanctioned by the US (for investigating war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan) which impedes their work.

It’s less about being toothless, and more like states purposefully attack it and try to weaken it - meaning it does serve a purpose (which is why it’s attacked) and can serve an even greater purpose if unimpeded.

So instead of blaming the ICC for doing their job in the quagmire that is international politics and the limited tools they have, you should be directing your ire at the states who don’t allow it to function as it should and ask for more protections of the court.

To answer some things

• Bibi (et al.) and Putin are wanted by the ICC and will be arrested should they travel to signatory states.
• The ICC isn’t part of the UN. You’re thinking of the ICJ.

I don’t know what you mean about legitimizing. The court functions as any court in the world and the prosecution needs to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. If the court makes judgements outside of what can be proven or available evidence, then it’s not a court and would not be legitimate (and probably be attacked even more than it is now).