Remix clone Hacker News

Can't you place that exact same argument on the side of the Palestinians, and add more weight to their claim - where the international community so far has allowed this, due to reason (whether money involved in politicians toeing a line or not), and so the courts decisions and political bias are more likely to favour Netanyahu over the Palestinians?

There never seems to be much critical thinking on the quick one-liners that on the surface appear to often be one-liner propaganda talking points used for deflection, to give an easy memorable line for an otherwise ideological mob to learn-train them with to then parrot.

(edited tran->train)

▲

bawolff 5 days ago | parent [-]

You can claim anything, but i don't think it means much if you don't back it up with some arguments.

Like this is basically only the second time that a sitting head of state of a functioning country has had a warrant issued against them. Its fairly unprecedented. I don't agree with the claims the icc is biased against israel, but the fact they are acting at all certainly shows they aren't biased for them.

▲

loceng 4 days ago | parent [-]

The proof you provide is very shallow, and with no real relevance or weight as an argument point - when it's known that the US and Israel have veto powers, as an example, that most international organizations currently are theatre without teeth - and so that's essentially why it's "fairly unprecedented."

Now Netanyahu has done enough blatantly, what's argued by some to be the most video/photographed-recorded genocide in history, the hierarchy and people resource hierarchy of the ICC hasn't fallen to Israeli political pressure (or whatever other tactics Mossad is known to use to try to get their way).

Once again, your final point is more neutral - where you could only really honestly say that if in a vacuum, if you're not looking behind the scenes with how much pressure Israel has put publicly and privately on members of the ICC to not file nor then issue charges, etc.

▲

bawolff 4 days ago | parent [-]

> when it's known that the US and Israel have veto powers, as an example,

They don't have veto powers of the ICC. Neither are even members.

However if your point is that both are powerful political actors, i think that speaks to a lack of pro-israel bias since they are going ahead with the charges despite the objections (and down right threats) from both countries which are super powerful actors.

> Now Netanyahu has done enough blatantly, what's argued by some to be the most video/photographed-recorded genocide in history,

It should be noted that genocide is not one of the charges. The ICC has juridsiction over genocide, but the ICC prosecuter has not accused israel of genocide thus far.

	▲	loceng 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, it's a lower bar to charge with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Genocide charges can come later.