This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You confused your international law bodies and what they did.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is part of the UN, did not issue an arrest warrant on Netanyahu.
The ICJ did issue provisional measures to 'prevent genocide'- but did not make a finding that genocide had occurred. (That is the point on ongoing litigation that is the geopolitical football being used for domestic politics by various countries- whether efforts by the Israelis (and/or US) are sufficient enough to meet the bar.) While there are certain elements of the ongoing litigation that might raise some eyebrows- such as accuser efforts to substitute expanded definitions of genocide in lieu of more restrictive standards, the reliance on Hamas-provided casualty figures that regularly fail analytic scrutiny to justify civilian death toll claims, or the lack by any accuser to provide a baseline estimate of militant-to-civilian casualties that might be used to judge Israel's impact against civilians in an ongoing urban conflict zone compared to contemporary urban warfare examples that were not genocidal- they are ultimately not relevant until the ICJ makes a further determination.
Until such time as the ICJ makes a further determination, there is no further element for the US or Israel to 'obey' beyond what they are already claim they are doing- not commit genocide.
The International Criminal Court (ICC), which is not part of the UN, was the body that issued the arrest warrant for Netanyahu.
While the ICJ did kindly issue an arrest warrant for already-dead Hamas leader Sinwar in a show of balance, the ICC warrant- by the nature of the ICC-being a Treaty-based institution rather than a UN body- faces significant jurisdictional challenges. While the ICC did graciously grant itself jurisdiction over the Gaza Strip despite no ICC member having ever held territorial control or jurisdiction of the Gaza strip while a party to the ICC, that does not change that the ICC's treaty limits its applicability to ICC-treaty members and their territory... of which about half the world, including the Israelis and Americans, are not. It is the internal law legal duty of court members- notably every European Union country due to the EU's policy of making ICC membership a requirement- to honor such warrants, but not non-members. While there are certainly grounds to protest the objections of the French, the Poles, the Germans, and so on for resisting that, those are other people.
Until such time that the US and the Israelis are members of the ICC, there are no internal law obligations on them to obey the ICC.
What you are looking is for excuses. At the end of the day one can win, claim might is right, and argue they have no obligations.
International rule of law is not about finding loopholes to justify your criminal conduct while promoting maximal propaganda about others criminal conduct. Which will be used not only to oppose actual criminal conduct but also to justify aggressive action.
The powerful can at times make it so the law and principles don't apply to them. And even try to make it officially. International rule of law requires to accept the authority and restrain ones behavior in line with international courts of justice.
It's like a mafia not recognising the authority of the court and having enough influence with bribed cops to get away with it. Or Drug lords in a narco state.
Of course, you can't claim to not recognize a court and therefore warcrimes and invasions are compatible with international rule of law. If you choose to be exempt the fact is that this illustrates your hostility to international rules of law and human rights.
Now of course international bodies can promote completely asinine agendas including great replacement, or agreements where your country is screwed over while India and China can develop relating to climate change international agreements. Human rights can be stretched to the absurd. So, I don't object to countries objecting to exploitative more pathologically altruist type of arrangements promoted by international organizations and even foreign countries, foreign nationalists or their own oikophobes. But that isn't the case against the USA and Israel militarism and human rights violations. Of course one should distinguish between BS that an ideologue might pretend are human rights, and more well understood genuine human rights. Like not invading countries, not creating civil wars, avoiding war crimes, etc, etc.
The point is to adhere to principles consistently. The USA and Israel definitely do not do that. Nor do its elite, opinion makers and those pushing such talking points adhere principles consistently.
'Just trust me, bro. The contract totally says you have to do what I say it says you have to do. Don't read what it actually says. Also don't refer to any other laws that may cover you and what you're doing. Also, you're guilty because someone accused you. Why do you hate justice, bro? You're so illegal.'
You can either claim the law that is applies, or you can claim that law that does not exist should apply. You do not get to claim both, particularly when doing so is its own avenue of criminal conduct and justifying aggressive action.
This is particularly true when laws haveconflicting elements, so that compliance with one part of the law does, in fact, create gaps in applicability in other parts. To do so otherwise is to demand the selective suspension of both letter and principles of law.
It is also, just as a practical matter, a really, really stupid principle to say that
Laws do not apply to those they do not apply to. That is not tautological- that is categorical due to the nature of the thing. This is why principles of jurisdiction, basis of authority, and other such limiting factors. A lack of sufficient coverage/definitions may be an argument for different laws of different scope, but it is not an argument that, actually, the person/place/think is against the laws.
The nature of international law in turn is that it derives from the consent of the sovereign nation. That consent may be pressured/purchased/lobbied/transactional, but absent of that consent a treaty does not apply.
The International Criminal Court is not 'an international court of justice.' It is a treaty-court of members of the treaty, applying to members of the treaty, bound by the scope of its treaty... which itself explicitly limits itself to its members and its members sovereign territory. You, in turn, are the one saying others are violating international law by not complying with it.
This is not an appeal to international law. This is against the very law (treaty) that establishes the ICC. This is antithetical to the principle that the very same international law is based on, which is the sovereignty of the state to freely enter into treaties or not.
You are assuming the conclusion to conflate unlike issues, and poorly. It is not hostility to international law to recognize a court that by international law does not apply to you. Nor has an international court made a verdict on warcrimes if it has not made a verdict. The accusations in the ICJ are an accusation, not a finding, and it is not hostility to principles of law to deny the accuracy or validity of accusations, particularly when there are many grounds to.
Alternatively, they do apply principles consistently, you just disagree with those principles, and want different principles to apply, inconsistently, by virtue of disagreeing with the limiting principles that are the bedrock of international law.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link