How does Israel get away with everything?
Blackmail Threats Bribes
Perpetual victim complex, which the rest of the world kneels to.
That’s because Israel is a terrorist state, like Russia.
Israel seems to be threatening everyone. Apparently breathing is antisemitic.
You’re breathing the same air as a terrorist!! 1!! 1!! 1!1!!! 1!!! You antisemite!
For the n-th time, Israel is a terrorist state. Period! FUCK THE TERRORISTS!!! They are scum!
Israel is a country of sick people.
That’s like saying the US is a country of sick people
Until 2024 I’d have agreed with that sentiment, but seeing the US purposely and intentionally vote against forever wars and turn on Israel has changed my mind slightly.
The US is a country of sick people
Israel is a country LED BY sick people. Let’s not smear an entire population because their leaders are psychos. Most of us wouldn’t withstand the same scrutiny applied to us, would we?
No, the population are sickos. Theyre criticizing Netty the Butcher for NOT pursing more killing and land stealing.
Fuck all of them.
By that logic, you’re a bigoted asshole because Trump is a bigoted asshole.
Grow the fuck up.
That’s probably fair, yeah.
That tells a lot about them
What is this news source? They claim 21 US vassal states but don’t even bother listing them? Utter garbage.
#believewomen unless the guy sexually harassing office staff is part of “the cause” in which case ignore women and assume they must be agents of the enemy.
Yet another way y’all are exactly like MAGAs.
Did you read the article, dumb-dumb?
Khan also said that a 5,000-page report by the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services had cleared him of all wrongdoing. Moreover, the ICC’s ‘Bureau’ – the ICC’s main oversight body – appointed three judges to digest the report. The judges confirmed on 21 March 2026 that there was not a single piece of evidence suggesting any misconduct by Khan.
However the ICC board (which is not a judicial body) made the decision to remove him.
Do you think sexual harassment perpetrated by high profile people is never covered up?
If it was one woman, sure it’s possible it’s a disgruntled employee. When it’s multiple?
And yeah the fact that they removed him speaks volumes. People a little closer to this guy than you and I are thinking “we gotta get rid of this guy.” Probably trying to salvage what’s left of the ICJ’s reputation.
If the facts of the evidence is strong, it doesn’t really matter if this guy is replaced. In fact this guy has ab appearance of bias, and in a legal system even that appearance is disqualifying.
It’s the “ICC”, bud. You’ve been wrong from the start. Shut up and sit down Zionist shill.
Oh right, the ICJ is the UN court in the Hague where they make bullshit claims about countries that go nowhere while the ICC is the UN court in the Hague where they make bullshit claims about the leaders of countries that go nowhere. They’re totally different! LOL
#believewomen was always just a self-serving argument promoted by Biden and co. for political gain.
What we should (and legally have) to believe is innocence until proven guilty.
What we should (and legally have) to believe is innocence until proven guilty.
Do you believe Netanyahu is innocent until proven guilty?
Of course. With the level of evidence the ICJ has against him, they can order an arrest; this should turn out to be a quick verdict.
Quick guilty verdict? That’s not a presumption of innocence.
Do you think Trump arresting Maduro was a good thing? What criteria should be used? Should some court in Europe have jurisdiction over the world? It’s it even a legal system when it’s motivated by politics?
Also Netanyahu isn’t going to be arrested. The ICJ doesn’t have an army to enforce their decrees on parts of the world that don’t recognise their legitimacy. Issuing these kinds of orders only hurt is legitimacy (don’t issue orders that won’t be followed!) and only creates an equivalence between their actions and Trump’s actions with Maduro.
Quick guilty verdict? That’s not a presumption of innocence.
Just a quick verdict. Usually most of the time of the prosecutor is spent building the case, but here the abundance of evidence means he won’t have to.
Should some court in Europe have jurisdiction over the world? It’s it even a legal system when it’s motivated by politics?
The ICC (it’s this one that does the prosecution) bases its rulings on the basis of the UDHR. Since no UN member ever made opposition to it, and practically all nations are UN members, it has worldwide jurisdiction to remind the UN members of their obligations.
Also Netanyahu isn’t going to be arrested. The ICJ doesn’t have an army to enforce their decrees on parts of the world that don’t recognise their legitimacy.
Probably correct, but we never know. Nations that enforce international law, like Canada, could possibly make an arrest on behalf of the ICC. It may also just be the case the Israel itself may hand him over if he is ever impeached there.
Issuing these kinds of orders only hurt is legitimacy (don’t issue orders that won’t be followed!)
That’s an appeal to force type of argument. These orders should be issued based on whether they are legal or illegal, not whether they will be followed or enforced.
You’re only looking at the evidence from a biased prosecutor, and saying it will be a quick verdict. Don’t piss down my leg and tell me it’s raining, you mean it will be a quick guilt verdict because you’re assuming there will be nothing from the defense side.
You just got hoisted on your own petard and can’t admit it. You assume that your allies are innocent and your enemies are guilty because you don’t actually believe in an assumption of innocence.
The ICC (it’s this one that does the prosecution) bases its rulings on the basis of the UDHR. Since no UN member ever made opposition to it, and practically all nations are UN members, it has worldwide jurisdiction to remind the UN members of their obligations.
Israel is not a part of the ICC. They have no jurisdiction. International law isn’t a thing that’s imposed onto countries by the UN, it’s a collection of treaties that countries agree to. Israel didn’t agree to the ICC, so the ICC does not have jurisdiction until Israel agrees to it. Nation states are sovereign, not the UN. If you know anything about international law it should be that.
Only if Netanyahu goes to a country that is a signatory to the ICC could he be arrested. But even that’s not going to happen because any country Netahyahu visits would either guarantee diplomatic immunity or simply not invite him to come to their country.
That’s an appeal to force type of argument. These orders should be issued based on whether they are legal or illegal, not whether they will be followed or enforced.
Yeah, no shit. Let’s not be naive and pretend we live in an ideal world. Far from it. For international law to have effect it has to be respected by nations. If you’re constantly issuing arrest warrants that will never be enforced, everyone becomes accustomed to ignoring arrest warrants from the ICC. Then it becomes yet another organization in the UN that just issues strongly worded letters and nothing else.
Overall the UN really overreached. And it’s problematic since it really would be nice to have the UN be part of a long term peace plan. But they’ve slammed that door shut, haven’t they? Israel is not going to trust the UN to be a part of anything now, and that makes a working peace a little less likely. Promoting peace should be the UN’s primary goal, taking sides in a conflict for the sake of scoring some political points in the short term should not be. What’s more important, preventing the next Gaza war and preventing the deaths of tens of thousands, or issuing an arrest warrant that won’t be enforced to appease the anti-Israel crowd?
The concept of having a court associated with the UN has turned out to be a bad idea. The UN is dominated by world politics (and is therefore a corrupt mess, since that’s the reality of the world) and a legal system needs to be separated from politics to have legitimacy. The majority of the world’s governments are corrupt messes so how do you have a legal system that’s controlled by a consensus of those governments that’s not going to be corrupt? How do you avoid any legal action by a UN court creating distrust of the UN? For a court to have any level of respect it can’t have even a hint of corruption, and anything associated with UN will by extension be associated with corruption that dominates a majority of the governments of the world.
