I've seen far right regimes in Europe -Spain- siding up with the Communist Cuba because of the common backgrounds over politics.
And the Cuban regime itself under Castro mourning over Franco's death. As crazy as it sounds.
Under an US-invaded European Union Spain would team up with Cuba and Venezuela the first day no matter which party would be ruling, left or even neocon-close right. The Spaniard state's survival would be the top priority.
No state, no economy, no Ibex 35. And shit would hit the fan from Latin America too.
Oh, and expect hell with guerrillas spawning here and there from Latin America backed up from Europeans and maybe the Moccromafia and the former Italian Mafia themselves. Spain, France and Italy have contacts over all the Mediterranean and you knows what Mediterranean means. I wouldn't be there if I were an American trying to invade Europe... because once you kick the wasp nest of the Islamic regimes being generously supported from Mafias, you would have both the Jihad and the Narcoguerrillas at home with European army support.
Try to stop that. Because something the Southern Europeans know well it's learning to have friends even in Hell "just in case".
Spain has the Hispano-spehere, they know how to put a whole political spectra on its side with ease, and the French have the Francophonie.
And for sure they have contacts in the Arabic world as I said.
If they don't have a badass archive of ETA contacts with Islamic camps beforehand, and they own the triumph card of Marbella too. You would be nuts trying to invade some sickos there; they know who to call in case of emergencies. The Spanish state already did that against terrorists themselves.
You severely underestimate the level of animosity between half the EU and Russia. They would revolt if the other half tried to openly ally with Russia.
The example you gave isn't too surprising if one believes authoritarians attract authoritarians.
That what happen because, ahem, rudely said, eveyone it's grabbed from the balls from everyone's else. Economically, I mean. We are tangled and dependant of each other.
The US has the most advanced software and CPU's, the EU has sofisticated and pretty complex industrial hardware not even seen in the US. China, well, it's China, the factory of the world.
Sure. But if someone is fantasizing about Europe kicking American troops out with Russian help, they’re fantasizing about nuclear war on European soil. (Admittedly, a short one given Russia’s a paper tiger in conventional terms.)
The US does not recognize such an argument. If that is the argument being made, then no wonder the US issued sanctions; it would perceive such a precedent as a threat to its sovereignty.
Not quite: The US helped invent that argument, and has used it extensively to pursue its foreign policy goals since World War II.
What the US has argued historically is that American people and institutions are not subject to it because the US has a functioning civilian and military justice system, and so prosecution for such crimes can be handled within it, even by foreign nations and NGOs.
Obviously that’s a load of bullshit, especially (but not only) these days, but “sovereignty for me but not for thee” has long been the rule and with its weakening international position the US may come to find that to be less achievable in the future.
When has the US used the argument that a judicial system has universal jurisdiction? In the US, foreign policy is the domain of the executive, to the point where court cases involving foreign sovereigns are usually dismissed.
Compared to how much of a mess most of the world's powers are on matters on sovereignty, the US is actually one of the more conservative ones here (e.g., see OFCOM in the UK).
Let me restate: The US position is that the US justice system “works” and thus *US persons and institutions* must be pursued *within the US system* even by foreign entities.
In other words, the US position is not that if (say) North Korea commits a crime against humanity they must be pursued in US courts; the US is fine with the ICC in that case. The US position is that if the US commits a crime against humanity that must be pursued in US courts, not the ICC.
It’s an obvious (and bullshit) double standard, but it’s also not a denial of the legitimacy of universal jurisdiction. It’s just the US, as usual, trying to have its cake and eat it too.
Why is that a double standard? The US position is that recognized nations have sovereignty, and are the supreme law within their jurisdiction. If there is no recognized legitimate sovereign power, then the US is fine with an international body substituting.
That this standard is complicated, and different from those that argue that international law should be the supreme law, doesn't make it a double standard. It's also not what is meant by universal jurisdiction, as it does not depend on overriding sovereignty.
Edit: Seeing your other comment, it's also worth noting this was a large reason why the US didn't sign the Rome statute, since as you note, the US isn't inherently opposed to the idea of international courts, only the supremacy of their jurisdiction.
They don't want the precedent established. Same reason why uninvolved parties in US courts submit "amicus briefs" - the precedent from a case may affect them down the line.
The US doesn’t believe universal jurisdiction applies to it or its vassal states and proxies, which includes Israel.
On the other hand, the US didn’t try to prevent Slobodan Milošević from being tried at The Hague for war crimes and genocide, as Serbia wasn’t a vassal state or proxy.
The US is not a signatory of the Rome statute. The ICC has no jurisdiction over the US, and any scenario where it claims it does would be an abuse of power.
2. The ICC recognizes the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to be Palestinian territories
3. The ICC Article 12(2)(a): “The Court may exercise its jurisdiction if the crime in question is committed on the territory of a State Party to this Statute.”
4. Therefore, ICC argues it does have jurisdiction
So, according to the ICC, you don't need to be apart of the Rome Statute for the ICC to have jurisdiction
at least thats the argument for ICC's jurisdiction over Israeli nationals. IDK if the ICC ever tried that with the USA
I think the argument is subtley different (sorry if this is nitpicky)
1. Palestine is a state, whose territorial extent includes the gaza strip (the most controversial proposition)
2. Under international law, a soveriegn state has the right to prosecute any crime that takes place on their territory. In many ways this is kind of the definition of soveriegnty - the ability to control and make decisions in your territory (in the caee of war, subject to the restrictions imposed by the geneva convention)
3. Soverign states can delegate this power to anyone they chose
4. Palestine delegated this power to the ICC, subject to the provisions of the Rome statue.
> So, according to the ICC, you don't need to be apart of the Rome Statute for the ICC to have jurisdiction
The idea that courts have juridsiction over foreign nationals who commit crimes in their territory is very standard and is generally true for all courts.
E.g. if you are a tourist visiting another country and murder someone, you still get arrested by local authorities. There is no get out of jail free card because you are a foreigner. What is relavent is where the crime took place not who comitted it.
In the case of the ICC, the ICC is acting on behalf of Palestine. So its juridsiction would be the same as whatever Palestine's would be minus any additional restrictions imposed by the rome statue.
The fact that the Palestinian Authority has made no attempt at arresting the Hamas members also charged by the ICC, shows they do not have sovereignty in Gaza - they don’t have the ability to control and make decisions there.
I actually generally agree with this. How can the PA have sovereignty over an area they basically have never controlled? It seems pretty unprecedented to have a "state" that does not have control of its territory at time of recognition.
That said, it should be noted that the Hamas members publicly charged are all dead now and you can't arrest a dead person (the icc can also make warrants in secret so its possible there are secret warrants). But even if they weren't, it is clear they don't have the ability to enforce justice (or anything else) in Gaza, nor did they have that ability in the past.
IIRC, the prosecutor on the ICC responded to the sanctions by suggesting that they could charge individuals interfering with the court with obstruction. Which, as far as US sanctions are concerned, they definitely don't have the jurisdiction to do. I don't think anything legal came of it, but that is exactly the sort of threat that, from a prosecutor, sounds like abuse.
Why do you say they don't have jurisdiction in that case?
Article 70:
“It shall be a crime for any person to commit any of the following acts:
(a) giving false testimony;
(b) presenting false or forged evidence;
(c) corruptly influencing a witness, expert, or court official;
(d) interfering with or intimidating a witness, expert, or court official;
(e) committing any other act which perverts the course of justice in relation to proceedings before the Court.”
Article 70's jurisdiction is not tied to member states. It applies to anyone, anywhere that may affect the court's functioning.
edit: maybe you're saying the ICC cannot have jurisdiction over people/nations that never agreed to be apart of their jurisdiction, regardless of what the Rome Statue says?
Yes, just because the Rome statute claims jurisdiction doesn't make it true, if the jurisdiction in question didn't agree.
In the US, this has all the legal power of Joe Sixpack declaring legal power, or a Russian court. If the ICC tried, the US would tell them to pound sand (or more likely, increase sanctions).
Since the US is not a signatory, as far as they are concerned, the ICC is just a random organization claiming to hold powers it doesn't have.
If a foreign national threatened or tried to improperly influence a US judge, you better belueve the US courts would claim juridsiction.
Generally speaking courts usually claim juridsiction over actions that take affect in their territory even if comitted outside of it (e.g. someone running a scam call center specificly targeting americans would likely get in trouble with us courts even if they never step foot there. Someone hiring an assain to kill an american will still get charged even if they never step foot in america). The ICC is not unique in this regard. The limiting factors here are politics and power not traditional views of how juridsiction works.
There is a difference between juridsiction and actual ability to execute judgements/orders.
That's really not legally correct. Unless the case is specifically tied to terrorism, US federal courts don't claim jurisdiction over murders of private US citizens abroad.
In the giants legal overreach death match of USA vs ICC, I am betting on the USA as a force that can actually enforce out-of-jurisdiction law against the other
In this regard, yes it is; the biggest reasons they keep it around are the jobs it provides and the money the state makes off of it. In return, residents get low prices but less choice, and in some areas, poor access. Most people hate it.
Only in the last decade or so has some competition been allowed.
That's because liquor stores originated from an earlier incarnation of the culture wars. That was a long time ago, and I don't think anyone seriously believes in that justification now, but the inertia remains.
> I think that's a pretty good reason for them to exist even today.
Only if you think the government should be telling people what to buy and what not to buy. I personally find that highly objectionable, particularly given the outsized power of primary voters in most places.
If you're genuinely open to this conversation - the Soviet Union funded many of the world's labor movements, giving it varying amounts of influence on them. Influence which it sometimes used to spread talking points of its own choice and to its benefit. Democratic Socialists of America was born from a branch of one of these movements. This is more visible looking at DSA's foreign policy platform, where today they use virtually identical talking points to those the Soviet Union distributed to their partners back in the 60s and 70s.
I don't know if a purely organic and independent socialist movement could have existed, but in this world, the movements with the means and resources to get their voices heard are going to be the ones who inherited resources and networks from their predecessors.
Making it about "sides" is exactly why politics is as toxic as it is today.
Is it inconceivable that one could look at the candidates and, without being a billionaire, decide that Mamdani is not a candidate they want to bet their chips on?
Politics is all about sides. To think it isn't is delusional.
It's uncomfortable to take sides, but that's what politics is. It's finding out what you believe is important (e.g. helping average people make ends meet, even if it require regulation, or eliminating regulation), you will end up taking sides whether you like it or not.
I think it's incredibly naive not to consider who our choices benefit. If your choices benefit people who already have massive amounts of wealth, you should acknowledge that and be aware of that and accept the consequences of that, and vice versa. Obviously in many cases it is complicated--your choices may benefit several different classes of people and undermine others. If anything the problem with politics is that many people make choices without considering what "sides" will benefit, letting ads, propaganda, and persuasion convince them instead. This leads people to actively vote against their own interests without even realizing it.
Doesn't this also apply in reverse? How many supporters of Mamdani acknowledge the groups that this choice will potentially harm? I am instead seeing people usually get defensive and downplay the potential harm on the more controversial issues. I also haven't seen anyone acknowledge that if the risk goes awry, it could end up causing even more harm to exactly those the policies were supposed to help.
If the goal is to vote for one's self interest, isn't it assuming a lot that this will always be aligned with one side? Sometimes self-interest means supporting one side on one issue, and a different side on a different issue. The act of taking a side is in of itself a form of compromise. I see nothing wrong with that, but that's not what people usually mean when they talk of sides.
That conflation was made by antisemites first, many decades ago. That is simply historical fact, whether people know it or not. In that time and place antizionism was a barely concealed excuse for straight antisemitism; it didn't actually matter what their targets believed.
And yet, you are the one making the antisemitic conflation here and now. The fact that you're repeating the words of people you believe to be antisemetic should be a clue that the words you're repeating are antisemetic. Just because an antisemite says something doesn't mean you should agree and reshare their post.
So maybe don't? Next time you see an antisemite saying that, rather than parroting their talking points to others, you can tell them the same thing: zionists and jews aren't the same thing, and many jews are members of the global consensus in opposing the ongoing israeli genocide of Palestinians. Or don't, maybe it won't make a difference, and it's your choice.
In the meantime, please stop repeating hurtful antisemetic tropes by conflating us jews with zionists. We are not the same. Criticism of zionism and the israeli genocide of Palestinians is totally legitimate. Propagating antisemetic language is antisemetic. That means smarmy posts I've seen around saying things to the effect of, 'zionists... you mean jews??? [*wink wink*]'
Then why is it that self-proclaimed "anti-zionists" use the exact same talking point as those antisemites back then? It is difficult to ever unsee that what you call "the global consensus" was invented decades ago in the halls of the Kremlin.
I simply informed you of the historical precedent; why do you immediately include me in those you say are conflating the two?
If criticism of Israel sounded more like the criticism of America's War on Terror instead of a Kremlin anti-West propaganda manual, then maybe it would be worth thinking about.
Why are you still defending your antisemetic language? Repeating that you think your antisemetic language is ok if other antisemites said it first?
Just don't say it. I'm not even asking you for an apology for your hurtful, antisemetic words. Just recognize that your spreading of antisemitic tropes is bad, and please stop. Are you seriously so dead-set on repeating antisemetic tropes that you refuse to do even that?
I start talking about historical Kremlin propaganda campaigns, and you accuse me of antisemitic language. Interesting. Did you have anything to say on the actual points I raised?
I explicitly ignored the weird distraction about the kremlin or whatever, because the kremlin didn't force you to repeat antisemitic tropes. You chose to repeat antisemitic tropes, and still haven't even been able to acknowledge that your repetition of antisemitic tropes was bad.
Remember, the topic isn't bibi's fellow war criminals, it is antisemitism, with you, yes YOU, contributing to it. This is what I meant when I said that most antisemitism I've seen and felt as a jew lately, is coming from zionists.
So, back on topic: Do you have anything to say on the actual points I raised even earlier?:
Not every antisemitic comment is going to contain the word 'Jews'; the art of being antisemitic without such overt references is a long-honed one that few are aware the totality of. Unfortunately, today is also the one day of the year that the already relatively few people best equipped to identify and flag antisemitism are mostly offline.
reply