politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Amnesty International is not the determination of genocide, the ICC is. Though the court has expressed that conditions point to genocide, they haven't said that it has definitely happened. Not trying to be contray here, just trying to explain as I understand it
No, the ICC does not dictate if the United States formally recognizes a genocide. In fact, there is no singular domestic source for recognition of a genocide. See the Armenian Genocide for an example. US recognition of the Armenian Genocide was codified by US House and Senate resolutions in 2019, but even then the White House under the first Trump administration rejected the resolutions and declined to recognize it as a genocide.
This article in particular relates to Rep Tlaib hoping that the Amnesty International report will lead to her colleagues accepting this as a genocide, resulting in a change of policy and an arms embargo. I'm sure she would also like for there to be a formal recognition through a House resolution, but that is not necessary for arms supply policy to change.
ETA: The ICC was established to prosecute war crimes, including genocide, but is not the arbiter of whether the United States and its Congressional representatives recognize actions as genocide or not, which is the subject of this article.
The US can recognize an event on its own terms, there is no question, and that is what Talib is trying to force. But, the opinion of Amnesty International means as much as yours or mine on this subject, which is not much. The only valid opinion comes from the ICC.
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that the ICC is the sole arbiter of whether something is genocide or not. Can you cite a source or precedent?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/genocide#:~:text=Under%20Article%2025(3)(,a%20crime%20against%20international%20law.
Since you duplicated your link I'll duplicate my response.
You're linking to a statute of the ICC, The Rome Statute, which provides that inciting or committing genocide is against the ICC's definition of International Law and the ICC will attempt to prosecute accordingly. That statute was not ratified by the United States, so the United States is not bound to uphold that statute. Israel also did not ratify, so is also not bound. That doesn't mean that the ICC can't prosecute Israel or the US under the statute, but it does mean that they are explicitly not responsible for upholding it. Your argument is that the United States is bound by whether the ICC determines genocide has occurred, and that is explicitly not the case according to the statute you linked.
Edit to add: The Rome Statute is the document which established the ICC. As a nation that did not ratify the document, not only is the United States not limited by the ICC determining if genocide occurred or not, the US explicitly rejects the ICC's authority to do so. It means the exact opposite of what you're saying.
Of course I made no such argument. I said that that the ICC is the only entity that can declare an act genocide and it is.
Alright, you've convinced me that you're either a disingenuous troll or a genuine fool. Either way, I think this conversation isn't going to be productive. Have a good one.
Reading is what matters
Spoken like someone who hasn't seen a single piece of footage of what the situation in Gaza look like, nor have read any of the detailed reports on exactly how it is a genocide.
I don't think you understand. It's not up to me or you if the law of genocide has been broken. It's up to the ICC.
There is no official body to decide which official body gets to be the official body that decides if a genocide is going on.
Maybe we should focus less on whether it's "official" and more on stopping it, regardless of how it's labeled.
Yes, the International Criiminal Court is the only entity that can declare that the International law of genocide has been broken
Why do you restrict the determination in America's politics body to whether something is a genocide to the ICC? The ICC has laws and a court system to declare something a genocide within their framework (albeit with limited actual power to enforce anything), but the concept of genocide exists outside of international law and political entities can and should react to such without simply waiting for a years long ICC process. Genocide is not simply when the "International Law of Genocide" has been decided.
As I said elsewhere, the US can recognize an event as it pleases. But, the Amnesty International determination is meaningless.
Amnesty International is a well-respected human rights organization, this belief that you need a rule or certificate of authority to say your judgement is meaningful is silly legalism. All declarations of human rights abuses are meaningful in political realms simply based on the stature and respect of the organization making them.
When talking about the law of genocide that's funny
You decided.
No sir. It's a law, I'm not an ICC judge. I don't get to decide.
Whereas I decide for myself what I think is genocide based on whether I've seen convincing evidence of it being genocide. Like, for example, this Amnesty International report. I don't outsource my sense of morality to judges and let them overrule my own sense of justice.
If an ICC judge one day decided "no, it's okay for Russia to deport the population of Ukraine, the country was always theirs to begin with" would that make it okay somehow? Or would that simply be the time you decided to withdraw your grant of "officialness" to the ICC?
Which law? Laws have names and titles. They are published publicly and they can be linked to. Please provide a link to the law you are referring to.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/genocide#:~:text=Under%20Article%2025(3)(,a%20crime%20against%20international%20law.
You're linking to a statute of the ICC, The Rome Statute, which provides that inciting or committing genocide is against the ICC's definition of International Law and the ICC will attempt to prosecute accordingly. That statute was not ratified by the United States, so the United States is not bound to uphold that statute. Israel also did not ratify, so is also not bound. That doesn't mean that the ICC can't prosecute Israel or the US under the statute, but it does mean that they are explicitly not responsible for upholding it. Your argument is that the United States is bound by whether the ICC determines genocide has occurred, and that is explicitly not the case according to the statute you linked.
Edit to add: The Rome Statute is the document which established the ICC. As a nation that did not ratify the document, not only is the United States not limited by the ICC determining if genocide occurred or not, the US explicitly rejects the ICC's authority to do so. It means the exact opposite of what you're saying.
You're in denial. Here's a list of resources to understand how it's a genocide. You're also mistaking the ICC, which prosecutes people, with the ICJ, which prosecutes Countries.
Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territory: ‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza
Israel's Genocide on Occupied Palestine
Others: AP News, Time, Reuters, Vox, CBC
Deliberate Attacks on Civilians
Israel deliberately targets civilian areas. From in general with the Dahiya Doctrine to multiple systems deployed in Gaza to do so:
The Dahiya Doctrine & Israel’s Use of Disproportionate Force
‘A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza
Lavender
Where's Daddy
Israel also targets Israeli Soldiers and Civilians to prevent them being leveraged as hostages, known as the Hannibal Directive. Which was also used on Oct 7th.
You can take this data to the ICC. Other lawyers have, but they did determine genocide as far as I am aware. Maybe you know better.
You can actually look at the evidence for once. Read the executive summary or skip to chapter 5, but read something. If you got a problem with the report, quote it and explain why instead of dismissing it for no reason other than you don't want to believe it.
I am not a judge.
You are not, nor are you an expert, nor have you done your own investigation. If you genuinely cared about the humanity and well-being of the Palestinian people, you would take these reports seriously and read them to find out exactly what is happening. It's not normal to dehumanize a people to the point of denying a genocide, hope you get well soon. Empathy is the most important aspect of understanding intersectionality, to recognize and take the perspective of other people facing forms of oppression. There have been plenty of genocides that the ICJ and ICC have not recognized, for one reason or another. That does not make them any less of a genocide. It's the facts on the ground that matter. And that's exactly the point of these reports from Amnesty and Euro-Med Monitor.
My message has always been to you that breaking the law of genocide is up to the ICC to decide. That won't change. You want to take another run at it, it's up to you.
I mean that's true, and also not relevant.
The first comment that agreed that it's true!
It's relevant because...
1 if Talib uses Amnesty to prove her case, she should know it doesn't
2 this is exactly the reason her opponents will use
It does as much as Amnesty International is reputable, which is very. Just because the ICJ (not the ICC, those aren't relevant unless you're talking about Netanyahu specifically) hasn't called it a genocide (optional yet) doesn't mean it's not in the same way you don't need a court verdict to call a murder a murder. Amnesty did an independent investigation and published their conclusion according to the definition used in international law, which is not "when we call it a genocide". By your logic all corrupt politicians and CEOs (including Trump before 2020) would be innocent simply because they haven't been found guilty by a court of law. She's appealing to logic, not to any particular enforcement mechanism of international law.
As far as you're concerned, Netanyahu is the only person who can determine if it's a genocide.
Did you read what I wrote? The ICC even produced a warrant for Bebe that said said he produced conditions that could lead to genocide, not that genocide existed.
What you wrote made it evident that you are a genocide denier.
No it doesn't
If you say so. Tell us again how nothing is genocide.
I haven't and I didn't. Why don't you imagine what someone else might say.
You have spent the past year and change defending it.
Don't act like your genocide denialism isn't a pattern of behavior.
Man now you're going make up shit for the last year! Brilliant!
If you want to pretend that you haven't been shoveling genocide apologia all this time, that's your lie to tell, I guess.
I'm leaving this conversation before it gets declared a slapfight.
Good.
There are many. The court currently investigating crimes of genocide is the ICJ, not the ICC.
And the judges at the ICJ do look at the reports of orgs like Amnisty in their consideration.