The Israeli Goverment Has Become The Monster

[Cristiano]

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Yeah... I think the best quick argument that this IS a genocide is just the simple fact that they say in their own words that they want to commit genocide without actually using the word "genocide."

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Sam Rosenholtz on Instagram: "@thatopinionatedgirl this was a lot, even for you."

55K likes, 2,685 comments - goodtrouble.tt on July 12, 2026: "@thatopinionatedgirl this was a lot, even for you.".

www.instagram.com

 

[Cristiano]

Yeah... I think the best quick argument that this IS a genocide is just the simple fact that they say in their own words that they want to commit genocide without actually using the word "genocide."

Yeah the people who play semantic games while killing people daily are such fucking garbage.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Speaking of the only body that can hold anyone responsible for genocide

Trump administration vows to ‘disable’ International Criminal Court

US State Department ups pressure campaign on international tribunal, threatening allies who support investigations.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Mona Eberhardt]

As has been said elsewhere: if International Law "threatens" your state's sovereignty, then your state shouldn't exist.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Trump’s Board of Peace drops full Gaza recovery plan in favour of tiny pilot scheme

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Speaking of the only body that can hold anyone responsible for genocide

Trump administration vows to ‘disable’ International Criminal Court

US State Department ups pressure campaign on international tribunal, threatening allies who support investigations.

www.aljazeera.com

The thing is: 2002 already America pulled out of the ICC. Then came the Den Hague Invasion act. Few years later Russia pulled out as well.

Americans like to do atrocities they do condemn at others. And they do know that they are doing them. Which is why America pulled out of the ICC, so that they are able to do it without prosecution.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

The thing is: 2002 already America pulled out of the ICC. Then came the Den Hague Invasion act. Few years later Russia pulled out as well.

Americans like to do atrocities they do condemn at others. And they do know that they are doing them. Which is why America pulled out of the ICC, so that they are able to do it without prosecution.

Yes. to build on this, a lot of International laws specifically say that the USA and UK and some related allies are exempt. EDIT: this is wrong... but the US has always made it clear WE see ourselves as above this law. Smaller and developing countries aren't dumb enough to miss the hypocrisy and never were. I think a lot of countries only pretended to respect the way things were because the trade deals with the USA and Europe were very lucrative. Since Trump blew all that up with the trade war, nobody has any reason to respect, trust or want to deal with us or these institutions. The trade relationships Trump decided to blow up were pivotal to all the international influence Trump is trying to leverage now with stuff like the war in Iran.

In other words, International Law was kind of always a big farce but it paid well to play ball, so people went along with it. ...it paid well until it didn't.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

a lot of International laws specifically say that the USA and UK and some related allies are exempt

I can't think of any offhand. Which ones do you have in mind?

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998 certainly doesn't exempt states that are party to the agreement.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

I can't think of any offhand. Which ones do you have in mind?

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998 certainly doesn't exempt states that are party to the agreement.

Excuse my use of a big dump from google AI but here is a summary. In particular, I think number 3 below is a lot of what I was thinking of.

I think the very short answer is that the USA has never REALLY acknowledged any international law that didn't carve out special status for us SOMEHOW. Some of what i read was maybe a bit over simplified though.

1. The American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA)
Passed in 2002, this law effectively shields U.S. military members and officials from the jurisdiction of the ICC. [1, 2]

• • Military Action: It authorizes the President to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release" of any U.S. or allied personnel held by the ICC. [1, 2]
  • Restrictions on Cooperation: It forbids U.S. agencies from sharing intelligence with the ICC and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping missions unless Americans are granted immunity. [1, 2]
  • Foreign Aid Penalties: It prohibits U.S. military assistance to countries that ratify the ICC treaty, though NATO members, major non-NATO allies, and countries that sign bilateral immunity agreements are exempt. [1, 2]

2. Lack of ICC Treaty Ratification
The ICC is governed by the Rome Statute, which allows the court to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. [1, 2, 3]

• • The U.S. signed the treaty in 2000 but the Senate never ratified it.
  • In 2002, the U.S. formally "unsigned" the treaty, stating it would not be bound by its obligations. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

3. Bilateral Immunity Agreements ("Article 98" Agreements)
The U.S. has negotiated numerous bilateral agreements with other countries under Article 98 of the Rome Statute. These agreements state that the partner country will not surrender or transfer U.S. citizens (including military personnel) to the ICC without explicit U.S. consent. [1, 2]

4. Domestic Prosecution
While the U.S. rejects the jurisdiction of international courts, it enforces its own domestic laws against war crimes. [1]

• • The War Crimes Act of 1996: This federal law allows the U.S. to prosecute American citizens or military personnel for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of the laws of war. [1, 2]
  • Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Members of the U.S. armed forces remain subject to military law for actions committed anywhere in the world, and they can be court-martialed for committing war crimes. [1, 2]

I can help you explore this topic further if you tell me:

• Are you interested in specific historical cases?
• Would you like to know more about the ICC's jurisdiction over non-member states?
• Are you looking for information on how U.S. domestic courts handle these cases?

Let me know how you'd like to proceed.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Excuse my use of a big dump from google AI but here is a summary. In particular, I think number 3 below is a lot of what I was thinking of.

I think the very short answer is that the USA has never REALLY acknowledged any international law that didn't carve out special status for us SOMEHOW. Some of what i read was maybe a bit over simplified though.

Yes, but that's the US saying it won't implement particular international public law treaties.

You wrote "a lot of International laws specifically say that the USA and UK and some related allies are exempt ," which isn't the same thing at all.

I can think of plenty of international agreements the US doesn't recognise -- which is its right, of course -- but I can't offhand think of any the US does recognise that specifically say "this agreement doesn't apply to the US."

In theory, of course, the ICC could issue international arrest warrants against Trump, Hegseth, JD Vance and members of the US administration for war crimes committed in Iran and elsewhere, just as they've issued warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu and Putin, though I doubt many countries would be anxious to enforce them.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Yes, but that's the US saying it won't implement particular international public law treaties.

You wrote "a lot of International laws specifically say that the USA and UK and some related allies are exempt ," which isn't the same thing at all.

I can think of plenty of international agreements the US doesn't recognise -- which is its right, of course -- but I can't offhand think of any the US does recognise that specifically say "this agreement doesn't apply to the US."

In theory, of course, the ICC could issue international arrest warrants against Trump, Hegseth, JD Vance and members of the US administration for war crimes committed in Iran and elsewhere, just as they've issued warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu and Putin, though I doubt many countries would be anxious to enforce them.

Agreed, what I typed initially was exaggerated to the point of being wrong. After further research it seems like the International law is often written broadly but then it's US law that says oh btw, we are immune because we say we are.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Agreed, what I typed initially was exaggerated to the point of being wrong. After further research it seems like the International law is often written broadly but then it's US law that says oh btw, we are immune because we say we are.

Does international law really exist?

When it is asserted that Israel and Russia are in breach of international law, it means—or should mean—something

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk

But what about international law?

What happens to an international legal order when a superpower goes rogue?

emptycity.substack.com

 

[Cristiano]

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Good news from Gaza strip for a change (yes, for real!): Hamas reached a disarmament agreement with Trump's peace board. This is huge, however Israel will have to pull out as well, which is unsure if it will happen or not.

Hamas and other Palestinian factions have agreed to a document setting out a plan for their disarmament in Gaza, in what United States President Donald Trump has called “a monumental step” towards peace and security.

Al Jazeera has received a copy of Thursday’s agreement, which stipulates that the precise disarmament roadmap must be prepared within 14 days, with possible extensions subject to the approval of an international verification body, and the agreement of all parties.
end of list

“These negotiations were difficult and hard, and we tried to reach the best possible formula that was achievable,” Ghazi Hamad, a member of Hamas’s negotiating delegation, told Al Jazeera.

However, Hamad said that Hamas would not implement any part of the agreement if Israeli forces failed to fulfil their obligations. The official said disarmament depended on Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and progress on reconstruction in the Palestinian territory.
There has been no comment yet from Israel.

Trump framed the agreement as a success for the Board of Peace, the body established to oversee Gaza’s governance.

“This agreement is a critical step towards Gaza finally being governed by a new Palestinian government that will work closely with the Board of Peace to help the Palestinian people,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Thursday. “At the same time, Israel will have the security it deserves, with Gaza no longer used as a base for terror attacks.”

The copy of the agreement obtained by Al Jazeera says that the disarmament process will begin with the entry of a National Committee and the International Stabilisation Force to Gaza. The National Committee will then oversee the “inventory and storage” process, with the international verification committee observing, and the Palestinian factions participating.

The disarmament process is also tied to the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. It also adds that no weapons should be handed over to Israel or any non-Palestinian body, and that the National Committee be the sole force holding on to the weapons in Gaza.

Hamas reaches Gaza disarmament agreement with Trump’s Board of Peace

US president says Israel will withdraw from Gaza once the Palestinian group disarms.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[detrius]

Aww, they replaced the Hobbit with the riding dogs?

 

[Free]

She won back in October. Not exactly new news. Also, what's with the 27 second video of a photograph?

 

[Cristiano]

This fucking ghoul literally refuses to answer the question “ is a Jewish life worth the same as a Palestinian life”. She dodges it multiple times and plays dumb as to why she’s even being asked it.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

This fucking ghoul literally refuses to answer the question “ is a Jewish life worth the same as a Palestinian life”. She dodges it multiple times and plays dumb as to why she’s even being asked it.

It's painful listening to Piers Morgan talk, but he's certainly right on this. One part of her non answers that jumped out at me was her pointing out how he likes asking yes or no questions. ...this seemed to imply she wanted to say something about how this was more complicated than just that. ...which of course is a very weasel answer. Most bigots know on some level they can't just come out and say it, so they hide the quiet part in very verbose drivel and big words to try to make their evil sound more "intellectual." She's obviously trying to sound like she's too deep to just make this a yes or no question, but that's really just because she wants to say "no."