this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
51 points (90.5% liked)

politics

18651 readers
3589 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The US and the UK will reject the international court of justice order directing Israel to end its offensive on Rafah after slowly blurring their red lines that once stated that they could not support a military offensive in Rafah.

The line was first adapted by saying they could not support a major ground offensive without a credible plan to protect civilians, but since then the definition of what constitutes a major offensive has become more flexible.

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Is the USA not a member of the icc anyway?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Do you mean the ICC or the ICJ? The ICJ is a part of the UN, so yes, the US is connected to that decision.

But the ICC is an independent organization connected to a separate treaty called the Rome Statute. The US is one of a small number of (usually terrible) countries that haven't signed it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

Yes, I meant icc, but I see now that it's the icj.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The deputy foreign secretary, Andrew Mitchell, told MPs on Monday “the UK could only support a constructive plan for Rafah that complies with international humanitarian law on all counts”.

On Tuesday he told the UK business select committee that “the significant operation in Rafah, it appears, has not yet started”, even though 800,000 people had fled the area, including 400,000 who had been warned to do so by the Israel Defense Forces.

Mitchell replied that the UK was doing what it could do to help with aid, adding the fact “800,000 had chosen to go of itself would not lead us to make a change in the assessment” of whether a serious breach of IHL had occurred.

It seems, according to interpretation, that the US either feels it has persuaded Israel to adjust its plans to make them acceptable or, faced with an Israeli fait accompli that the invasion would proceed regardless of Washington’s objections, the US has effectively backed down.

The calculation may have been that the threat to oppose a Rafah invasion was useful in trying to get both sides to agree to a ceasefire, but when those talks collapsed, the US administration saw no alternative to the Israeli offensive that removes what Israel regards as the last four Hamas battalions.

The foreign secretary, David Cameron, said: “While there has been some progress in some areas of humanitarian relief, Israel must do more to make good its promises, and I am pressing them on this directly.”


The original article contains 814 words, the summary contains 248 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!