Hacker News Reader

Comment by im3w1l | Hacker News Reader

> What else can Biden say in this situation? He cannot both assent to the validity of the ICC charges and continue negotiating with Israel for things like US-built supply piers on Gaza's seafront. You can't really do diplomacy wth a world leader while at the same time saying (or implying) that they belong in the Hague.

He doesn't have to do diplomacy with them. He could call their bluff. He could unilaterally start delivering food and dare anyone to stop him. If Israel starts killing "3-5x as many civilians" he could declare war on Israel.

All of these are things he could do. Won't. But could.

View on HN

We cannot in fact unilaterally establish supply operations off the Gazan seafront over the objections of the Israeli leadership.

The US Navy can unilaterally establish supply operations by sea almost anywhere in the world. If a carrier group sailed in and started setting up a port in Gaza to deliver food, there's no chance Israel would be able to do anything about it.

They could definitely stop it, but things would get incredibly ugly from there.

Right, this is like an Orson Scott Card fantasy. Which, don't let me yuck your yums or anything, but no, this isn't really a possible scenario. Israel will be an Article 5 NATO member before it is a military adversary of the United States (neither thing will happen, but if we're betting on impossible scenarios.)

Is that what was wrong with his later books? They assumed a level of rationality and immoral clarity that doesn’t exist in real life?

I agree that the scenario is quite unlikely but I brought it up to dispute an argument you made: That, as the US has to negotiate with Israel, they have to go against the ICC.

My point is that the US could "assent to the validity of the ICC charges". The "fantasy" is several unlikely escalations away after that, and even that scenario is something that the US could deal with.

So ruling out that they go against the ICC because they have to, we can conclude that they go against the ICC because they want to.

The US doesn't even assent to the validity of the ICC itself, let alone the recent charges. If the whole argument is an attempt to dispose of the question of whether the US cooperates with, recognizes, or cares about the ICC, that question is disposed of: the US does not. I think the Hague Liberation bill is silly and performative, but let the record show that we have a statute obligating us to invade the Hague if the ICC breathes on us the wrong way.

Something like half the world's population doesn't acknowledge the ICC. And the ICC hasn't covered itself in glory over the last 20 years --- the Darfur fiasco being the most obvious example.

All this just brings me back to: the ICC charges are a political act (fair enough! politics matter!) and should be evaluated on their political effectiveness. The predictable result of the charges: the leader of the only political party in the US that even ostensibly cares about Palestine disavowed the charges. How'd that help?

I think that "an enforced naval military blockade of Gazan seafront since 2007" is a more accurate phrasing of that state of affairs than "Israel's leaders may object...".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com