World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Just a quick verdict. Usually most of the time of the prosecutor is spent building the case, but here the abundance of evidence means he won't have to.
The ICC (it's this one that does the prosecution) bases its rulings on the basis of the UDHR. Since no UN member ever made opposition to it, and practically all nations are UN members, it has worldwide jurisdiction to remind the UN members of their obligations.
Probably correct, but we never know. Nations that enforce international law, like Canada, could possibly make an arrest on behalf of the ICC. It may also just be the case the Israel itself may hand him over if he is ever impeached there.
That's an appeal to force type of argument. These orders should be issued based on whether they are legal or illegal, not whether they will be followed or enforced.
You're only looking at the evidence from a biased prosecutor, and saying it will be a quick verdict. Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining, you mean it will be a quick guilt verdict because you're assuming there will be nothing from the defense side.
You just got hoisted on your own petard and can't admit it. You assume that your allies are innocent and your enemies are guilty because you don't actually believe in an assumption of innocence.
Israel is not a part of the ICC. They have no jurisdiction. International law isn't a thing that's imposed onto countries by the UN, it's a collection of treaties that countries agree to. Israel didn't agree to the ICC, so the ICC does not have jurisdiction until Israel agrees to it. Nation states are sovereign, not the UN. If you know anything about international law it should be that.
Only if Netanyahu goes to a country that is a signatory to the ICC could he be arrested. But even that's not going to happen because any country Netahyahu visits would either guarantee diplomatic immunity or simply not invite him to come to their country.
Yeah, no shit. Let's not be naive and pretend we live in an ideal world. Far from it. For international law to have effect it has to be respected by nations. If you're constantly issuing arrest warrants that will never be enforced, everyone becomes accustomed to ignoring arrest warrants from the ICC. Then it becomes yet another organization in the UN that just issues strongly worded letters and nothing else.
Overall the UN really overreached. And it's problematic since it really would be nice to have the UN be part of a long term peace plan. But they've slammed that door shut, haven't they? Israel is not going to trust the UN to be a part of anything now, and that makes a working peace a little less likely. Promoting peace should be the UN's primary goal, taking sides in a conflict for the sake of scoring some political points in the short term should not be. What's more important, preventing the next Gaza war and preventing the deaths of tens of thousands, or issuing an arrest warrant that won't be enforced to appease the anti-Israel crowd?
The concept of having a court associated with the UN has turned out to be a bad idea. The UN is dominated by world politics (and is therefore a corrupt mess, since that's the reality of the world) and a legal system needs to be separated from politics to have legitimacy. The majority of the world's governments are corrupt messes so how do you have a legal system that's controlled by a consensus of those governments that's not going to be corrupt? How do you avoid any legal action by a UN court creating distrust of the UN? For a court to have any level of respect it can't have even a hint of corruption, and anything associated with UN will by extension be associated with corruption that dominates a majority of the governments of the world.