The Israel-Iran War ?

[Admiral Yi]

Same time.  The accusations don't have much to do with what is going on.  People are fine with people of other ethnicities  engaging in similar behavior.  It is just leveraging international law in the service of racial hatred.  The issue is not that Palestinian are getting killed, it is that the wrong type of people are killing them.

I can think of a few things that preceded the allegations: the strikes on ambulances and the interruption of humanitarian supplies.  If you ignore facts you're engaging in exactly the same type of myth building you're accusing your opponents of doing.

[Razgovory]

Raz, the UN does not have the power to "form criminal tribunals".  The UN Security Council could refer a matter to the ICC if there is a resolution passed - but now think about who has a power of veto in the UN Security Council. 

Yes, they do.  They have done so in the past.  I'm fairly certain that Saudi Arabia isn't on the UN security council and neither is Iran.  If you want to argue that there is double standard where the powerful can do what they want while the weak and vulnerable can be charged with crimes, then you might have a point.  But if that is the case, what kind of legitimacy does such a system have?

[Jacob]

Regime change would effect nothing positive aside from perhaps a long delay to the nuclear program.

Whatever government emerged would very likely be no better than the clerical regime, and could be worse.

If the current regime collapses (e.g. the Ayatollah dead and no clerical ruler emerges to replace him) my guess is the most likely sort of government is one where a general from the IRGC takes over and rules as a military junta

While this wouldn't be Iran's current theocracy, all of the IRGC generals hate the West with the intensity of the sun, are Islamists, extreme nationalists and by most reports more bellicose than the Ayatollah is.

Such a regime would likely endeavor to rush to a nuclear device of some sort.

Given Iran's ethnic divisions a Syria style civil war could also occur—and like the Iranian Revolution, whoever ends up winning that will probably be quite bad.

Yeah, that all makes sense to me. Doesn't seem overly compelling as a strategic choice if you ask me, but I suppose we'll see where it goes.

[Sheilbh]

Yes, they do.  They have done so in the past.  I'm fairly certain that Saudi Arabia isn't on the UN security council and neither is Iran.  If you want to argue that there is double standard where the powerful can do what they want while the weak and vulnerable can be charged with crimes, then you might have a point. But if that is the case, what kind of legitimacy does such a system have?

That is absolutely the double standard but it's the reality of international politics and there is no "legitimacy" to it in the way we'd mean about a domestic political order. The legitimacy of international law is broadly that states willingly bind themselves to it - the Geneva conventions are broadly a good example or the prohibitions on chemical weapons. Broadly speaking states could use that weapon and choose not to because they have bound themselves to that rule. That is not the way domestic law works which is about who has the power to bind others - and in a democracy it is our fellow citizens.

So I'm not sure the international order or law is meaningfully normative or subject to some external source of legitimacy - I think there's something slightly different going on with an organisation like the EU (but just about only the EU). This is the balance between the principles of international law which do emphasise self-determination and sovereignty v liberal values that may come at the cost of that (Blair's "international community" concept explaining Kosovo and also justifying Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq).

Although on Saudi, they're a US ally and Western countries have backed that conflict. I think Biden stopped formal assistance but the US (and UK among others) continued to provide arms to Saudi.

[Jacob]

Do we have any indication of the likely scope of US contribution, beyond Trumpian social media posts?

And do we have any indication of what the Israeli general plan is?

[Razgovory]

The UN has the power to form criminal tribunals in cases of genocide AND it has the ability to refer cases to the ICC even if the belligerents are not members of the ICC.  THe UN did establish Tribunals concerning war crimes and genocide in both Yugoslavia and Rwanda,  which of course were not a party the Rome treaty since it didn't exist yet.

The Court may exercise jurisdiction in a situation where genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes were committed on or after 1 July 2002 and:

the crimes were committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court; or

the crimes were referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) pursuant to a resolution adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works

Yes, that's the "very limited circumstances" I was referring to.  As far as I can tell, the genocide in Darfur is the only time the UNSC has exercised its referral power against a non-member-state of the ICC.  As I already noted, this is also the only time someone has actually been charged with genocide by the ICC.

The UN had nothing to do with the indictments of Netanyahu, Gallant, or Deif (Sinwar and Haniyeh were also going to be indicted, but Israel offed them before the ICC had a chance).  Those indictments were handed down by the ICC under its own authority because Palestine is a signatory.  The UN has not referred anything to the ICC with respect to Palestine, because it doesn't need to.  No one associated with the situation in Palestine has actually been charged with genocide.

This whole subthread started because you claimed the UN was prosecuting Israelis, and only Israelis, for genocide.  None of those three things is true.

It started by me noting that antizionists were quite happy that Iranian bombs were killing Israelis, undercutting the common claim that bombing civilians was bad.  Israeli bombing of civilians are bad.  Bombing of Israeli citizens is apparently praise worthy.  The ICC jurisdiction was always questionable of course, as Palestine is not a state, and the Palestinian authority has very little claim to territory they don't even control.  Presumably any group could get the ICC involved by signing the Rome protocols.  Imagine if the Uyghurs claimed statehood and backed it up by signing the treaty.  Or the Houthis.

The Truth is the UN can step in Yemen or Iran or other places, but chooses not to.  Because the UN has in the past equated Zionism is racism, then I think there is a reason for this.

[Razgovory]

Same time.  The accusations don't have much to do with what is going on.  People are fine with people of other ethnicities  engaging in similar behavior.  It is just leveraging international law in the service of racial hatred.  The issue is not that Palestinian are getting killed, it is that the wrong type of people are killing them.

I can think of a few things that preceded the allegations: the strikes on ambulances and the interruption of humanitarian supplies.  If you ignore facts you're engaging in exactly the same type of myth building you're accusing your opponents of doing.

But the accusations of war crimes came before that.  The UN was investigating accusations of war crimes in Israel before OCT 7th had even happened.

[Grey Fox]

War crimes don't matter. So much ink and digital ink spent talking about it on every corner of the internet and newspaper for absolutely nothing.

They. Don't. Matter. Never have.

[Valmy]

War crimes don't matter. So much ink and digital ink spent talking about it on every corner of the internet and newspaper for absolutely nothing.

They. Don't. Matter. Never have.

They are only war crimes if you lose...well ok only war crimes if you lose so big your country gets occupied by an enemy army who is pissed about your war crimes.

[Razgovory]

War crimes don't matter. So much ink and digital ink spent talking about it on every corner of the internet and newspaper for absolutely nothing.

They. Don't. Matter. Never have.

They are only war crimes if you lose...well ok only war crimes if you lose so big your country gets occupied by an enemy army who is pissed about your war crimes.

This is basically true, but there is a rather twisted addendum:  If you commit war crimes you are more likely to win, so actually committing war crimes reduces the chance you will be punished for war crimes.  If you don't commit war crimes, the winner can still convict you of them if they feel like it.

[Sheilbh]

By the by on this - I strongly recommend Gary Bass' Judgement at Tokyo.

[grumbler]

I do.  Genocide accusations were made before the bombing started in Gaza.  The Genocide is Israel existing.  That is the crime.  Genocide is now widely considered the worst crime possible, it is the ultimate evil.  Jews as Genocidal neatly replaces Jews as Satanic for a more secular age.  Israel is considered Hostis Humani generis, just like Jews were in the Middle Ages.

I am not sure whether you just cannot comprehend the difference between formal ICC charges (based on a thorough investigation) and vague "genocide accusations were made by somebody or other" or whether you are just not bothering to argue in good faith. Note that when you use passive voice ("accusations were made") that's pretty much a dead giveaway that you are pulling shit out of your ass.

Same for equating the specific policy goal as stated by a member of the Israeli government to some vague "Iranians frequently make statements about irradicating[sic] Israel."

[grumbler]

China could flood Iran with aid if only to test their equipment against Americas in a relatively risk free scenario. IIRC their equipment in Pakistan did well against the western weapons of India.

China might not find it easy to get any military equipment to Iran, let alone flooding the country with it.

[grumbler]

Yes, they do.  They have done so in the past.  I'm fairly certain that Saudi Arabia isn't on the UN security council and neither is Iran.  If you want to argue that there is double standard where the powerful can do what they want while the weak and vulnerable can be charged with crimes, then you might have a point.  But if that is the case, what kind of legitimacy does such a system have?

The ICC specifically replaced the ICT system.

[HVC]

China could flood Iran with aid if only to test their equipment against Americas in a relatively risk free scenario. IIRC their equipment in Pakistan did well against the western weapons of India.

China might not find it easy to get any military equipment to Iran, let alone flooding the country with it.

Would the Stans not allow shipments? I really don't know their relationships with either parties.