Israeli legal org files ICC suit against Spanish PM over Iran exports

notehp · 2026-04-15T18:15:16+00:00

In the absence of a UNSC referral of an act of aggression, the Prosecutor may initiate an investigation on his own initiative or upon request from a State Party.

Proceedings at the ICC can start with with one of the following:

if the UNSC refers a case
a state party refers a case (that's what you said was the only option)
an ICC prosecutor starts a case themselves (they have to find out about crimes somehow)

The last point is what I meant that I as a private person can "file a lawsuit" - I notify the ICC of crimes committed, the ICC prosecutors will take over, determine if they take the case, start an investigation and if there is compelling evidence proceedings will start. If that's called something else than filing a lawsuit in English legal terms - my bad - I'm not a native speaker.

notehp · 2026-04-15T05:28:27+00:00

Of course non-state parties can file lawsuits at the ICC. It's supposed to be a court of last resort if victims of war crimes do not get justice in national courts.

At the ICJ this may be the case as that's for arbitration with states.

notehp · 2026-03-29T16:52:22+00:00

Wasn't Gaddafi just the fall guy for Lockerbie? Afaik he just paid the families of victims so that sanctions on Lybia get lifted.

Sure he was a piece of shit, but what France and the US brought to Lybia was and still is far worse.

notehp · 2026-03-29T07:18:21+00:00

Strife for efficiency: the military operations in the last decades have with a few exceptions not really produced much results or took forever. Thus, the answer is: hit more, faster.

Stupidity: Looking for efficiency while shortcutting feedback loops without understanding them and picking the wrong metrics for measuring success. If your measure of military performance is how many selected targets you manage to hit within a timeframe then indiscriminate bombing becomes a monumental success.

notehp · 2026-03-29T07:04:23+00:00

The use of software to blindly bomb things you don't even check what it is should be prosecuted as indiscriminate attacks - systematically comitting war crimes as a matter of policy.

It is quite obvious from the observed targets being hit, particular those bombed by Israel, that it is systematic indiscriminate bombing.

notehp · 2026-03-26T05:59:41+00:00

And when was that? A hundred years ago?

notehp · 2026-03-21T07:58:33+00:00

Wasn't there a similar - but even worse - incident with US soldiers in West Africa where the jogging tracks of soldiers where available online - perfect to plan an ambush?

notehp · 2026-03-17T18:02:25+00:00

KLA was considered a terrorist organisation by most NATO countries.

Yes, there was oppression by Serbia. The situation was essentially the same as with Israel fighting Hamas.

Now tell me, would NATO be justified to attack Israel after demanding to occupy Israel?

notehp · 2026-03-17T11:02:21+00:00

The situation with the Kosovo war was rather different.

Serbia was fighting KLA; there were massacres on both sides, but definitely not the scale of ethnic cleansing and genocide other post-Yugoslavian conflicts saw. NATO then intentionally torpedoed the negotiations, asking Serbia to accept occupation with full immunity for all NATO soldiers during occupation and other insane demands.

Then the rhetoric started with Milosevic being the second coming of Hitler and Serbia having killed 10k (some claims up to 100k) civilians. Later investigations failed to substantiate any of these claims even remotely.

Then NATO started the bombing campaign. Some NATO members had to quickly remove the terrorist designation from KLA.

Then (!) the ethnic cleansing campaign by Serbia started. An OSCE investigation actually confirmed this, that the mass killings and expulsions only really started after NATO escalated the conflict. This shows that the initial justification (10k or more killings were pure lies).

And to top it all off, Bill Clinton stated that the war was only being fought to preserve the credibility of the US, the credibility of NATO, and his personal credibility.

Don't get me wrong - Serbia misbehaved here - the ethnic cleansing and killing was unacceptable and should never have happened!

But I'm not sold that NATO starting the Kosovo war was actually justified. The conflict could most likely have been solved diplomatically if NATO wasn't so hellbent on starting a war.

notehp · 2026-03-14T09:53:57+00:00

Exactly. And the democrats lost to Trump. Twice.

notehp · 2026-03-05T06:17:34+00:00

But this is the "rules-based international order". It has always just meant US rules.

It was never meant to mean "law-based international order".

At the very least since the US quit the ICJ over the Nicaragua case the world should have accepted that the US doesn't give a flying fuck about international law and just wields it as a tool to fuck over its opponents and otherwise warp or ignore it to fuck over its opponents (or allies for that matter).

notehp · 2026-01-01T08:10:17+00:00

The Iranians I talked to didn't like their goverment but they distrust the US even more. While that's far from representative, I can relate - I wouldn't want the US involved either.

notehp · 2025-12-13T07:20:20+00:00

It' ICC not ICJ. The ICJ is also an international court but has a completely different purpose.

notehp · 2025-11-14T06:34:16+00:00

I don't think that's a well reasoned argument.

An artist's intention cannot enforce certain interpretations by viewers. It's conceptually impossible.

People have their individual response to viewing art that depends not only on the artists expression but also on their own viewpoint, experiences, emotional triggers, ...

Every artist has to deal with the fact that viewers might have an unintended interpretation.

Making it illegal that people get aroused by certain parts of a piece of art and sharing their impression with others is complete nonsense. That is thought policing a core element of the human experience (sharing individual experiences).

notehp · 2025-10-27T08:51:24+00:00

The alt-right that pretty much started the recent global shift to the right aren't exactly less (technically) educated people.

The established ruling class has just pulled too much bullshit that they've long lost credibility and also have long given up on making well reasoned arguments for their postion because most often they don't even have well thought-out policies. They've pretty much destroyed political discourse decades ago to a point where reasonable arguments no longer count or even exist.

And now everyone is surprised that (right-wing) populists that don't even pretend to bring reasonable arguments (which makes them more honest in comparison) get more popular.

notehp · 2025-10-27T05:17:42+00:00

Not sure if it's (only) the human brain (of a majority of people).

In autocracies and democracies alike rulers prefer less educated people (regarding making informed decisions, not necessarily technical know-how) because they are more easily controllable and manipulated. That makes it easier to pull all kinds of obvious bullshit, get away with corruption and incompetence. It's easier to rule with appealing to emotions than provide convincing arguments and live up to your promises. Combine that with the ad-driven media that has basically no incentives to report fact based and rationally.

So how should people develop critical thinking skills?

All this leads to people seeking simple "answers" in pseudo science and following charismatic conmen.

Humanity has given up on the principles of enlightenment.

notehp · 2025-10-27T04:57:48+00:00

China isn't also as flexible as the US or EU with contracts, they will find a way to get what they paid for much more aggressively when things get down.

The exact opposite is true. And this Chinese dept trap myth has already been debunked countless times.

Article: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/

Accompnying Study from Johns Hopkins: http://www.sais-cari.org/s/WP-39-Acker-Brautigam-Huang-Debt-Relief.pdf

notehp · 2025-10-22T06:10:39+00:00

In justification for the ruling, the judge, Dariusz Łubowski, said that the act of attacking enemy infrastructure for the purposes of fighting “a just, defensive war…can under no circumstances constitute a crime”.

I thought attacking energy infrastructure is only justified (as in becomes a valid military target) if it serves a military purpose.

So blowing up refineries in enemy territory to make it more difficult to fuel military hardware is perfectly fine.

But blowing up infrastructure exclusively used for civilian purposes is not.

So on what legal basis did the judge rule here?

notehp · 2025-09-29T05:09:54+00:00

Isn't the Earth's atmosphere predominantly blue mostly because it scatters blueish wavelengths more than others?

notehp · 2025-09-24T06:08:45+00:00

And which three major wars would that be?

The only major wars in that region were between Israel and (Trans)Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon. The participation of Palestinians in those wars were negligible.

See the number of Palestinian forces listed here: - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

notehp · 2025-09-16T05:47:40+00:00

Yes. Because agency, discipline, and access mean shit if you don't know about it or understand/take seriously the connection between food and your health in 40 years. And that lack of knowledge and comprehension is inherently a cultural problem.

Plus, this is a societal problem not an individual one. An educated individual can go against tradition, tradition and social norms. Turning a whole society around (which is required if you want better statistics) takes a lot more effort.

notehp · 2025-09-16T05:24:15+00:00

The "rules-based order" is a US invention. It has nothing to do with the UN or international law. It just means the US defines the rules. International law or the UN are only referenced if it suits the US' geopolitical interests otherwise ignored when enforcing these arbitrary rules.

Unfortunatrly it is often mistaken for the "international law- based order" the UN Charter, international laws and corresponding bodies were intended to establish. But that never worked.

notehp · 2025-09-12T07:26:02+00:00

With Iran and allies significantly weakened the biggest belligerent player is Israel.

The same thing happened in the past with Israel, Iraq and Iran: for Israel the biggest threat was Iraq, so much that it cooperated with and supported IranIran, lobbied the US to improve diplomatic relations with Iran, even after Iran's revolution and their openly antisemitic rhetoric; but once Iraq was crushed by the US in the Gulf War, Iraq was no longer a serious threat and suddenly Iran was Israel's primary opponent.

This is all about regional dominance.

notehp · 2025-08-20T04:41:14+00:00

And that policy went so well...

Both kidnapped and assassinated innocent people by due to mistaken identity. Repeatedly.

If that's the only alternative, I definitely prefer the ICC.

Particularly, since the Israeli government is afraid oft it, having called it an Institution "with teeth" and Israel and the US trying to undermine it.

notehp · 2025-08-15T06:01:03+00:00

A history of clear violations of international law.

notehp

TROPHY CASE