5 ms·

The 'political repercussions' case is pretty flimsy [0]. Bigger picture - this disagreement seems fundamentally rooted in conflicting political philosophies, a

The 'political repercussions' case is pretty flimsy [0]. Bigger picture - this disagreement seems fundamentally rooted in conflicting political philosophies, as alluded to above. More facts are not going to change that. An example... "'Realpolitik' is not a defense complicity in genocide." Says who? I mean I agree with you on the face of things, but who gets to decide what genocide means? And what does it mean for international law to be "binding on all signatory states"? Some view overconfidence in this notion as Wilson's great and lasting mistake. Unfortunately, there is no compiler that can adjudicate these types of questions for us. 0 - https://www.natesilver.net/p/your-friends-are-not-a-representative https://www.natesilver.net/p/your-friends-are-not-a-represen...

_3u10 2y ago
Realpolitik is a defense. The ICC issues a verdict that your committing war crimes, and are to be put to death. Your 10 carrier strike group, says you aren't, therefore you are not put to death. Proving that the court of the carrier strike group is superior to the court of the ICC. Maybe your court of carrier strike group says the ICC judges are committing war crimes, issues a warrant for their arrest, the SEAL team executes the warrant against the fugitives from justice, and tries, convicts and executes them. If you still think realpolitik isn't a defense, look at a practitioner of it like Kissinger, ask yourself why Pinochet, et al, were tried, but say Kissinger was not for Operation Condor.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  > Realpolitik is a defense. Outside of a courtroom, and ignoring all international law and externalities, sure. Within the Hague, or the parts of the world where international justice is respected, not so much. > the court of the carrier strike group is superior to the court of the ICC. Until your 10 carrier strike group gets fucked up by Yemeni drones, or Iranian swarms. Or no country wants to trade with you any more, because you can't be trusted and their citizens are furious. Or until China utterly dominates you economically and geopolitically, because they invested in growth instead of carrier groups. Or until you're stretched too thin on too many fronts and no one wants to help any more, or any of the other unintended (possibly world-ending) consequences of our wilful and belligerent disrespect of long established international law. ... But the claim that "Biden actually saved lots of Palestinians from dying" because of the "realpolitik" of the situation is silly. The claim that Kissinger actually saved lives by coordinating assassinations so that South America didn't need to be bombed into submission would be farcical, and so is this.
  - _3u10 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - runarberg 2y ago
      You are advocating for extrajudicial killing, which is a war crime, and you are advocating for targeting civilian groups based on the believes that they are destined to do crime in the future? This is an extremely racist opinion. And I would go so far as call it genocidal speech. This post needs to be removed from HN.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        The killing of combatants and combatant support personnel without judicial authorization is not in fact a war crime. The term you're looking for here is hors de combat, which was coined specifically to separate out the people who can't be extrajudicially killed during a war. I don't understand the preceding comment well enough to defend it or to see the racism in it; there is context I am probably missing.
        runarberg 2y ago
        > From the river to the sea what is the only flag you see? In it’s most favorable interpretation is a call to keep Palestinians subjugated and stripped of political and civil rights. This speech has been used to promote a Jewish ethnostate, which is in fact racist, and in the worst cases this speech is used to advocate for the expulsion of Palestinians from their land. At best this is an advocacy for a racist policy, at worst this is genocidal speech. > Well, the IDF is executing lots of war criminals, even future ones in Gaza ;) I can’t take this any other way then the author is stating that killing of innocent civilians in Gaza is justified because otherwise they were destined to become war criminals. This kind of speech was very common among people justifying police brutality and neighborhood crackdown against black people in the USA. It is extremely racist as it stipulates that Palestinians, by merit of being Palestinians, are inherently bad people and deserve to die.
- corimaith 2y ago
  You need to make a distinction between positive (what-is) claims and normative (what-ought) claims. When you say realpolitik is a "defence", whether or not it is actually used as a "defence" in reality is disconnected on the validity of that position as a moral fact.
  - _3u10 2y ago
    Look up judgement proof, or jury nullification, ever heard of the OJ Simpson trial? Realpolitik is why OJ wasn't convicted. Juries in and of themselves are realpolitik, it's why most countries don't use them, because they deliver verdicts the legal professions dislike.

_3u10 2y ago

Realpolitik is a defense. The ICC issues a verdict that your committing war crimes, and are to be put to death. Your 10 carrier strike group, says you aren't, therefore you are not put to death. Proving that the court of the carrier strike group is superior to the court of the ICC. Maybe your court of carrier strike group says the ICC judges are committing war crimes, issues a warrant for their arrest, the SEAL team executes the warrant against the fugitives from justice, and tries, convicts and executes them. If you still think realpolitik isn't a defense, look at a practitioner of it like Kissinger, ask yourself why Pinochet, et al, were tried, but say Kissinger was not for Operation Condor.

mandmandam 2y ago
> Realpolitik is a defense. Outside of a courtroom, and ignoring all international law and externalities, sure. Within the Hague, or the parts of the world where international justice is respected, not so much. > the court of the carrier strike group is superior to the court of the ICC. Until your 10 carrier strike group gets fucked up by Yemeni drones, or Iranian swarms. Or no country wants to trade with you any more, because you can't be trusted and their citizens are furious. Or until China utterly dominates you economically and geopolitically, because they invested in growth instead of carrier groups. Or until you're stretched too thin on too many fronts and no one wants to help any more, or any of the other unintended (possibly world-ending) consequences of our wilful and belligerent disrespect of long established international law. ... But the claim that "Biden actually saved lots of Palestinians from dying" because of the "realpolitik" of the situation is silly. The claim that Kissinger actually saved lives by coordinating assassinations so that South America didn't need to be bombed into submission would be farcical, and so is this.
- _3u10 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - runarberg 2y ago
    You are advocating for extrajudicial killing, which is a war crime, and you are advocating for targeting civilian groups based on the believes that they are destined to do crime in the future? This is an extremely racist opinion. And I would go so far as call it genocidal speech. This post needs to be removed from HN.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      The killing of combatants and combatant support personnel without judicial authorization is not in fact a war crime. The term you're looking for here is hors de combat, which was coined specifically to separate out the people who can't be extrajudicially killed during a war. I don't understand the preceding comment well enough to defend it or to see the racism in it; there is context I am probably missing.
      - runarberg 2y ago
        > From the river to the sea what is the only flag you see? In it’s most favorable interpretation is a call to keep Palestinians subjugated and stripped of political and civil rights. This speech has been used to promote a Jewish ethnostate, which is in fact racist, and in the worst cases this speech is used to advocate for the expulsion of Palestinians from their land. At best this is an advocacy for a racist policy, at worst this is genocidal speech. > Well, the IDF is executing lots of war criminals, even future ones in Gaza ;) I can’t take this any other way then the author is stating that killing of innocent civilians in Gaza is justified because otherwise they were destined to become war criminals. This kind of speech was very common among people justifying police brutality and neighborhood crackdown against black people in the USA. It is extremely racist as it stipulates that Palestinians, by merit of being Palestinians, are inherently bad people and deserve to die.
corimaith 2y ago
You need to make a distinction between positive (what-is) claims and normative (what-ought) claims. When you say realpolitik is a "defence", whether or not it is actually used as a "defence" in reality is disconnected on the validity of that position as a moral fact.
- _3u10 2y ago
  Look up judgement proof, or jury nullification, ever heard of the OJ Simpson trial? Realpolitik is why OJ wasn't convicted. Juries in and of themselves are realpolitik, it's why most countries don't use them, because they deliver verdicts the legal professions dislike.