Few things bother me more than people who try to claim Biden/Harris was “good for ukraine” or “good for palestine”.

There may be some European countries that Netanyahu will no longer be able to visit, but the impact will not be large.

Same with The Hague court, where the US said its soldiers would be imune from standing trial for crimes.

So if these international courts are only allowed selective enforcement, what's the point of their existence? To only prosecute people the US doesn't choose to protect? Then what's the line between good guys and bad guys?

If I remember correctly, a former president of the USA cancelled a visit to Switzerland because they were wanted for war crimes. Would Switzerland have arrested that former president of the USA? Hard to say: cancelling the visit was an easier solution for the people who made the decision.

In Britain, an Israeli general arrived by plane but never disembarked because of an outstanding warrant for war crimes. Would they really have arrested the Israeli general? Hard to say: not letting them disembark was an easier solution for the people who made the decision.

Wasn't there the same pitfall with the League of Nations?

It is not if the US was on board it would lead an invasion of Israel.

There’s tit for tat involved where things might escalate to the point where the US kills some people via airstrikes, but it simply can’t escalate everything to a full on war.

Not for the lack of trying though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_policy_i...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_U...

“He served 21 months of his sentence before being released in a prisoner swap in 1962.” So no actual retaliation, and we gave up something they wanted for him.

There’s also edge cases. Yeh Changti was trained by the CIA and then shot down flying a U-2 in 1963 and held in China for 19 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeh_Changti

The simple fact of the matter is that modern countries simply don’t want to mess with america.

But how recently are you thinking here?

1994: US apologies and pays reparations to return US soldier shot down by NK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_invol...

Compare France or the UK as ICC member states with NK and your argument is obviously false. They have plenty of nukes to be a major issue.

I’ll flip this around, try and find examples that fit your narrative outside of fiction or active wars. IE, situations where civilians are in charge of deciding what our military is doing.

> Do we have many examples of cases where countries have held US soldiers or commanders of allied nations captive without repercussion?

And clear answer to that such a year yes, with dozens of examples off the top of my head that I was unsure in what context you might assume it was true.

> UK and France are quite weak indeed

Not in comparison to NK and especially not historic NK they aren’t. Have you ever actually studied foreign events, history, or looked into foreign militaries etc? You have such a distorted viewpoint I just find it baffling. In terms of traditional military NK has 1/3 the UK’s population, vastly worse industry, outdated equipment, minimal ability to move beyond their borders, etc. In a head to head fight they would lose badly.

Every day of my life, actually. It’s clear you don’t, and I don’t particularly care. Good day.

Its been years, but I worked on strategic planning for the DoD. As in the group that actually plans how to preform an invasion, though I was developing the software not doing the actual planning. They still wanted us to have an understanding of what’s involved.

All I can suggest is your methods are inherently flawed. Ask yourself why you were unaware of all these incidents and how you might change that deficiency.

Not in the ways you might think. I used examples from well outside the periods and events I have classified knowledge of, for legal and ethical reasons.

However, reading your responses I can understand why you ended up with such a wildly inaccurate understanding of the world. It’s been interesting talking with you.

The court has no army or power, while Israel does, so US guns are already irrelevant. Israel doesnt need US military protection form the ICC any more than it needs US protection from random critics.

Don’t just take my word for it, look at all the published requests Israel has made for American gun money.

You cant apply the realities of a 3 front national war to a weak court order.

Furthermore, I think you are highly overestimating their US dependency. US Aid amounts to a small percentage of the domestic Israeli defense budget.

I can ask for a free food at costco, but that doesnt mean I'll starve without it.

Pre-war US military aid was about 4 billion/year, compared to the the Israeli domestic budget of 16 Billion/year.

The idea that Israel would have "no guns" without US aid is flat out wrong. Doubly so when you are talking about enough guns to to defy the ICC, which actually has zero.

But I agree it’s not the ICCs guns that are the problem for any israeli’s wellbeing.

you are the one claiming Israel wouldn't even exist as a country without that aid.