cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/40976381
The plane carrying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Florida for talks with U.S. President Donald Trump passed through the airspace of three countries that are parties to the International Criminal Court, despite an active ICC arrest warrant against the Israeli leader.
Flight tracking data from FlightRadar24 showed Netanyahu’s aircraft, known as “Wings of Zion,” crossed the airspace of Greece, Italy and France before reaching the Atlantic Ocean.
All three countries are signatories to the Rome Statute, which obliges member states to cooperate with ICC arrest warrants.
Then what’s the point of the ICC if no one respects their orders and enforces them? Giving me league of nations vibes.
That’s because Europe is gutless and doesn’t want to upset Trump.
Not ALL of Europe, just the vast majority of it.
It would be a REAL shame if someone tampered with the return flight path to make it pass through Ireland and/or Spain…
we can’t find a drone to fly into his jet?
While I’d like it, it would make him a matter and justify them take out all of Palestine/Palestinians. We knew countries like Greece would do such, they signed agreements with Israel because they know Israel seems to get backing no matter what. And the fighters they bought are F-35s. Trump supports N, they both will support him.
Did you mean to say martyr?
What were they supposed to do? Scramble jets and intercept/ force a landing?
Surely shooting them down if they haven’t faced a trial can’t be protocol, as a U.S. citizen that would be like blowing up boats and claiming they have drugs on them and not letting the people stand trial
yes.
Surely shooting them down if they haven’t faced a trial can’t be protocol
That absolutely is protocol when an aircraft invades your airspace and refuses to turn around or land when intercepted. It’s happened before, and depending on the country, sometimes they don’t give the intercepted aircraft a warning before they open fire. Sometimes they even fire warning shots, but the interloper doesn’t see them.
That happened more than once with Korean civilian airliners that strayed into the USSR.
“Civilian Aircraft (Article 3 bis): Adopted in 1984, this amendment to the Chicago Convention requires all states to refrain from using weapons against civil aircraft in flight. Safety of passengers must not be endangered, and in cases of interception, the lives of those on board must be protected.”
Unless the plane was a military threat, shooting them down would be considered improper internationally.
Not intercepting the PMs plane and arresting him for the ICC warrant is also illegal under international law. Israel can’t legally occupy the settlements that they do, that’s a violation of international law. They can’t bomb refugee camps, that’s a violation of international law. They can’t starve Palestinians intentionally, that’s against international law. They can’t refuse medical help to injured civilians or Hamas fighters who cannot fight anymore, that’s against international law.
I’m assuming, as somebody quoting some random treaty to me, that you’re a liberal who views laws and legality as the order that holds our world together. It must come as a real shock to you that no state actually gives a shit about what’s legal, they only care about what they can get away with. Unless you can force your government to abide by a law, they can do whatever the fuck they want. That’s the neat thing about laws, they don’t mean shit unless the government in question decides to abide by them.
So your thought is Greece who made agreemennts with Israel is going to fly U.S. made jets to arrest someone that the U.S. doesn’t want arrested, to answer to a court that the U.S. also doesn’t recognize. We knew Greece wouldn’t do it. Would have to be another country
So your thought is
no, that isn’t my thought at all. idk how you got confused, but I’m clearly saying states will do whatever they want so long as they think they can get away with it, and the legality or morality of doing something will never once factor into the decision.
You intercept any unauthorised aircraft flying over your airspace using a fighter jet, force them to land. If they don’t land, you can shoot them legally because they’re in your airspace.
That’s like how America can legally shoot a Chinese balloon flying in their airspace.
Yeah I agree they should have, but clearly they didn’t.
deleted by creator
What were they supposed to do? Scramble jets and intercept/ force a landing?
YES!
Surely shooting them down if they haven’t faced a trial can’t be protocol, as a U.S. citizen that would be like blowing up boats and claiming they have drugs on them and not letting the people stand trial
Your comparison is bullshit and you should feel bad. The essential difference is that the US Navy isn’t even trying to give the falsely-accused fisherman a chance to surrender and stand trial.
I absolutely unequivocally don’t feel bad. It’s due process, and if you wave that right then you should be in prison for anything anytime period. You should feel like a niave fool.
And yes, they should have demanded they land.
The answer is: Be a black guy in the states
ignoring an arrest warrant and have the cops know when and where you’ll be.
