ICC Judge Guillou loses all US IT accounts after MAGA sanctions [FR]

> MAGA

What's even in it for America? This is "Make Israel Great Again" politics.

> What's even in it for America?

Washington has brokered a peace deal that it’s very proud of and expects a Nobel Peace prize for if it holds. At this point, we’re dealing with one man’s ego more than any policy position of the United States.

It's not a peace deal. It doesn't address any Palestinian concern other than a novel one that is stopping 2 years of constant bombardement (replaced by low-intensity fighting via proxy militias, and smaller scale killings of people who even approach the newly-declared border). Palestinian resistance got nothing out of it, as Israel has abducted and thrown into prisons more people over the past 2 years than it has released through the hostage swaps.

> It's not a peace deal. It doesn't address any Palestinian concern other than a novel one that is stopping 2 years of constant bombardement

That's true for any negotiated, i.e. conditional, armistice. If you want one side to be happy, you have to press for unconditional surrender. Palestine doesn't have the capability to force Israel to unconditionally surrender.

In any case, what we call it is irrelevant. (What the Norwegian Noble Committee calls it is irrelevant.) What matters is what the President thinks. And he thinks it's a peace deal that could make him a Nobel laureate. Which gives him an interest in not letting, as he sees it, an ICC judge mess with his deal.

> Palestinian resistance got nothing out of it

No shit. The October 7 attacks were terrorist attacks. The literature on terrorism is they extremely rarely achieve their political goals.

> The October 7 attacks were terrorist attacks. The literature on terrorism is they extremely rarely achieve their political goals.

Is every act of violent resistance against one's oppressor a "terrorist attack", what does the literature say? What distinguishes a terrorist attack from a counter-offensive?

Is it the targeting of civilians? But that didn't start on October 7th, so if that's the case, why isn't Palestine getting everything they want, and why aren't you arguing that Israel shouldn't expect to get anything out of their terrorist attacks against Palestine?

Last one is a rhetorical question, we know the answer by now. Israel and the US have all the power therefore their actions are righteous and any sort of retribution is terrorism, propped up by a million different ways to try to erase and rewrite history.

It’s quite easy to argue that the October 7th attacks were terrorism. They explicitly targeted non-strategic civilian communities and events, for political purpose. They fit within the definition as clearly as any act could.

Argue what you mean. You believe those terrorist attacks are _justified_. There are lots of ways to argue that point. But one of them is ends justification. Did it work out for the people it was supposedly on behalf of?