article about suing hamas/their supporters
ITT: but what about Israel?
:)
There are plenty of articles about Israel people can comment on, this article is about Hamas, and the aggressive nature users are taking towards redirecting discussion is disgusting.
I’m on the fence if this type of lawsuit is actually in the interest of justice.
But one thing definitely irks me, this is the type of justice that is only doled out to enemies of the US.
Let me know when Palestinian Americans win a lawsuit against the US and Israel after an American-made, Israeli-fired bomb kills their entire family.
This type of lawsuit is questionably in the interest of justice when directed at Hamas/it’s benefactors, but you want to know when it’s directed at the US and Israel? I don’t understand what “type” of lawsuit this is where justice is questioned if directed at them. Sounds more like whataboutism and double standards…
Yes the problem with “whataboutism” is that it can be used to dismiss any claims of double standards without further examination.
For example, here in the US we punish black murderers more harshly and more often than we do white murderers. If a black murderer tries to point out this double standard, their claims would accurately be dismissed as “whataboutism”. But when you view the system as a whole, then you can see that systemic racism is undeniable.
The only thing dismissed by your comment was the posted article, such that you could distract from the article’s premise and substitute a different subject for discussion. This is a bad faith attempt to turn users away from what is posted, and deflect to a different issue.
Goodbye.
And I reject the facile equation of this to systemic racism against the black population. That is an obtuse comparison completely outside of the scope of the justice outlined in the article.
Regardless of justice, this type of lawsuit isn’t in the interest of any reasonable world order.
They are suing sovereign countries for assisting in an attack on Israel. In a US federal court. With no treaties backing the suit; just a law passed unilaterally by the US.
That is not the way international law works at all. By the logic, Peru could pass a law allowing it’s citizens to sue the US because they have family that took a vacation in mexico where they were shot by a US gun.
This should be viewed in context of the US’s refusal to join the ICC, and the “Hague Invasion Act” (American Service-Members’ Protection Act) that authotizes unbounded military force against the ICC if it acts against anyone working for the US or a US ally. As well as a bill passed in the house attempting to sanction the ICC for its move against Israeli leadership.
The entire theory behind being able to have such a lawsuit in a US federal court is US imperialism.
filed in federal court in New York
Pretty sure you can’t sue other countries like that.
FTA:
Under U.S. law, foreign governments can be held liable, in some circumstances, for deaths or injuries caused by acts of terrorism or by providing material support or resources for them.
The 1976 statute cited in the lawsuit, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, is a frequent tool for American plaintiffs seeking to hold foreign governments accountable. In one example, a federal judge in Washington ordered North Korea in 2018 to pay $500 million in a wrongful death suit filed by the parents of Otto Warmbier, an American college student who died shortly after being released from that country.
People held as prisoners by Iran in the past have successfully sued Iran in U.S. federal court, seeking money earlier frozen by the U.S.
They should also sue israel because i doubt they didnt help them get in. Basically most protected country in the whole world and some fuckers “accidentally” slip-in.
As opposed to the U.S., who never provides support for rebel groups abroad?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation.
This case is being tried in the United States. It’s pretty relevant. But any excuse to shit on the global south ig
I wholly disagree with the characterization that a lawsuit about Oct 7 is “any excuse to shit on the global south.” I won’t be continuing anything close to this discussion.
It being tried in the US does not afford relevancy to the idea that the US should be sued for the same thing. It is similar in that they both involve the US, but you’re wrong to assume it’s relevant. It is whataboutism. Period. From Google even:
Similar
resembling without being identical.
Relevant
closely connected or appropriate to what is being done or considered.
DAE AMERICA LES BAD???