Comment by throwaway3060
5 hours ago
The US does not recognize such an argument. If that is the argument being made, then no wonder the US issued sanctions; it would perceive such a precedent as a threat to its sovereignty.
5 hours ago
The US does not recognize such an argument. If that is the argument being made, then no wonder the US issued sanctions; it would perceive such a precedent as a threat to its sovereignty.
Not quite: The US helped invent that argument, and has used it extensively to pursue its foreign policy goals since World War II.
What the US has argued historically is that American people and institutions are not subject to it because the US has a functioning civilian and military justice system, and so prosecution for such crimes can be handled within it, even by foreign nations and NGOs.
Obviously that’s a load of bullshit, especially (but not only) these days, but “sovereignty for me but not for thee” has long been the rule and with its weakening international position the US may come to find that to be less achievable in the future.
Except Netanyahu and Galland are not US citizens. Therefore why is the US so involved in?
Because the US protects Israel pretty much at all costs. For the same reason no one attacks Israel for fear of reprisals from the US.
They don't want the precedent established. Same reason why uninvolved parties in US courts submit "amicus briefs" - the precedent from a case may affect them down the line.