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.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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…

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

  • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    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

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

    • kingofras@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • Luminous5481 "War Crimes Luminous" [they/them]@anarchist.nexusBanned from community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        “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.

  • gndagreborn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    Then what’s the point of the ICC if no one respects their orders and enforces them? Giving me league of nations vibes.