Israel freezes Palestinian tax funds in retaliation for joining ICC

[Jayjay]

Come on, Loren! The atrocities Israel has perpetrated in Gaza are WAR CRIMES...ATTACKS ON CIVILIAN POPULATIONS. But then I guess you are right...only "losers" get prosecuted...at lease in any court you would approve.

1) The ICC doesn't investigate war crimes.

2) It's not a war crime to hit a military target mixed in with civilians.

3) Your reply has noting to do with the topic of the thread anyway.

What have you been smoking? The ICC explicitly investigates and prosecutes war crimes. Article 5 of the Rome Statute:

Article 5
Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court

The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:

(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression.

Whether something Israel has done or hasn't is a war crime is up to the court to decide, though it's doubtful that it will have jurisdiction over past events.

Still waiting for you to point out the part in Oslo Accords that says PA can't join the ICC though. On the other hand Israel's obligation to hand over the taxes it collects is in clear violation of it.

 

[arkirk]

Come on, Loren! The atrocities Israel has perpetrated in Gaza are WAR CRIMES...ATTACKS ON CIVILIAN POPULATIONS. But then I guess you are right...only "losers" get prosecuted...at lease in any court you would approve.

1) The ICC doesn't investigate war crimes.

2) It's not a war crime to hit a military target mixed in with civilians.

3) Your reply has noting to do with the topic of the thread anyway.

It has everything to do with the thread....

What concerns me is how you can keep saying it is okay to murder civilian populations to kill military "targets" that are mixed in with them. Is there any particular percentage of the "mix" it has to be. Is one in ten okay? What about one in ten thousand? What about one in a million? Should we nuke Pakistan tomorrow morning? Your thinking on this is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) They've had plenty of opportunity to create a sovereign government. They don't want one.

2) Creating a government won't change the fundamental problem--the external money.

3) What's in the interest of the Palestinians and what's in the interest of Fatah and Hamas are very different things.

Except those things are not different as far as sovereignty goes. We can worry about who is in charge of Palestine after they are guaranteed sovereignty. You are assuming that Hamas and Fatah will be violent and then deciding to punish all of Palestine for the perceived thought crime of hating Jews. I propose not prosecuting them until they actually have the means, desire, and resolve to do more than shooting the international equivalent of spitballs. You have provided no evidence that their anti-israel rhetoric is more than mere rhetoric and that they will not back down when they aren't being starved, invaded, bombed, and otherwise held down.

In effect you're saying we shouldn't concern ourselves with whether the solution will actually work, just implement it anyway.

 

[Jarhyn]

Except those things are not different as far as sovereignty goes. We can worry about who is in charge of Palestine after they are guaranteed sovereignty. You are assuming that Hamas and Fatah will be violent and then deciding to punish all of Palestine for the perceived thought crime of hating Jews. I propose not prosecuting them until they actually have the means, desire, and resolve to do more than shooting the international equivalent of spitballs. You have provided no evidence that their anti-israel rhetoric is more than mere rhetoric and that they will not back down when they aren't being starved, invaded, bombed, and otherwise held down.

In effect you're saying we shouldn't concern ourselves with whether the solution will actually work, just implement it anyway.

The solution will work, since the problem is a lack of
Protection of sovereign rights to live without being attacked for palestine. We can worry about the regime in Palestine after it isn't being bombed, invaded, raided, and embargoed. If they become the next North Korea, then so be it. North Korea is mostly harmless. And then we'll be right there with you imposing sanctions and allowing bombings. But we need to get that far before it will be an acceptable measure.

 

[dystopian]

Not sure if this has been touched on in the thread already, but thought it might be relevant: Not only is the ICC now probing whether or not war crimes took place in the region (on either side), Israel is now actively trying to convince other countries to stop funding the ICC. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/18/us-icc-palestinians-israel-idUSKBN0KR06720150118

I find the complete disconnect in rhetoric pretty telling. The Palestinians have already stated that they will abide by the ICC's judgement and will cooperate fully, even if it means (as Israel alleges) that Palestinians themselves are found guilty of warcrimes. Israel, on the other hand, goes around trying to dismantle the ICC while ranting, raving, and showing their true colors.

"We will demand of our friends in Canada, in Australia and in Germany simply to stop funding it," he (Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman) told Israel Radio."

"Demand" of our friends.

This article almost reads like parody: http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/In...unch-investigation-into-Gaza-operation-388052

“It’s absurd for the ICC to ignore international law and agreements, under which the Palestinians don't have a state and can only get one through direct negotiations with Israel.”

Telling the ICC... the fucking *ICC* what is and is not part of international law? Balls, or just stupidity?

"The Senate has threatened to cut off US funds as a consequence of the Palestinians turning to the ICC, and two leading Republican and two leading Democratic senators signed a letter last week saying, “If the ICC makes the egregious mistake of accepting the Palestinian Authority as a member, given that it is not a state, Congress will seek ways to protect Israeli citizens from politically abusive ICC actions.”

This one just made me blink. I'm pretty sure the ICC is terrified that the US will cut funding. I mean, what would they ever do without that 0% of their total funding the US supplies them with?

 

[laughing dog]

Except those things are not different as far as sovereignty goes. We can worry about who is in charge of Palestine after they are guaranteed sovereignty. You are assuming that Hamas and Fatah will be violent and then deciding to punish all of Palestine for the perceived thought crime of hating Jews. I propose not prosecuting them until they actually have the means, desire, and resolve to do more than shooting the international equivalent of spitballs. You have provided no evidence that their anti-israel rhetoric is more than mere rhetoric and that they will not back down when they aren't being starved, invaded, bombed, and otherwise held down.

In effect you're saying we shouldn't concern ourselves with whether the solution will actually work, just implement it anyway.

If it is good enough for the gov't of Israel, why not?

BTW, you've have plenty of time to come up with section of the Oslo agreement that the PA alleged violated with the application to join the ICC. Since you have not, it is reasonable to conclude that your claim that the PA broke their agreement is handwaving nonsense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In effect you're saying we shouldn't concern ourselves with whether the solution will actually work, just implement it anyway.

The solution will work, since the problem is a lack of
Protection of sovereign rights to live without being attacked for palestine. We can worry about the regime in Palestine after it isn't being bombed, invaded, raided, and embargoed. If they become the next North Korea, then so be it. North Korea is mostly harmless. And then we'll be right there with you imposing sanctions and allowing bombings. But we need to get that far before it will be an acceptable measure.

Yeah, you are saying we shouldn't concern ourselves with whether it will work as you are simply assuming the cause is what you think it is and disregarding the elephant of the money that goes to terrorism.

- - - Updated - - -

I find the complete disconnect in rhetoric pretty telling. The Palestinians have already stated that they will abide by the ICC's judgement and will cooperate fully, even if it means (as Israel alleges) that Palestinians themselves are found guilty of warcrimes. Israel, on the other hand, goes around trying to dismantle the ICC while ranting, raving, and showing their true colors.

Just because the Palestinians have said they'll abide doesn't mean they will.

Hamas is certainly guilty--deliberately using civilians as cover is a war crime.

- - - Updated - - -

In effect you're saying we shouldn't concern ourselves with whether the solution will actually work, just implement it anyway.

If it is good enough for the gov't of Israel, why not?

BTW, you've have plenty of time to come up with section of the Oslo agreement that the PA alleged violated with the application to join the ICC. Since you have not, it is reasonable to conclude that your claim that the PA broke their agreement is handwaving nonsense.

I said I thought it was--obviously, implying I wasn't certain of my memory.

 

[untermensche]

Hamas is certainly guilty--deliberately using civilians as cover is a war crime.

If civilians volunteer to prevent a foreign power from killing people just so it can maintain it's oppression and theft that is admirable.

You can pretend this is a war, but people with even a tiny measure of sense understand this is a powerful nation suffering from the natural reaction to decades of its violence and oppression.

You oppress people for decades and they will resist.

Only the most tyrannical call that resistance a crime.

 

[Jayjay]

Not sure if this has been touched on in the thread already, but thought it might be relevant: Not only is the ICC now probing whether or not war crimes took place in the region (on either side), Israel is now actively trying to convince other countries to stop funding the ICC. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/18/us-icc-palestinians-israel-idUSKBN0KR06720150118

I think htat's slightly incorrect. The court is not yet probing war crimes, but just deciding on issues of jurisdiction and whether Palestine's request to investigate crimes since July 2014 is warranted. Personally, I think the decision will be that it is not... a state member cannot just arbitrarily request investigation to past crimes.

It's almost funny to see Israel squirm, but there is a chance that together with the US it might convince some countries to cut off funding to ICC. Germany probably won't budge for historical reasons, but Japan that doesn't have an internal muslim electorate and doesn't probably care about Middle East one way or the other, just might, if given right incentives.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hamas is certainly guilty--deliberately using civilians as cover is a war crime.

If civilians volunteer to prevent a foreign power from killing people just so it can maintain it's oppression and theft that is admirable.

You can pretend this is a war, but people with even a tiny measure of sense understand this is a powerful nation suffering from the natural reaction to decades of its violence and oppression.

You oppress people for decades and they will resist.

Only the most tyrannical call that resistance a crime.

And why should we think it's voluntary? We've seen reports of Hamas shooting those who don't stay and die.

 

[laughing dog]

I said I thought it was--obviously, implying I wasn't certain of my memory.

Until you come up with actual evidence, your claim is cannot be reasonably accepted as valid. On the otherhand, the gov't of Israel is willfully breaking its agreement to collect and remit taxes because the PA has the audacity to ask to be admitted to the ICC. That fit of pique makes the gov't of Israel appear rather heavy handed.

 

[dystopian]

I think htat's slightly incorrect. The court is not yet probing war crimes, but just deciding on issues of jurisdiction and whether Palestine's request to investigate crimes since July 2014 is warranted. Personally, I think the decision will be that it is not... a state member cannot just arbitrarily request investigation to past crimes.

From what I've read, it is a preliminary probe; they're not deciding whether they have jurisdiction; as they already do. The Palestinian Authority have recognized the ICC's jurisdiction retroactively to cover the last war; meaning the ICC has full jurisdiction. There's really no reason why state members cannot request investigations into past crimes; "arbitrarily" or otherwise. Whether or not the ICC proceeds with a full investigation is of course not up to the memberstate making the request; and it is currently being determined whether or not there is a sufficient case to proceed.

Either way, the fact that it isn't even a full investigation yet but just a preliminary probe just makes Israel's stance even more laughable.

It's almost funny to see Israel squirm, but there is a chance that together with the US it might convince some countries to cut off funding to ICC.

Unlikely. The US tried something similar before and it didn't particularly impress anyone.

Germany probably won't budge for historical reasons,

No "probably" involved; Germany will most certainly not budge. It isn't even a question.

but Japan that doesn't have an internal muslim electorate and doesn't probably care about Middle East one way or the other, just might, if given right incentives.

Japan will also not budge. Japan took quite a while to join the ICC; but it did so after thorough review, legal effort, and even after it became clear it would be one of the biggest contributors. It makes little sense for them to undo all that work just because Israel is having a fit. Besides, with China breathing down their neck I can't imagine them wanting to hamper the power of international rule of law. The US might apply some political pressure, but it would be relatively limited: the US doesn't have much to apply pressure with, as they need Japan as an ally far more than Israel. And in any case, it's not as if Israel continuing to be an ally of the US is going to be called into question because the US fails to convince Japan (or any other country) on the matter.

Neither Israel nor Israel combined with the US has the means to convince the big ICC contributors to drop their ICC support in a way that doesn't do them more harm than good. At most we might see some smaller contributors caving; but I expect that the US is just making a token effort and doesn't want to jeopardize relations with the EU (the biggest ICC contributor by far).

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Which is the reason why they need to be represented by a sovereign government and not a loose affiliation of poorly recognized foreign interests pulling their collective strings from abroad. Peace is VERY much in the Palestinians' interests and it is something Abbas has worked towards relentlessly for nearly a decade.

So far you have given me ZERO reason to believe the Palestinian Authority isn't serious in its desire for peace. You have not and you cannot because that reason doesn't exist.

1) They've had plenty of opportunity to create a sovereign government.

They already did. It's called the Palestinian Authority. Mahmoud Abbas is and has been its president. Israel does not and probably never will respect that sovereignty, but that doesn't mean they have not sought and achieved that already.

It's not a question of whether or not they should CREATE one. It's a question of whether or not the Palestinian government is willing and able to govern Palestine in a peaceful way.

2) Creating a government won't change the fundamental problem--the external money.

Unless, of course, the Palestinian Government is allowed to use that money for its own purposes instead of watching that money fund militias it can't deal with in territories it doesn't control.

What's in the interest of the Palestinians and what's in the interest of Fatah and Hamas are very different things.

Hamas and Fatah are political organizations whose members are predominantly Palestinians. Ergo, what is in the interest of the Palestinians is VERY MUCH in the interests of Hamas and Fatah, as both organizations have long since realized.

Also, as you seem to be confused again: Fatah is not the governing body of Palestine either.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Except those things are not different as far as sovereignty goes. We can worry about who is in charge of Palestine after they are guaranteed sovereignty. You are assuming that Hamas and Fatah will be violent and then deciding to punish all of Palestine for the perceived thought crime of hating Jews. I propose not prosecuting them until they actually have the means, desire, and resolve to do more than shooting the international equivalent of spitballs. You have provided no evidence that their anti-israel rhetoric is more than mere rhetoric and that they will not back down when they aren't being starved, invaded, bombed, and otherwise held down.

In effect you're saying we shouldn't concern ourselves with whether the solution will actually work, just implement it anyway.

Yes.

Because the only way you can know if the solution works or not is to TRY it and observe the results.

The only way to guaranty failure is not to try at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In effect you're saying we shouldn't concern ourselves with whether the solution will actually work, just implement it anyway.

Yes.

Because the only way you can know if the solution works or not is to TRY it and observe the results.

The only way to guaranty failure is not to try at all.

That doesn't mean you try it. It's a move that has huge costs and likely will make things worse.

There's a guy who cured his brain cancer with a gun. Does that mean all brain cancer patients should attempt suicide.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes.

Because the only way you can know if the solution works or not is to TRY it and observe the results.

The only way to guaranty failure is not to try at all.

That doesn't mean you try it. It's a move that has huge costs and likely will make things worse.

That is your opinion which tends to be extremely uninformed and biased in this case.

There's a guy who cured his brain cancer with a gun. Does that mean all brain cancer patients should attempt suicide.

Really, you are comparing a situation where the outcome is predictable and observed to one that is not? Those silly responses do not advance your argument at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That doesn't mean you try it. It's a move that has huge costs and likely will make things worse.

That is your opinion which tends to be extremely uninformed and biased in this case.

There's a guy who cured his brain cancer with a gun. Does that mean all brain cancer patients should attempt suicide.

Really, you are comparing a situation where the outcome is predictable and observed to one that is not? Those silly responses do not advance your argument at all.

Every time Israel gives ground it gets hurt. Why should we not expect the same outcome if they give ground again?

Especially since the polls show the Palestinians view statehood as merely a stepping stone to the destruction of Israel, not the endgame.

 

[untermensche]

Every time Israel gives ground it gets hurt.

It gave the Sinai back to Egypt and did not get hurt at all by it.

But please give me all these examples where Israel gave ground and was hurt because of it.

 

[laughing dog]

That is your opinion which tends to be extremely uninformed and biased in this case.

There's a guy who cured his brain cancer with a gun. Does that mean all brain cancer patients should attempt suicide.

Really, you are comparing a situation where the outcome is predictable and observed to one that is not? Those silly responses do not advance your argument at all.

Every time Israel gives ground it gets hurt. Why should we not expect the same outcome if they give ground again?

Because as untermensche showed, your conclusion is based on a false premise. You seem to have a hard time keeping the facts straight when it comes to Israel. Why is that do you think?

Especially since the polls show the Palestinians view statehood as merely a stepping stone to the destruction of Israel, not the endgame.

Polls? You cannot be serious.

 

[Jayjay]

From what I've read, it is a preliminary probe; they're not deciding whether they have jurisdiction; as they already do. The Palestinian Authority have recognized the ICC's jurisdiction retroactively to cover the last war; meaning the ICC has full jurisdiction. There's really no reason why state members cannot request investigations into past crimes; "arbitrarily" or otherwise. Whether or not the ICC proceeds with a full investigation is of course not up to the memberstate making the request; and it is currently being determined whether or not there is a sufficient case to proceed.

Maybe. After perusing the text of the Rome Statute, I cannot find anything that would explicitly forbid the court from investigating a crime that occurred within area of member-state priot to it joining the court, if it concedes jurisdiction as Palestine has. That does sound like a huge loop hole in the system, because that would mean that a state would not need to join the Rome Statute, and could choose after the fact whether it wants the court to prosecute certain crimes within its territory. Strictly speaking this could mean that the ICC could only prosecute Israel, if Palestine refuses to accept jurisdiction over crimes committed by Palestinians.