That wasn't to terrorists.
-
Features
Israel freezes Palestinian tax funds in retaliation for joining ICC
- Thread starter Davka
- Start date
That wasn't to terrorists.
untermensche
Contributor
They were worse than terrorists. They were a modern nation with modern weapons that was hostile towards Israel.
If peace could be made with them it could be made with anybody. If Israel desired peace and not more land that is.
But please tell me about all these examples of Israel giving ground to the Palestinians and being hurt by it.
Tell me about the one day Palestinians have not lived under the Israeli boot in the last 40 years.
dystopian
Veteran Member
I don't see why you describe it as a "loophole" (let alone a huge one). Normally it's the case that when a state joins the ICC, the ICC only has jurisdiction to investigate crimes that took place in that country from the moment they joined onward. Conceding retroactive authority doesn't mean the state in question doesn't need to join the Rome Statute; it just means that they're allowing the court to act as if the state joined the statute earlier than it actually did. Yes, technically this means they can still choose to grant the retroactive authority only back far enough that their own crimes can't be investigated but that of their enemies can; however, that requires knowing exactly when and where one's own forces have committed crimes that the ICC would pursue (which isn't particularly likely in this case), and it wouldn't particularly endear the court to your case. Note that Palestine has granted retroactive authority for the entire period of the last war; a period which Israel claims Palestine has committed warcrimes during. Palestinians are also subject to investigation and prosecution should the court determine wrongdoing: Palestine can't give authority over crimes committed in its territory (as it has done), and then refuse to accept jurisdiction over crimes committed by Palestinians (incidentally, they have explicitly stated they accept such jurisdiction).
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
A strict reading of the Rome Statute suggests that this is not necessarily the case:
To me this implies that there has to be a specific crime that has to be first prosecuted or investigated, before such a declaration can even be made. In principle the current declaration needs to be reaffirmed "with respect to the crime in question" and in that case, the Palestinians could decline. But I'm no lawyer so perhaps you are right. I'm looking forward to what the prosecutor has to say.Article 12(3) said:
The overall loophole though in my opinion still remains. For example, Palestine set the date for July 13 to avoid possible prosecution for kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers on July 12.
Giving ground to nations who wish to be peaceful--works.
Giving ground to terrorists--they always get hurt.
As for your bogus 40 year timeline--the war has been going on more than 60 years.
laughing dog
Contributor
Neither was Gaza. Israel did not cede territory to Hamas.
untermensche
Contributor
Yet we still have NO example of Israel giving ground and being harmed by it.
It is nothing but your delusion minus something to support it.
dystopian
Veteran Member
The wording isn't particularly clear.
"11(2): If a State becomes a Party to this Statute after its entry into force, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute for that State, unless that State has made a declaration under article 12, paragraph 3.
12(3): If the acceptance of a State which is not a Party to this Statute is required under paragraph 2, that State may, by declaration lodged with the Registrar, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime in question. The accepting State shall cooperate with the Court without any delay or exception in accordance with Part 9."
To me, this reads like it isn't particularly relevant to Palestine's case here, but would be relevant in regards to crimes that took place in Israel itself. So for example, let's say Canada was only joining the ICC in 2017; it could freely decide to grant the court retroactive jurisdiction over the entirety of the US-Canadian war of 2016, but this would only apply to crimes that took place on Canadian soil. If individual cases took place on American soil, then the US; not being a party to the statute; would have to accept ICC jurisdiction in those specific cases.
That at least, strikes me as the only reasonable interpretation there; since it makes no sense to deny a state the ability to voluntarily extend blank jurisdiction.
Sure; the alternative however would be to force every new member to accept jurisdiction back to the creation of court, which makes it difficult to convince war-torn states to start playing by international rules. One has to start somewhere. You could see it as a conspiracy to avoid charges on a specific case, but either way the Palestinians would be bound by ICC rules from now on; so ultimately it's a win for the likes of Israel (not to mention international law itself)... assuming that Israel actually cared to make Palestine be held accountable for the warcrimes it consistently claims the Palestinians are guilty of (beyond just the specific case you mentioned).
The court may well decline to accept the retroactive jurisdiction for any number of reasons though; but the larger point that's being made seems to be more about putting Israel on notice. The ICC's looking at the conflict now and even if it doesn't get involved at this time, they might well do so if future cases take place (which are much harder to ignore based on technicalities since they'd be taking place after the Palestinians joined the court). I'm guessing the Palestinian leadership is hoping that it will make Israel think twice from now on. The whole retroactive jurisdiction thing may just be a PR ploy along those lines (with the date specifically chosen to avoid bad PR from happening in the event that the court does accept).
But like I said, either way this should be seen as a win.
What do you call the Gaza pullout?
What do you call loosening up on the Palestinians which allowed the weapons to be imported in large numbers?
untermensche
Contributor
The Gaza pullout allowed Israel to launch these periodic large scale military attacks of Gaza.
And allowed them to destroy things indiscriminately in Gaza and reduce it further.
It allowed them to tighten the leash of the people they oppress.
laughing dog
Contributor
At the time of the pullout, Hamas was not in power. So the territory was not ceded to terrorists at that time. Really, how hard is this to understand? Moreover, the pullout gave Israel more freedom to punish and go after Palestinians since they were no longer occupiers but victims.
Shifting the goalposts doesn't do you any good. You claimed every time that Israel gave up territory they came to harm. First, the Sinai was pointed out, so you backtracked to "ceded to terrorists". Then it is pointed out that Gaza was not given to the terrorists. Furthermore, you have not even bothered to show that the harm to israel has increased since Gaza was ceded.
All in all, yet another one of your deflection of the topic away from Israel's breach of its obligations has been shown to be nonsense.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30744701
Interesting article on what is likely to happen with the ICC.
Looks like Israel will both attempt to use it to prosecute Palestinians, while at the same time denying the legitimacy of the court.
Interesting article on what is likely to happen with the ICC.
Looks like Israel will both attempt to use it to prosecute Palestinians, while at the same time denying the legitimacy of the court.
When they pulled out that meant less day-to-day interference looking for weapons.
Gaza suffers because of Hamas, not because of Israel.
untermensche
Contributor
Hamas exists because Israel wanted it to exist.
It could easily have prevented it's inception and growth but Israel wanted to divide the Palestinians and split them between the PLO and Hamas.
It's an old tactic used by oppressors.
laughing dog
Contributor
No. Gazans suffer because of Hamas and the gov't of Israel.
But enough of your handwaving derails from the topic. Please point (with actual evidence) the agreement or law that the PA broke when it asked to be admitted to the ICC. You've had plenty of time to come up with something. Until you can show that the PA did violate some agreement with that request, it appears that Israel is unilaterally violating an agreement (the Oslo Accords).
It's a tactic use by opponents, oppressor or not.
untermensche
Contributor
Letting religious fanatics grow in power so you can then attack everybody and claim all you are doing is attacking the religious fanatics?
No. Trying to split your opposition and cause internal strife.
untermensche
Contributor
It is interference in matters that are none of your business.
Suppose we made a deal and we let Israelis keep half the settlements and we give the other half to Palestinians.
Is that a place we can agree?