Israel freezes Palestinian tax funds in retaliation for joining ICC

[Arctish]

Israel funds the settlers who lynched a Palestinians teen.



No, there isn't. Israel's occupation is illegal, the legality or continuation of Israelies in Palestine has nothing whatsoever to do with Palestinian actions. The two are unrelated.

The deal should be 67 borders in exchange for peace.

The Palestinians want 67 borders and no peace. Of course Israel won't agree to that.

If you look for Palestinians who won't accept peace and the 1967 border, you are sure to find them. If you look for Israelis who won't accept peace and the 1967 borders, you are sure to find them too.

But if a majority of Israelis and Palestinians want peace and will accept the 1967 borders, why should we in the international community not respect, support, and assist them in achieving their goal? Why do we act as though the extremists in Hamas and the settlements are the only ones that count?

 

[Jayjay]

Israel funds the settlers who lynched a Palestinians teen.



No, there isn't. Israel's occupation is illegal, the legality or continuation of Israelies in Palestine has nothing whatsoever to do with Palestinian actions. The two are unrelated.

The deal should be 67 borders in exchange for peace.

The Palestinians want 67 borders and no peace. Of course Israel won't agree to that.

And Israel wants peace but not 67 borders. Both sides are queally intransigent.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Palestinian ICC membership was accepted:

Palestine to become member of International Criminal Court

The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, has confirmed that Palestine will officially become a member of the International Criminal Court on 1 April, the UN press office said on Wednesday.

The Palestinians delivered documents to UN headquarters on Friday documents to join the Rome Statute of the ICC and other international treaties, in a move that has heightened tensions with Israel and could lead to cuts in US aid.

The official announcement of the date of the Palestinian accession to the ICC, in the form of a letter from Ban, was posted on a UN website.

This is huge. This means that appropriate starting from April Fool's Day, Israeli individuals may be investigated for war crimes. Palestine very likely will try to call for investigations on everything possible, starting from last summer's flare up, but the court is not very likely to start fudging rules of jurisdiction on their favor. I would be interested to see an investigation as to whether the occupation in West Bank and blockade of Gaza in general are in violation of the Fourth Geneva convention, in particular articles 49 regarding civilian population transfers, and article 53 on collective punishments.

Israeli and US tantrum over this is totally uncalled for.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you can only bring NEW actions to the ICC after you have joined it. Palestine wasn't part of the ICC during the Gaza war so they can't ask them to look into it.

OTOH, I do believe the ICC would be the proper body to complain to over Israel's West Bank settlements...

 

[Arctish]

Palestinian ICC membership was accepted:



This is huge. This means that appropriate starting from April Fool's Day, Israeli individuals may be investigated for war crimes. Palestine very likely will try to call for investigations on everything possible, starting from last summer's flare up, but the court is not very likely to start fudging rules of jurisdiction on their favor. I would be interested to see an investigation as to whether the occupation in West Bank and blockade of Gaza in general are in violation of the Fourth Geneva convention, in particular articles 49 regarding civilian population transfers, and article 53 on collective punishments.

Israeli and US tantrum over this is totally uncalled for.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you can only bring NEW actions to the ICC after you have joined it. Palestine wasn't part of the ICC during the Gaza war so they can't ask them to look into it.

OTOH, I do believe the ICC would be the proper body to complain to over Israel's West Bank settlements...

I think that's the real fear. If the Palestinians get standing in the court, the ongoing violation of the UN conventions on human rights in the Occupied Territories (by a member state, no less) is going to be brought before it, and there's nothing Israel or the US can do to stop it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Of course you do. It takes a lot more effort to PREVENT rocket attacks than it does to approve or promote them (primarily because most of those small groups avoid having any contact with Hamas at all and would actually be fighting AGAINST them if they didn't have a common enemy in Israel).

Hell, the U.S. government can't even prevent amateur rockets from breaching VFR altitudes limitations, and U.S. citizens actually launch more illegal rockets per year than Palestinians do. What makes you think Hamas -- which entirely lacks aerial surveillance and whose communications infrastructure is decrepit even by Palestinian standards -- can do better?

Those amateurs have plenty of wide open spaces with nobody around to launch from.

So do small-time Gaza militants.

Obama didn't hire the teacher to commit a crime.

Neither did Hamas. Marwan Qawasmeh was hired to help coordinate financial aid to the families of people killed or imprisoned by Israel. He instead used his position to independently stage a kidnapping with his brother, which turned into a murder when the teenagers tried to escape.

It is not the first time the Qawasmehs have done something incredibly reckless and counter-productive while supposedly acting on Hamas' behalf. It probably won't be the last.

The 67 "borders" aren't any more real.

They're as real as the border between Israel and Egypt. Just because Israel hasn't always respected that border doesn't mean it's nonexistent.

First is the question of whether the Palestinians will abide by their agreement.

Under Abbas' leadership, the Palestinian Authority has UNEQUIVOCALLY abided by its agreements with Israel. The P.A. allows Israeli security forces to conduct raids, agreed to joint policing operations, allows Israeli vehicles right of passage and prevents Palestinian citizens from attacking settlements. They have recognized Israel AND they have renounced violence. The only things the Palestinian Authority has refused to do were things it never AGREED to do in the first place, and Israeli politicians continue to assert that those refusals are (now) the source of the problem.

Ignore Gaza for a moment. If Israel agreed RIGHT NOW to withdrawal from the West Bank to the 1967 borders and dismantle its settlements, do you actually expect me to believe that Mahmoud Abbas is going to use that newfound breathing room to turn around and attack Israel? Do you expect me to believe that the Palestinian authority, which has spent the better part of a DECADE trying to appease Israel, is actually going to reneg on a peace deal that gives them exactly what they want? Abbas' administration has been ABSURDLY reasonable in dealing with Israel; what makes you think they would suddenly do something unreasonable just because they're finally getting what they were supposed to be getting in the first place?

The ONLY wild card in this determination is Hamas, and then only in speculation as to whether or not assimilating them into the Palestinian Authority will radicalize the P.A. or drive Hamas to adopt more pragmatic solutions in the future. Recent history suggests the latter is the case, but even if it ISN'T, the fact of the matter is that Abbas is currently the leader of the Palestinian Authority and would remain so even if a unity government was formed with Hamas. To say that "the Palestinians" would not abide by the agreement is to suggest that ABBAS would not abide by it, and thank is, frankly, absurd.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The deal should be 67 borders in exchange for peace.

The Palestinians want 67 borders and no peace. Of course Israel won't agree to that.

If you look for Palestinians who won't accept peace and the 1967 border, you are sure to find them. If you look for Israelis who won't accept peace and the 1967 borders, you are sure to find them too.

But if a majority of Israelis and Palestinians want peace and will accept the 1967 borders, why should we in the international community not respect, support, and assist them in achieving their goal? Why do we act as though the extremists in Hamas and the settlements are the only ones that count?

You won't have to look hard, they constitute the *MAJORITY*.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The deal should be 67 borders in exchange for peace.

The Palestinians want 67 borders and no peace. Of course Israel won't agree to that.

And Israel wants peace but not 67 borders. Both sides are queally intransigent.

Most Israelis will accept peace/67 borders--it's just they know that 67 borders won't bring peace. Why should they make huge concessions for no benefit?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Under Abbas' leadership, the Palestinian Authority has UNEQUIVOCALLY abided by its agreements with Israel. The P.A. allows Israeli security forces to conduct raids, agreed to joint policing operations, allows Israeli vehicles right of passage and prevents Palestinian citizens from attacking settlements. They have recognized Israel AND they have renounced violence. The only things the Palestinian Authority has refused to do were things it never AGREED to do in the first place, and Israeli politicians continue to assert that those refusals are (now) the source of the problem.

Renounced violence? What were the rockets they fired in the latest spat, then? They *SAY*--in English, not in Arabic--they'll do things. That doesn't mean they do them.

Ignore Gaza for a moment. If Israel agreed RIGHT NOW to withdrawal from the West Bank to the 1967 borders and dismantle its settlements, do you actually expect me to believe that Mahmoud Abbas is going to use that newfound breathing room to turn around and attack Israel? Do you expect me to believe that the Palestinian authority, which has spent the better part of a DECADE trying to appease Israel, is actually going to reneg on a peace deal that gives them exactly what they want? Abbas' administration has been ABSURDLY reasonable in dealing with Israel; what makes you think they would suddenly do something unreasonable just because they're finally getting what they were supposed to be getting in the first place?

Abbas, probably not. Hamas, certainly. The point of statehood is to make it easier to import weapons.

The ONLY wild card in this determination is Hamas, and then only in speculation as to whether or not assimilating them into the Palestinian Authority will radicalize the P.A. or drive Hamas to adopt more pragmatic solutions in the future. Recent history suggests the latter is the case, but even if it ISN'T, the fact of the matter is that Abbas is currently the leader of the Palestinian Authority and would remain so even if a unity government was formed with Hamas. To say that "the Palestinians" would not abide by the agreement is to suggest that ABBAS would not abide by it, and thank is, frankly, absurd.

The combination government will be violent.

The basic problem is the billions paid to those who will attack Israel. So long as that money pours in there will be war.

 

[Davka]

If Israel really wanted the 67 borders and peace, the separation wall would run along the 67 border.

 

[Arctish]

And Israel wants peace but not 67 borders. Both sides are queally intransigent.

Most Israelis will accept peace/67 borders--it's just they know that 67 borders won't bring peace. Why should they make huge concessions for no benefit?

Since when did living within your own borders become a huge concession?

 

[Jayjay]

And Israel wants peace but not 67 borders. Both sides are queally intransigent.

Most Israelis will accept peace/67 borders--it's just they know that 67 borders won't bring peace. Why should they make huge concessions for no benefit?

Indeed. Israelis are unwilling to make concessions whatsoever, because they don't believe in peace. It's the Israeli desire to keep the spoils of war that fuels the war, not any Palestinian position.

If the borders were acceptable to Israel, they might as well concede them even for a chance to have peace.

Your reasoning is akin to me stealing your wallet, and then rejecting your offer not to call the cops if I give the wallet back on the basis that I don't believe you. Why should I make "huge concessions for no benefit" by giving you back what lawfully belongs to you, on the off chance that you might still get me in trouble for my thievery?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If Israel really wanted the 67 borders and peace, the separation wall would run along the 67 border.

That's assuming that 67 borders would bring peace. Israel knows they won't, there was no reason to build the wall on the 67 borders rather than the current de-facto borders.

- - - Updated - - -

Most Israelis will accept peace/67 borders--it's just they know that 67 borders won't bring peace. Why should they make huge concessions for no benefit?

Indeed. Israelis are unwilling to make concessions whatsoever, because they don't believe in peace. It's the Israeli desire to keep the spoils of war that fuels the war, not any Palestinian position.

If the borders were acceptable to Israel, they might as well concede them even for a chance to have peace.

Your reasoning is akin to me stealing your wallet, and then rejecting your offer not to call the cops if I give the wallet back on the basis that I don't believe you. Why should I make "huge concessions for no benefit" by giving you back what lawfully belongs to you, on the off chance that you might still get me in trouble for my thievery?

Spend something like their GDP for a basically 0% chance of peace? They're not that stupid.

 

[Jayjay]

That's assuming that 67 borders would bring peace. Israel knows they won't, there was no reason to build the wall on the 67 borders rather than the current de-facto borders.

- - - Updated - - -

Most Israelis will accept peace/67 borders--it's just they know that 67 borders won't bring peace. Why should they make huge concessions for no benefit?

Indeed. Israelis are unwilling to make concessions whatsoever, because they don't believe in peace. It's the Israeli desire to keep the spoils of war that fuels the war, not any Palestinian position.

If the borders were acceptable to Israel, they might as well concede them even for a chance to have peace.

Your reasoning is akin to me stealing your wallet, and then rejecting your offer not to call the cops if I give the wallet back on the basis that I don't believe you. Why should I make "huge concessions for no benefit" by giving you back what lawfully belongs to you, on the off chance that you might still get me in trouble for my thievery?

Spend something like their GDP for a basically 0% chance of peace? They're not that stupid.

And why should I give your wallet back to you? I'm not that stupid!

The fact that Israel has stolen so much land, and continues to do so without much handicap means it benefits greatly from war. Israel perpetuates the conflict because war is more profitable to them than peace. This will not change until Israel can beat Palestinians into submission (not likely to happen any time soon), or if Palestinians can escalate the conflict to the point that the cost of war exceeds the perceived cost of peace to Israel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's assuming that 67 borders would bring peace. Israel knows they won't, there was no reason to build the wall on the 67 borders rather than the current de-facto borders.

- - - Updated - - -

Most Israelis will accept peace/67 borders--it's just they know that 67 borders won't bring peace. Why should they make huge concessions for no benefit?

Indeed. Israelis are unwilling to make concessions whatsoever, because they don't believe in peace. It's the Israeli desire to keep the spoils of war that fuels the war, not any Palestinian position.

If the borders were acceptable to Israel, they might as well concede them even for a chance to have peace.

Your reasoning is akin to me stealing your wallet, and then rejecting your offer not to call the cops if I give the wallet back on the basis that I don't believe you. Why should I make "huge concessions for no benefit" by giving you back what lawfully belongs to you, on the off chance that you might still get me in trouble for my thievery?

Spend something like their GDP for a basically 0% chance of peace? They're not that stupid.

And why should I give your wallet back to you? I'm not that stupid!

The fact that Israel has stolen so much land, and continues to do so without much handicap means it benefits greatly from war. Israel perpetuates the conflict because war is more profitable to them than peace. This will not change until Israel can beat Palestinians into submission (not likely to happen any time soon), or if Palestinians can escalate the conflict to the point that the cost of war exceeds the perceived cost of peace to Israel.

In other words, Israel should simply give up the only negotiating card it has for no gain.

Any Israeli government that tries something that stupid is going to be promptly voted out of office.

 

[untermensche]

In other words, Israel should simply give up the only negotiating card it has for no gain.

Any Israeli government that tries something that stupid is going to be promptly voted out of office.

Crimes are not negotiating cards.

But Israel is mad with power. It has been abusing the Palestinians so long it thinks it is a god given right.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, Israel should simply give up the only negotiating card it has for no gain.

Any Israeli government that tries something that stupid is going to be promptly voted out of office.

Crimes are not negotiating cards.

But Israel is mad with power. It has been abusing the Palestinians so long it thinks it is a god given right.

Strange how your side is unwilling to address this point. You want Israel to make concessions but don't ask anything of the Palestinians.

 

[Arctish]

Crimes are not negotiating cards.

But Israel is mad with power. It has been abusing the Palestinians so long it thinks it is a god given right.

Strange how your side is unwilling to address this point. You want Israel to make concessions but don't ask anything of the Palestinians.

Returning stolen property isn't a concession.

Recognizing a border that means giving up land that under international law rightfully belongs to you is a huge concession. Why is it you refuse to acknowledge this concession the Palestinians offer Israel? Could it be that you think Israel has the right to steal land and resources from its neighbors?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Strange how your side is unwilling to address this point. You want Israel to make concessions but don't ask anything of the Palestinians.

Returning stolen property isn't a concession.

Recognizing a border that means giving up land that under international law rightfully belongs to you is a huge concession. Why is it you refuse to acknowledge this concession the Palestinians offer Israel? Could it be that you think Israel has the right to steal land and resources from its neighbors?

But the Palestinians aren't expected to return the land they stole ("East Jerusalem"--really, just the part of Jerusalem they managed to seize and ethnically cleanse.)

 

[Arctish]

Returning stolen property isn't a concession.

Recognizing a border that means giving up land that under international law rightfully belongs to you is a huge concession. Why is it you refuse to acknowledge this concession the Palestinians offer Israel? Could it be that you think Israel has the right to steal land and resources from its neighbors?

But the Palestinians aren't expected to return the land they stole ("East Jerusalem"--really, just the part of Jerusalem they managed to seize and ethnically cleanse.)

The Palestinians are expected to compromise on Jerusalem. You expect it, I expect it, the Israelis and the US expect it, and the international community expects it. Good thing the Palestinians have already indicated their willingness to compromise, huh?

Now, what are the Israelis expected to compromise on (keeping in mind that returning stolen property isn't a compromise)?

 

[angelo]

That was the result of the USA meddling ignorantly in the region. Arafat was an asshole ex-pat who had been living in Tunisia and slipping into obscurity at the time. The Intifada was all about raising up actual Palestinians living in the region as new leaders, so as to bypass the increasingly irrelevant PLO. Clinton stupidly resurrected Arafat's political career. My Palestinian friends at the time were groaning in frustration over the whole deal - not one of them had any respect for Arafat.

So yeah, Arafat and his murderous greedy thugs would never, ever have reached an agreement with Israel. But he's dead, and the PLO is dissolved. The P.A. is made up of Palestinians who actually live there, and under Abu Mazen (Abbas), the P.A. has since agreed to 90% of what Israel wants. Unfortunately, they are no longer dealing with Rabin, who actually wanted a peace deal, but with Netanyahu, who has nothing but disdain for the P.A., and wants to simply annex the West Bank

Both sides have been willing to reach a deal at different times. Both sides have been intractable at different times. Now both sides are pointing at the other and saying "they refuse(d) to negotiate in good faith!"

I was living over there during Rabin's presidency, and I was furious with Clinton for propping up that asshole Arafat. I interviewed some of the leaders of the Intifada, along with numerous members of Rabin's coalition. The whole cluster-fuck was completely avoidable, but Clinton took the easy road to a Presidential legacy instead of the harder road to actual peace. He fucked Israel and the Palestinians in the ass, all for the sake of a photo-op on the White House lawn.

- - - Updated - - -

That Palestinians are willing to negotiate. It's just a front to the West. Different for local consumption.

The same can be said for the current gov't of Israel.

No, it cannot. Bibi has no intention of negotiating in good faith. He's a Greater Israel proponent.

The US can't do anything straight can they? damned if they do damned if they don't right?

- - - Updated - - -

But the Palestinians aren't expected to return the land they stole ("East Jerusalem"--really, just the part of Jerusalem they managed to seize and ethnically cleanse.)

The Palestinians are expected to compromise on Jerusalem. You expect it, I expect it, the Israelis and the US expect it, and the international community expects it. Good thing the Palestinians have already indicated their willingness to compromise, huh?

Now, what are the Israelis expected to compromise on (keeping in mind that returning stolen property isn't a compromise)?

Palestinians compromise? Are you serious or having a lend of me?