dexterm

7 days with one test was a winner for me, fully vaccinated and from a low risk country, despite having to change my ticket and arrange additional transport.

14 days with 2 tests followed by additional expenses and travel is just not worth it for me personally.

I'll spend a fortnight in a Bangkok hotel watching Netflix, reading and computing followed by a 150 baht taxi ride to my condo.

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The ICC decision was not unanimous (as far as I recall), and there were ICC member countries disagreeing with it as well. So not 'my' objections, but rather more than that. I doubt that the next prosecutor is thrilled with this too.

 

The way these things go is like this - for diplomatic and international purposes, it is much easier to treat the PA as the official Palestinian representative. The fact that everyone knows the score is simply swept under the carpet. Reasons for that range from economic (acknowledging the issue would stop much of the international funds Palestinians are receiving), diplomatic (if not Abbas and the PA, who to talk to? Hamas can't be it as it's designated a terrorist group by many relevant countries), and practical (Israel finds it easier to deal with the PA on security issues, for example), among others. Hamas, by the way, sometimes says it recognizes the PA as the international representative, and sometimes not, as it suits.

 

What happened when this motion was dreamed up was that PA officials and politicians were pushing for it as a international opinion point scorer. PA legal advisors warned that Hamas actions would be investigated as well. The PA pressured Hamas to issue a statement it supports the move, recognizes the PA's authority in this manner and so on. Armed with that the motion was lodged, and that's part of the reason it was accepted. The fact that Hamas had no intentions of submitting to the PA, or cooperating with such investigations was just conveniently ignored. This was discussed, in length, on relevant topics back in the day.

>>The fact that Hamas had no intentions of submitting to the PA, or cooperating with such investigations was just conveniently ignored. 

On the contrary, Hamas welcomes the investigation. So it looks like Israel is the only one that objects to the ICC, because of course they have much to hide. Will Israel or the Egyptian dictator Sisi even allow ICC investigators entry into the West Bank or Gaza. Will supposedly democratic Israel prevent its own citizens from giving evidence? There's always Zoom and Skype I suppose.

Hamas also welcomed ICC decision to investigate into Israeli "war crimes" on and defended its actions as "legitimate resistance" on Wednesday.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/palestinian-authority-hamas-welcome-icc-decision-to-investigate-israel-660837

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The 'faction' in question (Hamas), won the last general elections (over 10 years ago). Polls consistently predict it will receive 40%-50% of the votes/seats if elections were to take place. Even without a clear majority, it is usually projected to be the largest party.

 

Also, the 'faction' in question is in possession of a rather impressive weapon arsenal, compared to that owned by the PA. Over the years, all negotiations toward reconciliation saw Hamas refusing to put its arms under the PA's control or scrutiny.

 

So yeah, when elections haven't been held for over a decade, and the 'faction' referred to is a rather significant one, then the PA's status as the representative of the Palestinians can (and is, including by Palestinians) be questioned.

 

Your attempt at equivalence doesn't hold. The PA is the government. Derived from that is that it is responsible for actions carried out by the people. The current situation is that the PA is on some instances treated as the government, and sometimes not. That's a dodgy legal and political position. Israel's government is fulfilling its role - not in accordance with the ICC and some posters' wishes, perhaps, but at least its consistent.

The ICC judges have examined the PA's credentials for statehood and given the go ahead for an investigation. So your technical objections would appear to be somewhat superfluous. Rather like attempting to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. 

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

I'm not sure what 'hypothetical strawmen game' you're on about. The Hamas does not intend to cooperate with the investigation. That is the reality now.

 

I'm pointing out that it can get even more complicated, if the Palestinian elections happen, and if Hamas becomes a partner in a unity government.

 

The PA, which initiated the legal proceedings, is nominally the government, but in effect it does not have power to enforce issues with, or control, the Hamas. So, in essence, the Palestinians initiated a legal move targeting their own people (yes, the Hamas are Palestinians too), while everyone is aware that they are in no position to do anything about it anyway.

 

If you feel that's a straightforward situation, or that no potential pitfalls (legal and otherwise) are involved, that's your choice. Simply going on another off-tangent deflection rant is not an answer.

I'm not so sure how it complicates the picture. Any government that has nothing to hide should not be afraid.

Interestingly a commentator on Al Jazeera's Inside Story mentioned that it is not outside the ICC brief to investigate any alleged war crimes committed by the PA too, alongside the IDF's and Hamas's.

Another interesting tidbit was that arrest warrants can be sealed, so indicted perpetrators may not know they are about to be arrested till they step off the plane. Lesson being I suppose: if you don't want to be arrested, don't commit war crimes.

27 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Here are some eye opening facts about Fata Bensouda the ICC Chief prosecutor...  In 1994, a military coup took place in the Gambia that led, without bloodshed, of veteran president and ruler Dwada Juwara and brought to power a general named Yahya Jama. Jama's lack of bloodshed and Jama's promise of far-reaching reforms have earned him a relatively warm attitude from the international community. 

Bensouda, who served as Deputy Attorney General during the coup, was promoted to Attorney General in 1996 and Minister of Justice in 1998. Under the new regime, Bensouda became the central figure in the justice system and her vigorous advocacy for women's and children's rights, encouraged by Jama, won her praise from the floor. Bensouda oversaw the new legislation that banned, under significant punishment, female circumcision and the marriage of minors. 
But Jama's regime very quickly disengaged from its reformist image and its true face began to emerge. While Bensouda is in office, a series of religious laws and Islamic regulations have begun to pass, along with the growing restriction of individual freedom in the country. Bensouda was fired as justice minister in 2000, and less than a month after her dismissal, a massacre of protesting students took place. Although the justice system investigated the killings, it took no action to punish those responsible. 

In the following years Jama's regime continued to deteriorate and the legal infrastructure it left behind in its foundation was used by the regime for serious persecution. Jama himself boasted that the country's religious laws were "more severe than those of Iran" and in 2007 called for "beheading homosexuals." On other occasions, the president called on his residents to slit the throats of gays and lesbians. 
Among the crimes committed by the Jama regime are the killing of illegal immigrants to the country, the arrest and torture of opponents of the regime and even the hunting of witches and wizards, which led to the execution of more than a thousand civilians on witchcraft charges. It is important to note that at these stages, the foundation itself has already screwed up at the top of the international legal community, but throughout its career until Jama's ouster in 2017, it refused to condemn the regime’s actions and remained a popular figure by the regime. 

NOW.. If this Bensouda want to prosecute anyone, let her start with her country before looking at other places...

More dirty tricks whataboutery with a hefty dollop of besmirch the messenger, exactly the same tactic Zionist apologists used in the previous international inquiry into Gaza led by Richard Goldstone, the respected South African jurist. The Zionist lobby's coup de grace was banning him from attending his grandson's Bar mitzvah.

"The mission concluded that Israel and Hamas had both potentially committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, findings which sparked outrage in Israel and the initiation of a personal campaign against Goldstone"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Goldstone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict#Statement_issued_by_other_members_of_UN_mission

Moreover the style of writing is far more sophisticated than your usual fare. I suspect it has been lifted wholesale from the Hasbara Project. They will be working overtime now to discredit Bensouda, and Karim Khan, her replacement in June. 

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Neither parties in this conflict are signatories to the ICC, nor are any of the nations that might be considered as ‘significant’ participants or politically invested in this conflict and/or supporters of the conflicted parties.

 

To put it another way  - non recognize the author of the ICC.

 

 

The Palestinian Authority is regarded as a state by the ICC. The PA initiated the complaint. That's why the investigation has been authorized.

All EU countries plus UK are members of the ICC. The EU is Israel's largest trading partner and a major donor to Palestinians.

Peace in the Middle East would create an incredible economic renaissance there,  prosperity for the EU right on the doorstep and a reversal of the refugee problem.

I think those are pretty significant factors.

Sanctions could have ended this conflict decades ago. 

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t disagree, but here’s my ‘divergence’ on the above:

 

The ICC can only fulfill the duties of a court where it has authority over those before it, the ICC has no authority over either party (or any other parties) in this conflict.

 

The ICC has therefore set on a course for a hiding for nothing - at stake is the ICC’s moral authority.

 

To give a simplistic analogy, we frequently read complaints here on TVF that a national justice system (pick one at random) does not deliver justice. The root of this complaint is invariably the complainants idea of what is a just outcome but also a recognition that the ‘miscreant’ might be beyond the reach of the courts. The inevitable outcome is to blame the courts.

 

This is precisely the mess the ICC is stepping into.

 

The ICC has no authority over either side of this conflict, will produce findings that are attacked by both sides and will not deliver justice  which is the primary purpose of courts.

 

The investigation is a fail before it starts, worse still it will provide both camps with propaganda.

 

I believe the ICC would be far better to stand witness to war crimes on both sides and hold these up to the international community to act.

 

The priority should be to bring the parties to a peaceful settlement, a ‘blame game’ is not going o help that happen.

 

[edit]

 

Given the ICC’s lack of authority over both sides it is blatantly obvious the ICC is acting beyond its authority.

 

Establish a non judicial commission to record war crimes and place these findings before the international community.

 

 

Maybe I have misunderstood your post, but all the ICC can do is expose the evidence, examine it, decide on guilt and issue arrest warrants. The judges are not the police force. If member countries refuse to enact the arrest warrants, they are the ones who are the cowards lacking moral authority.

"I believe the ICC would be far better to stand witness to war crimes on both sides and hold these up to the international community to act." Isn't that in effect exactly what it does?

"The priority should be to bring the parties to a peaceful settlement, a ‘blame game’ is not going to help that happen."

That's a separate issue..the job of a peace conference...an international one preferably because they have the carrots and sticks to apply to both sides.

11 hours ago, Morch said:

Here's another angle, maybe highlighting some issues with the petition and investigation.

 

Israel already said it will not cooperate with the ICC investigation, and I would guess that will apply too, if and when witnesses will be called or warrants for arrest issued. No surprises there. It should be noted that Israel is not a member of the ICC community, and does not recognize it's authority.

 

Now the other side of the fence is where things get complicated. The Palestinians have long been politically (and geographically) divided - the PA (effectively controlled by Fatah) rules the Palestinian areas in the West Bank, while the Hamas is the de-facto ruler of the Gaza Strip.

 

The petition to the ICC was initiated by the PA, but it is actions by Hamas which will be investigated for alleged war crimes. Hamas is unlikely to cooperate with the the investigation, or with measures taken against personnel charged with committing war crimes. Given that the PA does not hold any effective authority over the Hamas, and no effective means to coerce compliance, the PA and the ICC may find themselves in the odd position with the initiating party unable/unwilling to comply with the legal action it called for. I have no idea if there's relevant precedent or credible legal views on this matter.

 

To make things even more complicated, the Palestinian recently launched a new bid to hold general elections (something that's been put off for over a decade). If all goes as planned (no placing chips on that), then the Fatah and the Hamas may run a a joint "unity" party list (main purpose being blocking of potential competition from "independents"). If so, then the next Palestinian government would include Hamas representatives, and this while potentially not complying with ICC subpoenas etc.

So you are saying a hypothetical PA/Hamas union may end up doing what Israel has already done in previous inquiries and promises to do in this ICC one too..refuse to testify. IMO a foolish move that undermines credibility and any moral high ground.

Hamas's war crimes are pretty easy to document. I'm sure every rocket fired indiscriminately has been recorded.
Israel's war crime of transferring its own population into occupied territory with illegal settlements are plain facts on the ground. Try Google Earth.
There are other sources. Breaking the Silence ex IDF members have already stated how after a couple of hours of bombing Gaza in built up civilian areas, they had orders to shoot anything that still moved.

https://jfjfp.com/the-only-sure-fire-way-not-to-be-accused-of-war-crimes-is-simply-not-to-commit-them/

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Is that your swerve, to pick up on ‘formatting’ quotations.

 

The question asked is clear.

So how do you quote someone's actual words, if you are claiming they said something they did not?

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I have quoted the relevant part of your post twice. And I think you're still dodging the point made and question asked.

 

In your post, you comment about Israel's image being adversely effected by the investigations' results. I am curious as to why the same expectation is not expressed with regard to the Palestinian side, given that alleged war crimes committed by them are investigated as well.

Codswallop.
When you quote another member's words, use quotation marks or special formatting.
You simply paraphrase your strawmen fantasies. Highly dishonest.

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

That's just pointless moralizing. And not even a clear one.

 

Other than in alternative realities, was there ever any indication powerful nations will let go of their power? So far there's no World government, and until then, we'll have to wait for history to take it's course - with people bonding in ever larger frameworks. Not in our lifetimes, unless some super-calamity comes on, perhaps.

 

And then, of course, there's the less gloomy way of looking at things - it's 2021, and war crimes can be prosecuted on an international level. Unthinkable a couple of centuries back.

 

Might is not right. But it is what it is, simply whining about it doesn't change facts. Ignoring reality is an option.

The old "it is what it is"; it's all in the too hard basket routine, which conveniently sweeps war crimes and any investigation under the rug.

But that's your schtick.

I prefer to be proactive
“It always seems impossible until it's done.” ― Nelson Mandela

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

My comment was about the last two paragraphs of that post.

 

As in when you allege the investigation results would have a negative impact on Israel's image, while at the same time earning the Palestinians greater legitimacy. Since the investigation will supposedly investigate war crimes allegations on both sides, it is not clear why you think that the Palestinians will not be similarly effected in a negative manner.

If you ever bothered to quote what I wrote or even read it more slowly. My post...
"It gives the Palestinian state legitimacy, as a recognised party to the ICC, which irks Israel bearing in mind it is not that long ago that it was illegal and a shootable offense even to wave the Palestinian flag."

i.e the very fact that the ICC launched the investigation having satisfied itself that Palestine has the necessary attributes of a state is progress in itself ...nothing to do with any adverse findings re the IDF or Hamas, being better for one side or the other.

23 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

But then its more of an archive, less of a court. Also, with regard to future investigations, there might be calls for the ICC to 'record' war crimes rather than investigate them. Not saying it's not a worthy cause, but not the reason for the ICC's existence.

 

Claiming that the ICC has moral authority does not make it so - at least not with that many powerful countries representing a fair chunk of the World's population casting doubt on the proposition.

 

And to echo what you've said earlier - sides will bitterly complain anyway, even if it's "just" a record.

>>Claiming that the ICC has moral authority does not make it so - at least not with that many powerful countries representing a fair chunk of the World's population casting doubt on the proposition.

It's a very sad indictment of humanity if in 2021 war criminals can get away with murder simply because they have powerful friends, who can muddy the waters while having skeletons in their own cupboard.
Might is not right.

The ICC has got this far despite all obstacles, and the evidence will be presented.

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I was commenting on your post. ... Just so that it will be clear again -

 

In my very first post in this thread and repeated I wrote: "It will expose war crimes on both sides"

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

No deflection at all. As is the case with the other poster I was replying to, you make a general fig leaf comment, then the focus reverts to the usual agenda.

 

The deflection is yours. It was pointed out that for some reason you think (or hope) Israel's image will be negatively effected, while expecting the Palestinian side to benefit. Why wouldn't 'exposing' possible war crimes committed by the Palestinian hurt them? 

 

As for your expert take on legal matters, the example cited for an Israeli action would necessarily qualify as a war crime. That would depend on intent, circumstances and information available at the time. War crimes are not just any military action in which innocents get killed.

I have commented numerous times that I view the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and the Israeli settlement effort both, as illegal. The latter probably qualifying as a war crime as well, on the grounds of transferring civilian population to conquered areas being a no no. Addressed even on this topic. Whether the ICC investigation decides to go ahead with labeling as such and prosecuting is another matter.

 

Israel taking legal precautions to protect its officials is prudent. Bottom line, seems like it's a list of a few hundred people, guess being drawn on the cautious side, so effectively less than that are under any risk. As said, it's more of an inconvenience to those involved.

>> It was pointed out that for some reason you think (or hope) Israel's image will be negatively effected [sic], while expecting the Palestinian side to benefit. 

Quote exactly where you think I said that. If you cannot, it's a blatant lie.

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

My point is that neither side are going to accept criticism, hence the need for the investigation to be open and transparent.

 

But I don’t see achieving openness and transparency as the main challenge, there are other far more difficult issues to address.

 

As you rightly state, the legal basis for what constitutes a war crime needs to be demonstrated in each case.

 

For some cases this will be clear cut, for other cases the outcome of an action might warrant a charge of a war crime only if there is evidence of a command having been given/or withheld. I doubt either party will open their records to the investigation, so these cases will not be resolved.

 

I suspect the investigation will become a cataloguing exercise of clear cut war crimes and probable war crimes and of course with nobody actually held to account.

 

While I believe this investigation is long overdue I also believe there is a real danger of it not resolving any part of the conflict, only serving to provide ‘ammunition’ for on going tot for tat accusations.

 

Courts bring justice by compelling the offender to face justice for their action. The ICC has zero means to do this with either party(s) in this conflict.

Resolving the conflict is a separate issue and not within the brief of this ICC investigation. That's the job of politicians, in particular IMO outside pressure from other powerful countries with carrots and sticks.

The job of the ICC is to investigate and expose war crimes...that's the least we can do for the victims. The perpetrators cannot be allowed to think they can get away with war crimes with impunity.

The ICC does have some teeth and can issue arrest warrants. It's up to member countries to act upon those warrants if a war criminal enters their country. I don't know if there is a time limit on any warrants issued.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Biden administration is signaling its receptiveness to a bit of ‘jaw jaw’, which as Churchill observed is better than ‘war war’.

 

The ‘war war’ bit is, as you say unlikely anytime soon and with Biden’s administration openly stating receptiveness to a bit of ‘jaw jaw’ the likelihood of ‘war war’ is further reduced.

 

What a difference an election makes.

 

 

 

The war, if it happens, will be started by Israel and USA will feel obliged to support them. 

So what's next? If Biden refuses to return to the nuclear deal that Trump reneged on, in a sensible  incremental way as Iran suggests with EU intermediaries, who's going to prevent Iran's further enrichment of uranium with inspectors withdrawn as of 23 Feb?

19 minutes ago, vandeventer said:

It looks like Biden wants to make friends with our enemies, and enemies with our friends. Good move Joe you will make us all sleep better at night. I hope the job hasn't gone to your head as America needs you to do the right thing.

You do realize that 80,000 US troops are stationed throughout all the Gulf States, Syria, and Iraq. Neither they nor Joe Biden will be sleeping so easily, if his brinkmanship escalates into another war.

https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-01-09/after-recent-deployments-how-many-us-troops-are-in-the-middle-east

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No hogwash, that's how the world works. Even if you don't want to come to terms with it, better acknowledge it.

 

There was no 'personal attack', but a comment on your posting history in context. No mind reading involved either, just years' worth of familiarity with your posts and expressed views.

 

There is no obligation to offer solutions. That's not what these topics are for. Posters are free to comment on issues without pretending to be able to sort them out with simplistic nonsense notions.

 

Drama aside, no - the world is not watching all that closely, and this would probably won't be headline material by the next news cycle. Unless mistaken, that was pretty much the sum of the complaints raised by your and others.

Most of your posts are arrogantly and sarcastically critical of others' solutions, but you rarely offer answers yourself other than "That' how the world works" and it's all in the too hard basket. You seem more content to stalk and troll.

Don't confuse that fact that you are not interested in the woman's suffering, therefore no-one else can be either. The OP item was top of the BBC website and other news media. It is bound to get an airing on many TV channels today. I am sure the high society, royalty and aristocratic circles that the sheik moves in will now be more aware of how he abuses his daughter, and will ostracize him, which may have the effect of ending Maktoum's medieval parenting skills.
 

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

You seem to misguidedly think international politics is a level playing ground. It isn't. Countries routinely use whatever leverage they can get via differences in power, influence, and circumstances. Diplomacy does not imply that all is fair, transparent or just. Not sure where you got the notion from. Going on and on about it being unfair, and getting bogged in the who-goes-first, they-started-it and all that is fine, just not productive.

 

And again, the USA's signing of the JCPOA was problematic from the start. Obama did not quite have the necessary political support, yet went ahead with it anyway. The pitfalls were out in the open, discussed on various media outlets (even on this forum) well before the actual signing.

 

As for your closing comment, what would be Iran's motivation to alter its ways, policies or the JCPOA if they already got what they wanted? As a reminder,  it was acknowledged that the JCPOA was focused on Iran's nuclear activities, failing to address wider issues. It was considered as the best to could have been achieved under the prevailing circumstances at the time. 

>>Countries routinely use whatever leverage they can get via differences in power, influence, and circumstances. 
...countries routinely use their power and influnce to start wars too, then try to shut the door after the horse has bolted. The USA has a long track record of doing so.  Biden is playing a misguided game of brinkmanship.

Israel has already said it wants nothing to do with Biden's diplomacy, has heightened tensions by murdering an Iranian nuclear scientist, and suggested military action.

“It would appear that only crippling sanctions – keeping the current sanctions and even adding new sanctions – combined with a credible military threat that Iran fears – might bring Iran to real negotiations with Western countries that might ultimately produce a deal truly capable of preventing it breaking ahead [to nuclear arms],” Erdan [Israel’s ambassador to the US] said.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-may-not-be-part-of-strategy-if-us-returns-to-nuclear-deal/ar-BB1dJ1bK

You waffle over diplomacy as being bogged down. What's the big problem for the US to allow Iran to sell some oil, so long as Iran surrenders its recently created uranium metal and halts enrichment ..both deals same day. Then Iran surrenders its 20% enriched uranium, while US supports a request from Iran to the IMF for a loan to help deal with the Covid-19 pandemic? and so on until we are back to centrifuges destroyed and sanctions lifted. Objective achieved ...no nuclear weapons for Iran. Was so obvious to Obama, but not to someone like you who has a problem for every solution.

And of course if Israel starts a war, they will come whining to the US to help them out. Thousands of casualties on all sides, Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Israel, including US personel. based in the ME That's the risk Biden is taking.

Seems to me Biden is offering no hope of relief to Iran , so I don't blame Iran for returning to the status quo before Obama made a promise on the US behalf to end nuclear proliferation, the promis e thatTrump broke that promise. The whole world agreed the 2015 deal was working..apart from Trump and Israel and you!

Biden is playing a dangerous game that is so easy to resolve without suffering.

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

No disinformation, and the 'archives' will support my point. Your interest and comments on issues of human rights and the UAE increased significantly with recent regional political developments not to your liking. The 'archives' are my friend, and that's been demonstrated many times in the past.

 

I did not 'paper over' anything. You're treating this as something that's supposed to be treated here and now with maximum attention. Others may be of the opinion that there are other priorities, regional and global.

 

Its quite obvious you did not mean 'vested interests' in any neutral kind of way, but rather as criticism. Spin away. As for posting nonsense suggestions as 'practical' - guess it's a choice whether to treat these seriously. You're right to observe I do not engage in such nonsense. You're also right to expect criticism when doing so.

 

Obviously, no actual comment on the crux of things - that diplomacy, politics and international relations are not "nice", "fair" or even relate much (in practice) to moral/ideological notions.

Plenty of hogwash, personal attack having the miraculous ability to read my mind, and outright lies, but I notice you still offer no solution how to stop the father's abuse of his daughter, other than it is what it is.

I did offer a solution, and a practical one too. It's the same principle that Amnesty International operates under. The world is watching you Sheik Al Maktoum.