dexterm

1 hour ago, donnacha said:

Good to see that her brutal captors are keeping her well-supplied with expensive make-up.

 

Which would you prefer: expensive make-up or freedom?

Other countries UK, EU, USA, Israel have vested interests in Dubai, that they aren't prepared to jeopardize for the sake of the human rights of the sheik's daughters.

The sheik is concerned about saving face, hence the ruse in December 2018 inviting the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Irish President Mary Robinson to lunch to verify Latifa was OK. Robinson had been told Latifa was mentally ill.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56085369

Perhaps the way to go is to shame the sheik. He's a big race horse owner. Snub him socially, starting with the Queen turning her back on him at Royal Ascot. The other Emirates, especially the wealthiest Abu Dhabi, won't like the adverse PR. Individuals could also demonstrate their disapproval by boycotting Dubai as a holiday destination along with the Sheiks' airline Emirates.

23 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Genocide is defined as "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group".

 

That is certainly not what Israel is practising.

There may well be cases arising from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, but they should be viewed in the context that those lands were occupied as a result of wars fought whilst Israel was threatened with genocide, that being the stated war aim of a number of not all the combattant Arab states, certain of which, along with the Palestinian movements they support, have never abandoned that aim.

 

 

You are cherrypicking your definitons.
You don't have to kill every last person to commit genocide. You do realise that nonsense argument is also used by Holocaust deniers; Jews survived so it couldn't have happened.

Definition of genocide : 
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide

The transfer of a population to the West Bank and Jerusalem that the ICC is investigating, the Zionist ethnic cleansing of half the Palestinian population to engineer a phony Jewish majority and Israel's Nation State Law, as Netanyahu acknowledges:   "Israel is not a state of all its citizens. According to the basic nationality law we passed, Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people - and only it."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47524518

These are all genocidal attempts to destroy Palestinian lives, culture, and identity 

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

No. That's your usual spin. My point is different.

 

This is a discussion forum. You're treating it like a propaganda arena.

 

Complaining about other posters (misrepresented) views, while openly engaging in a hyper biased manner is hypocritical.

 

Also, your rhetoric is almost always over the top. As in the post above.

 

 

 

There are two sides to a debate. One is not obliged to argue both, especially if I regard one side, Zionism as positively evil. I'm not going to play the   there are fine people on both sides    schtick, just to please you.

36 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

As pointed out several times on this topic, it seems that some posters are under some illusions as to the ICC's powers, efficacy or reach. That's often coupled with a strong emphasis on the potential PR/propaganda value of the investigation, rather than it's actual legal results or impact on the parties involved (never mind the conflict itself). It is also noted, that those repeatedly going on about the court investigating both sides, often focus their comments on Israel's supposed crimes, and wished for punishment.

 

Now for the "points" above...

 

The ICC will not, and can not, 'defend' anyone. It does not have any troops, power of enforcement, or authority when it comes to such matters. Further, cases investigated are limited in span. That is, the investigation will look into events in a defined time, and that's it. There won't be any ongoing, endless investigation looking into future issues. That would require a new petition, with the whole process starting over. As far as I'm aware, the ICC is not in the habit of accepting such further complaints.

 

If there are arrest warrants issued, they will be limited in number. Cases usually focus on relatively high level figures, and that too, is subject to countries cooperating to actually arrest anyone. There's a fine tradition of failing to do so. As with the previous comment, this is unlikely to effect future (or even current) holders of such posts, due to the nature of ICC investigations.

 

I don't think there's a shortage of Propaganda efforts pushing the Palestinian narrative, certainly not on these topics, for example. That you see it otherwise is amusing, if hypocritical.

 

Give the Palestinian 'state' more credibility? Which state would that be? The one headed by the Palestinian Authority (which you seem to claim doesn't do anything)? The one headed by the Hamas (and supposedly under investigation as well)? How would it reflect on the Palestinian 'state' if it failed to arrest Hamas leaders in case they are sought for trial by the ICC?

 

Your last comment an example is bogus. The guy was not shot for it being illegal to wave a Palestinian flag. Further, the actual circumstances of the shooting are less than clear. Even the Hamas backed down some on this one since. It was discussed, at length, on several topic back when (with your participation).

1. You don't need troops to "defend" someone (another of your strawmen) But the ICC can point out the illegality of the  occupation...which is quite broad when you regard all the concommitent apparatus to achieve that: extrajudicial murders, land theft, ethnic cleansing, human rights abuses, and apartheid laws, roads, walls, and all the other separate and unequal trappings.

2. Then the war criminals had better get used to the Tel Aviv and Gaza beaches. Imprisonment would be preferable but metaphoric will do. 

3. The negative PR must be upsetting Israel. Otherwise why would they so vehemently want to silence the ICC investigation.

4. As of 31 July 2019, 138 of the 193 United Nations member states and two non-member states have recognised Palestine. The ICC investigation is another example of legitimacy. I expect if the PA failed to arrest Hamas war criminals, they would garner a similar reaction to Israel's failure to arrest the guilty, except in Israel's case it has all the state power to do so, but would be deliberately refusing to act.

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Thanks for making my point - that you are not here for an open discussion. All you've got to offer is vehement, one-sided rhetoric. It is not 'propaganda' to discuss issues reflecting in an uncomplimentary way on the Palestinians.

That's because it's a one sided conflict.

You, basically support Zionism, with a few disingenuous crumbs in order to appear objective. Whereas I regard Zionism as a racist supremacist ideology..the cancer at the core of the entire conflict.  And I have also learnt that if you give Zionist apologists an inch, they will take a mile.

I am hoping that the ICC investigation will lay bare the racist basis of Zionism, that the minority Israeli Jewish population are practising apartheid against the majority indigenous Palestinian population through a 54 year old supposedly temporary illegal occupation. Which is a war crime. I'd go even further to state that Zionists are guilty of the war crime of genocide, in ethnically cleansing the majority of Palestinians from their homeland, refusing them the right of return and trying to erase all traces of their history, culture and presence within historic Palestine.

On 2/7/2021 at 9:25 PM, Morch said:

 

"I don't think he does..."

 

OK, that was funny. In case you're not familiar with the poster, this is someone who refuses to discuss the any aspect, whatsoever, reflecting negatively on the Palestinian side. In the same way, he basically refuses to acknowledge that any form of accountability may be attributed to them.

 

Now, as for you feeling I over-complicate stuff - I'm sure it sounds that way, basically because it is this way.

 

The Palestinians have a right to a state of their own. Not argument there. Then come all the conditions (there are more, but whatever) you mention, and by your own words, recognize aren't likely to come about from both sides. So saying the solution is simple is not quite how things are, is it?

 

When various parties and politicians talk about peace, they usually mean peace according to their terms or agenda. This applies to both sides. I don't think that, on a leadership level, there's a whole lot of difference on this score. It's more about 'their' version of peace, rather than peace per se. Hardliners on both sides make things even worse, to the point that even a reasoned negotiation is too loaded an issue. Same goes for the rhetoric accompanying all of this.

 

Saying they ought to do this, that and the other to achieve peace is a simplistic take on things. Plus, any peace achieved will likely be a rather tense one, with a lot of tit-for-tat on any small issue. There won't be any holding hands and chanting. 

 

Israel's illegal settlement effort is wrong, and a definite obstacle to peace. It is also, under international law, a war crime. It is doubtful that a ruling by the ICC will change anything as far as resolving the conflict goes, or that it will significantly change the picture with regard to Israel's international relations. That's just not how conflicts are brought to an end.

>>In case you're not familiar with the poster, this is someone who refuses to discuss the any aspect, whatsoever, reflecting negatively on the Palestinian side. In the same way, he basically refuses to acknowledge that any form of accountability may be attributed to them.
... of course the Palestinians have made mistakes. 20:20 hindsight is wonderful counsel. But it has never been a level playing field. The Zionists are the invaders, the brutal illegal occupiers with all the powerful weapons, not the other way around.

Why should one do Israel's dirty propaganda work for it to bolster the false equivalence.. They are quite capable of doing that for themselves.

24 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

So you offer nitpicking to justify your deflections? Routine by now.

 

What you call quibbling was the essence of the OP - in other words, the issue of the courts' jurisdiction. Had the decision gone the other way, there would have been no investigation. I doubt you would have seen it as 'quibbling' and a minor issue if that was the case.

 

Kindly stop with your nonsense attempts to associate my views with these of Netanyahu's cabinet or the Hamas. As for me being  'afraid' that's just another one of your low class acts. I can understand and discuss why parties would reject the court's authority, you are, instead, focused of bogus false moralizing. Pathetic.

Unconvincing waffle. Your strawman just burnt down.

Looks pretty much like you are very keen to see this ICC investigation go away, just as other investigations into Israel's war crimes have been swept under the carpet ..you say it's biased, illegitimate, political, a witch hunt against one side, then throw in a pinch of whataboutery.

I'm fairly certain Netanyahu and Hamas would applaud your specious points.

How about a simple question? If someone has committed some terrible war crime or abuse of human rights, whoever they are, wouldn't you like to see them face justice one day?

If not the ICC, how else are war crimes to be uncovered and prosecuted?

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Earlier, you practically denied the existence or function of the Palestinian Authority, claiming Israel controls all aspects of Palestinian lives. Now you hold that the Palestinian Authority is independent and can take action Israel objects to. Make up your mind.

 

Also, the Palestinian Authority does not have any real authority in the Gaza Strip (and that's been the case for over a decade). How does this work out, then? Is the Palestinian Authority answerable to potential Hamas crimes? Does this investigation implies that the Hamas is sovereign and on equal footing with the Palestinian Authority? Where does accountability lie? 

 

Had the Palestinian Authority's case been focused on the West Bank and war crimes related to the Israeli occupation it would make more sense. As it stands, there's no clear path with regard to responsibility or hierarchy that could be applied if Hamas is found to have committed war crimes.

 

This makes the will-investigate-both-sides a somewhat hollow construct.

Another strawman deflection.

I said even a person mugged and knocked to the ground can still cry "Help, police!"

As the Palestinian Authority did to the ICC.

You seem more interested in trolling about legal niceties, than a desire for justice for crimes committed against innocents. So nothing new there.

28 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Eh? You made the connection between democracy in accepting the ICC's authority/allowing investigations in several posts now. Amazing you deny this. Being a democracy does not imply accepting any foreign authority or accepting that a certain body is impartial. You're making up stuff.

 

Siding With Israel, Germany Says ICC Has No Jurisdiction in Palestinian Territories

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-germany-offers-to-join-deliberation-in-icc-case-on-israel-palestine-1.8532301

 

Germany, Hungary tell ICC they support Israeli position against war crimes probe

https://www.timesofisrael.com/berlin-joins-prague-in-supporting-israels-position-against-icc-probe/

 

There were other reports, of course, which were linked and discussed on previous topics dealing with this. But you already knew that, having partaken.

Still a strawman deflection.
Learn the difference between "prerequesite"...a term introduced by you, and "attribute".

The countries mentioned in your links actually support the ICC, but are simply quibbling over the legal niceties of whether the Palestine Authority represents a state or not, no doubt due to Israel's lobbying of them. That's all.

"In its filing, Germany noted it was “a staunch supporter of the International Criminal Court and its organs, and a leader of the fight against impunity.” It also noted that it has long been a proponent of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But, it argued, “The scope of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction pursuant to Article 12 of the Rome Statute does not extend to the occupied Palestinian territories. Article 12 of the Rome Statute presupposes that there is a “State” that has the ability under international law to delegate territorial jurisdiction to the Court with respect to the relevant cases."
https://www.timesofisrael.com/berlin-joins-prague-in-supporting-israels-position-against-icc-probe/

No, I'm pretty sure you and Netanyahu's cabinet and Hamas are the only ones afraid of the OP ICC investigation.

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'm not arguing the merits of not recognizing the ICC, that's a somewhat different issue. What I point out is that Israel is not unique in this regard, and that the ICC's authority is not universally accepted. Some posters on this topic try to paint a different picture. This to the degree of ignoring that the other party named rejects such investigations as well.

 

If you'd wish to argue the ICC's importance, it might be helpful to point that it did not/does not launch investigations into far worse instances of war crimes and/or crimes against humanity - some happening right next door to Israel. The point made on this topic and others is that Israel is a often a handy target. This does not mean Israel is innocent of wrongdoing, just that the focus on its actions, relative to others, is over the top.

 

As for the ICC investigating both sides - it is doubtful that the Hamas will cooperate, and it's obvious that the Palestinian Authority has no actual authority to enforce anything on the Hamas. Somehow posters on here ignore this and wave the fig leaf of both-sides-will-be-investigated. Previous instances of similar reports or investigations, claiming to review both sides' actions often came out as focusing on Israel as well.

 

Concerns and criticism along such lines is not limited to Israel, but was expressed by the USA and Western countries as well.

 I wish the ICC could investigate all war criminals in this world for their heinous crimes, be they Syrian, Russian, Chinese, American or whatever.

But they can only investigate complaints by member states or complaints endorsed by the Security Council, and USA, China, Russia etc would veto such.

"The ICC has limited jurisdiction in Syria as it is not a party to the Rome Statute (the ICC’s governing treaty). The only other means by which the ICC could investigate alleged crimes committed in Syria is via a United Nations Security Council referral."
https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/justice-syria-international-criminal-court/

But the Palestinian Authority is a party to the ICC. Hence they can bring a case against the illegally occupying state Israel, whether Israel is a member or not.

29 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You do realize that accepting the ICC's authority is not a prerequisite for a country being labeled democratic, right? The equivalence exists only in your mind.

 

Being the only democracy in the Middle East (if one accepts the premise), does not, indeed, imply it is a perfect democracy. Again, not complicated.

 

The ICC's authority is not recognized by other countries than Israel. The USA, China and Russia for quick reference. Investigations and reports by UN bodies on matters related to the conflict were criticized as being biased against Israel by Western countries, and UN chiefs. Concerns about the current investigations' bias was raised by the USA and several Western countries as well. So no, not just me.

>>You do realize that accepting the ICC's authority is not a prerequisite for a country being labeled democratic, right?
..strawman fallacy. You, not I, are the one inventing the definition of democracy with ICC acceptance being a prerequiste, because you can't defend Israel's censorship or brutal repression of human rights.

 I am saying that an attribute of an open, freedom loving democracy should be that it has nothing to hide or fear from an ICC investigation. 

>>Concerns about the current investigations' bias was raised by the USA and several Western countries as well. So no, not just me.
..links please for criticism of current investigation from western countries who have signed up to ICC.
 

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, your point is not 'proven'. You simply  took my comment out of context. Both sides will not cooperate with the investigation, you go on solely about one of them.

 

I don't think Israel portrays it's democracy in quite the rosy colors your assert, and doubt many would be taken in by it if that was the case.

 

Once again, you ignore the part where the body in question is not deemed to be impartial, objective or even handed. Or the fact that past investigations support this position.

 

What you dabble in are made up nonsense, one-sided narratives and deflections.

Israel's We are the only democracy in the Middle East when it suits its PR purposes, but push the "We may not be perfect.." routine when it doesn't.

Well, here's a chance to prove  the truth to the world. Fail.

>>Once again, you ignore the part where the body in question is not deemed to be impartial, objective or even handed.
...says who...you?

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

More deflections.

 

You cannot address a simple obvious point, and that is the fact that the Palestinians have a measure of self rule. As opposed to your all encompassing Israel-controls-everything, reality is different. The OP details an investigation launched due to the effort of the Palestinian Authority and quotes three Palestinian officials. According to your  narrative this should not be possible. Same goes for the Hamas - the war crimes which they are about to be investigated for would not be possible if Israel had full control.

 

I did not condemn or condone the rejection of the investigation by any side. I can accept that parties may see the ICC as not objective, biased and lacking authority. My issue is with views (such as yours) which focus solely on one side's rejection.

 

Israel will not allow ICC investigators to enter. That's already known. Egypt could allow them passage to the Gaza Strip, assuming the Hamas would let them in. Again, you're focused on just one of the sides. What a surprise.

>>Israel will not allow ICC investigators to enter. That's already known.

..Point proven.

We are an open, compassionate, freedom loving democracy..the only one in the Middles East we believe..not like Hamas. But sorry, freedom of speech is off the menu today.

We are not oppressive, but we forbid you to investigate our oppression. Got it.

1 hour ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Anti anti-semitism is definitely a "vested interest" I can get behind. 

Please point out what is anti Semitic about "vested interests"?

There are many lobby groups in USA. One of them is the powerful AIPAC, which promotes Israel's interests in US admin.

You are in danger of conflating legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

It means that the findings will not be based on full evidence, material and the like, therefore carrying less weight. It also means harder to take steps against people targeted by the investigation.

 

With regard to Trump's sanctions against ICC personnel, it goes even further (though probably out the door soon).

>>It means that the findings will not be based on full evidence, material and the like, therefore carrying less weight. It also means harder to take steps against people targeted by the investigation.

..and whose fault is that, if Israel refuse to cooperate?

The court could still find war criminals guilty and issue international arrest warrants.