International Criminal Court says it has jurisdiction in Palestinian territories

[Sujo]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think most posters on this topic are bashing Israel, but didn't actually count. A couple seem to be on the vocal side echoing Netanyahu's words.

 

As said above, given previous investigations and general stance by UN bodies, it's legit for some to be weary of the investigation or doubt it to be impartial, even-handed or effective. Wouldn't know that it's about 'justice' or that it 'justice' can even be defined in this mess.

 

IMO, the court is treading a difficult line between the legal and the political.

No, its doing its job.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No idea what that has to do with anything. Icc can investigate any country, member or not.

 

If the country refuses to cooperate thats up to them. 

 

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).

[Tarteso]

49 minutes ago, Morch said:

may wish to get better informed before posting

If it helps for your knowledge;  The borders with Lebanon, Syria and Jordan are based on those drawn up by the United Kingdom and France, in anticipation of the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I.

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

As said, previous investigation and the manner in which other UN bodies treat Israel make Israel's point of view at least partially credible. You wish to ignore past instances, or claim they were all objective and righteous, that is, of course, your choice.

 

I'm not sure how you mean 'cannot complain'. If that was some reference to a legal/appeal process, Israel is  not even a member of the ICC so that's out. If you meant the PR front, anyone can complain about anything.

 

The ICC gives it's findings to the UN, not up for international public opinion. This might serve to explain Israel being weary.

 

What's crazy about stating bias when the bias was expressed many a time?

Israel just refuses to cooperate so cannot cry foul if a decision is bad for them.

 

any report is definitely up for international public opinion. Thats the only way things will change, by international public opinion.

[Pattaya Spotter]

12 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No idea what that has to do with anything. Icc can investigate any country, member or not.

I believe that's what I said: "The ICC can do whatever it likes..."

 

These international civil servant types have to find something to waste time and taxpayer money on to justify their existence,  because everyone knows nothing will come of any American investigation.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Pattaya Spotter

[Sujo]

3 minutes 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).

Which will be the fault of those not cooperating. If they refuse then they cannot complain.

[Sujo]

Just now, Pattaya Spotter said:

I believe that's what I said: "The ICC can do whatever it likes..." These international civil servant types have to find something to waste time and taxpayer money on.

Its not a waste, its called doing their job. The waste would be to do nothing.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No, its doing its job.

 

That's your opinion.

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, Tarteso said:

If it helps for your knowledge;  The borders with Lebanon, Syria and Jordan are based on those drawn up by the United Kingdom and France, in anticipation of the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I.

 

If it helps your education, a whole lot happened since. Further, this isn't even what the topic is about.

[Sujo]

7 minutes 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).

In criminal cases a defendant has a right to say nothing. Lots refuse to give testimony or evidence. 

 

Yet there is no issue with a court making a finding on incomplete evidence in those cases despite not having full evidence.

 

Same here. Any party can cooperate or not. The court makes a finding on the evidence it has. Its their own fault if they get an adverse finding because they didnt cooperate.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

That's your opinion.

Thats fact.

[Rimmer]

Off topic post trying to drag Uyghurs  ito the topic has been removed

[stevenl]

19 minutes 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).

Both israel and Hamas will not cooperate and cry foul over the findings against them, while most thinking people will know the rulings will be justified.

But both israel and Hamas will be more than willing to accept the findings against the other party.

[Tarteso]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

If it helps your education, a whole lot happened since. Further, this isn't even what the topic is about.

Although I understand and appreciate your answers, it gives the impression that you despise my comments .. I answered a comment about the borders of Israel, it is History and it is absolutely linked to OP.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Israel just refuses to cooperate so cannot cry foul if a decision is bad for them.

 

any report is definitely up for international public opinion. Thats the only way things will change, by international public opinion.

 

Israel will certainly cry foul regardless. Not sure I get your point on this one.

 

As for the comment on international public opinion, I guess it indicates that you're more focused on the PR (or propaganda, whatever) value, rather than the legal aspect.

[Morch]

56 minutes ago, Sujo said:

In criminal cases a defendant has a right to say nothing. Lots refuse to give testimony or evidence. 

 

Yet there is no issue with a court making a finding on incomplete evidence in those cases despite not having full evidence.

 

Same here. Any party can cooperate or not. The court makes a finding on the evidence it has. Its their own fault if they get an adverse finding because they didnt cooperate.

 

I doubt you're much of legal expert. International law is not similar to criminal law, and anyway there are local variations to the latter. I don't know if you're familiar with previous reports following investigations carried out under similar conditions. A whole lot of the complaints and cases cannot be properly verified. For propaganda matters it's irrelevant, as the testimonies hold, verified or not. For legal, or 'justice' purposes - this is less than adequate.

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Thats fact.

 

Nope. Your opinion.

If you wish to treat UN and other international bodies as free from politics etc., that's your choice.

[Morch]

52 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Both israel and Hamas will not cooperate and cry foul over the findings against them, while most thinking people will know the rulings will be justified.

But both israel and Hamas will be more than willing to accept the findings against the other party.

 

Yes. And I guess you'll see the same when this will be discussed on here sometime in the future.

[Morch]

52 minutes ago, Tarteso said:

Although I understand and appreciate your answers, it gives the impression that you despise my comments .. I answered a comment about the borders of Israel, it is History and it is absolutely linked to OP.

 

I think that there is no need to drag up the whole history of the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict whenever anything semi-related is discussed. The comments made on Israel's borders were not relevant to the OP. They could have been, if they were addressing the issue of the court's jurisdiction, but that's not the case.

 

And another point - borders usually got two sides to them. Whatever you go on about as "the borders of Israel" are ultimately the borders of other countries (current or future). I don't see you having a go at Israel's neighbors for, allegedly, not having fixed borders.

 

I totally get it that many people are opposed to and upset by Israel's ongoing policies and actions with regard to the Palestinians. To a large extent, there's a sound basis for much of the criticism. Where it breaks down (for me) is when folks treat the other side as unaccountable for anything, or when the exaggeration and outright hatred cloud fact and reason. 

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Previous international investigations along similar lines failed to either actually investigate or seriously condemn the other side, focusing on Israel instead. Since the Hamas is not about to fully cooperate in any transparent way, why assume this is more than lip service?

 

Quite amusing though. Had the investigation been called off, or if findings fail to reach your standard of Israel hatred, I'm pretty sure the court would not receive quite the high regard exhibited above. Similarly, can already imagine the criticism on court's rulings with regard to the Hamas, if these won't be mild enough to ignore.

>>Since the Hamas is not about to fully cooperate in any transparent way, why assume this is more than lip service?

And Israel has vowed not to cooperate in any way!

 

It should be pretty easy to document Hamas's indiscriminate firing of rockets into civilian areas.

 

Equally easy to investigate would be Israel firing shells and missiles into identified civilian buildings, at children playing football on a beach, families murdered while holding white flags trying to seek safety, medics targeted by snipers positioned behind double steel fences and paraplegics whose crime was waving Palestiinian flags by the Gaza fence.

As you agreed above, the war crime of Israel illegally transferring its own population to occupied Palestinian land is well documented.

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You said the borders are recognized, they are not. It's not about a contradiction, just a correction. In reality, most views are that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are Palestinian lands.

 

Israel's position as the occupying power is complicated due to the stalled peace process and the Oslo accords. These afforded the Palestinian a measure of self-rule, effectively and legally making Israel responsible for some things, but not all. Nowadays that's mostly applicable to the West Bank. The situation in the Gaza Strip is even more complicated, given Hamas's stance and it's split with the Palestinian Authority.

 

As mentioned earlier, and on many similar topics, the blockade on the Gaza Strip is in a large part a product of Hamas actions and policies. Also, it is effectively maintained by Egypt as well, on their side of the border - including maritime traffic.

The Oslo Accords of 1993 (28 years ago!) and 1995 were supposed to lead to a full Palestinian state within 5 years ending what is now 54 years of an illegal Israeli occupation. So don't hide behind them as some sort of temporary complication.

[dexterm]

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. 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>Since the Hamas is not about to fully cooperate in any transparent way, why assume this is more than lip service?

And Israel has vowed not to cooperate in any way!

 

It should be pretty easy to document Hamas's indiscriminate firing of rockets into civilian areas.

 

Equally easy to investigate would be Israel firing shells and missiles into identified civilian buildings, at children playing football on a beach, families murdered while holding white flags trying to seek safety, medics targeted by snipers positioned behind double steel fences and paraplegics whose crime was waving Palestiinian flags by the Gaza fence.

As you agreed above, the war crime of Israel illegally transferring its own population to occupied Palestinian land is well documented.

 

My post was in response to your  comment about the investigation looking into both sides. As both parties mentioned deny cooperation, what's available are testimonies and media reports. There are way more of these covering Israel's actions - for reasons of inherent bias, Israel placing less curbs on reporting, and human right groups/activists practically non-existent as far as Hamas actions etc. are concerned.

 

It is possible to review documentation of rocket hits launched from the Gaza Strip. Attributing them directly to the Hamas is not so simple. They can always deny, or claim it was some other organization - as they often do. This can be addressed by treating the Hamas as responsible for all rockets launched from the Gaza Strip, as it is the de-facto sovereign power, but as I recall from your posting history, not an acceptable position.

 

I will remind you that some of the cases you allude to above, were discussed on separate topics at the time. Several, in which you were as vehement as expected, turned out to be other than advertised. Obviously, you do not consider the Hamas responsible for anything related to the violence associated with them protests, nor see it as responsible for safeguarding the lives of those under his rule. We'll have to remain split on this one.

[stevenl]

26 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think that there is no need to drag up the whole history of the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict whenever anything semi-related is discussed. The comments made on Israel's borders were not relevant to the OP. They could have been, if they were addressing the issue of the court's jurisdiction, but that's not the case.

 

And another point - borders usually got two sides to them. Whatever you go on about as "the borders of Israel" are ultimately the borders of other countries (current or future). I don't see you having a go at Israel's neighbors for, allegedly, not having fixed borders.

 

I totally get it that many people are opposed to and upset by Israel's ongoing policies and actions with regard to the Palestinians. To a large extent, there's a sound basis for much of the criticism. Where it breaks down (for me) is when folks treat the other side as unaccountable for anything, or when the exaggeration and outright hatred cloud fact and reason. 

You may think there is no need, but answering a post from someone else about this makes sense. Especially since it is relevant to the topic.

 

You're deflecting.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, dexterm said:

The Oslo Accords of 1993 (28 years ago!) and 1995 were supposed to lead to a full Palestinian state within 5 years ending what is now 54 years of an illegal Israeli occupation. So don't hide behind them as some sort of temporary complication.

 

Yawn. And how many years worth of posting have you raised this bogus argument? The Palestinians could have (and still can) withdrawn from the Oslo Accords, announce independence, returned control to Israel or whatever. The fact remains that they chose to stay within this framework.

 

Like it or not, the existence of the Palestinian Authority implies that Israel is not fully responsible for all aspects of Palestinian lives. Same goes for the state of things in the Gaza Strip. There's a limit to how much you can dissociate the Palestinian from any form of accountability.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, dexterm 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.

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

 

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

 

Yes, it could. If memory serves, just reaching this point can take years on years. And then it's up to individual countries to follow up on these arrests. The record on past cases is not stellar.

[Sujo]

41 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I doubt you're much of legal expert. International law is not similar to criminal law, and anyway there are local variations to the latter. I don't know if you're familiar with previous reports following investigations carried out under similar conditions. A whole lot of the complaints and cases cannot be properly verified. For propaganda matters it's irrelevant, as the testimonies hold, verified or not. For legal, or 'justice' purposes - this is less than adequate.

 

 

No not much of a legal expert. 20 years as a prosecutor but gave it away about a decade ago.

 

icc is a court that decides criminal matters.

 

if a party fails to cooperate then decisions are made on the facts provided. Thats how all courts work.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You may think there is no need, but answering a post from someone else about this makes sense. Especially since it is relevant to the topic.

 

You're deflecting.

 

No, I'm not. You're just butting in without reading the topic, probably.

I have addressed the issue on this topic, and certainly on many past ones.

The borders issue, especially those specifically mentioned is not much on topic.

[dexterm]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Yawn. And how many years worth of posting have you raised this bogus argument? The Palestinians could have (and still can) withdrawn from the Oslo Accords, announce independence, returned control to Israel or whatever. The fact remains that they chose to stay within this framework.

 

Like it or not, the existence of the Palestinian Authority implies that Israel is not fully responsible for all aspects of Palestinian lives. Same goes for the state of things in the Gaza Strip. There's a limit to how much you can dissociate the Palestinian from any form of accountability.

Israel controls 100% of Palestinian lives right down to their birth register. Nothing can happen between the Jordan river and the Sea without Israel's permission. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

 

 

[Sujo]

44 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Nope. Your opinion.

If you wish to treat UN and other international bodies as free from politics etc., that's your choice.

I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

 

they are doing their job, thats fact. Failure to investigate would not be doing their job.