International Criminal Court says it has jurisdiction in Palestinian territories

[Morch]

35 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>> It does not explain how the Palestinians were able to set this investigation in motion if they are totally under Israel's control. 

..A person mugged and knocked to the ground still has the right to shout "Help, police!"

 

Israel's total control of the illegallly occupied territories even extends to them probably refusing to allow ICC investigators entry to talk to Palestinians. Trump did it. Wouldn't be surprised if his protege Netanyahu does so too.

"I'm not being an oppressive control freak, but I won't allow you to investigate my oppression"...oh the irony.

 

It may take a while for war criminals to be named and arrest warrants issued, but in the meantime much of Israel's dirty linen will be aired , which is a positive outcome.

 

You dodging and deflecting.

 

You claimed Israel controls every aspect of Palestinian life in all the relevant areas.

 

If that was so, Israel could have easily prevented (or at least, severely curtailed) the Palestinians efforts associated with the investigation. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

 

The Palestinian Authority is a fact. The Palestinian government is a fact. Palestinian supplied services are a fact. Palestinian levied taxes are a fact. Palestinian legal system is a fact. Palestinian security forces and media are a fact.

 

Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip, along similar lines, that's a fact too. So are rockets launched on Israel.

 

How are all these possible with Israel being in total control?

 

As for the cooperation part - not all countries are members of the ICC or recognize it's authority. Nothing special about that. I notice you do not express much fake outrage regarding the Palestinians (well, Hamas) rejecting such cooperation as well.

 

[KhaoYai]

Personally I'd like to see anyone who's commited war crimes prosecuted - anyone like to take a guess at the chances of Israel actually sending their people for trial if charged?

 

In my opinion the chance of that happening is about the same as the Israeli's returning any of the land they've stolen.  The international community has condemed them time and time again but its just words.  Until the USA stops backing Israel, there's not a cat in hell's chance of anything happening.

 

Biden has signalled a different relationship with Israel but when it comes to action, he won't have the majority needed to pass any change in policy - way too many vested interests in the USA.

[Pattaya Spotter]

29 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Biden has signalled a different relationship with Israel but when it comes to action, he won't have the majority needed to pass any change in policy - way too many vested interests in the USA.

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

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

The sort of the convulsed "explanation" expected. Well, if your claimed experience is irrelevant or not very significant to the matter at hand, why bring it up at all?

 

The rest of my post was a direct comment to your questions. Quite obviously, you're unable to address it. Not a first.

I didnt bring it up, you did. Perhaps go back and read your own post. I responded to your claim that i had had no legal experience. I never brought it up. You then claimed i was a self proclaimed legal expert.

 

So thats twice you have misrepresented and clearly wrong. Man up.

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

Personally I'd like to see anyone who's commited war crimes prosecuted - anyone like to take a guess at the chances of Israel actually sending their people for trial if charged?

 

In my opinion the chance of that happening is about the same as the Israeli's returning any of the land they've stolen.  The international community has condemed them time and time again but its just words.  Until the USA stops backing Israel, there's not a cat in hell's chance of anything happening.

 

Biden has signalled a different relationship with Israel but when it comes to action, he won't have the majority needed to pass any change in policy - way too many vested interests in the USA.

 

In case you missed it, the investigation will look into possible war crimes committed by Israelis and Palestinians. Somehow your criticism is reserved to only one of the sides. No questions raised regarding compliance there. Same goes for repeated condemnations of Palestinian terrorism etc. - did these have much effect on Hamas policy?

 

There is no scenario in which the results of the investigation lead to major developments. Certainly not on the level of territorial issues. That's not what the investigation is for and not what it's about. It will surely be used to support the rhetoric associated with agendas, but it's scope is not all-encompassing, and the authority of the ICC (even as far as countries who recognize it go) doesn't extend into international relations on this level.

 

Biden did really signal what you claim. I think it was clear he'll go back to how things were before Trump. The voices in the Democrat Party calling for a tougher line vs. Israel are, effectively, insignificant. At least for now. Recent comments and actions on both the ICC investigation and the Jerusalem Embassy support this point of view.

[Rimmer]

A baiting post has been removed

[tonbridgebrit]

20 hours ago, Morch said:

 

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

Morch, how the borders got put there in the first place, we're talking history here, well, to suggest that this is important is putting it lightly.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, how the borders got put there in the first place, we're talking history here, well, to suggest that this is important is putting it lightly.

 

The OP is not about borders. The investigation is not about borders. The topic is not about history. The investigation is not about history. Things can be important but not directly relevant to a topic, Not too hard to comprehend.

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You dodging and deflecting.

 

You claimed Israel controls every aspect of Palestinian life in all the relevant areas.

 

If that was so, Israel could have easily prevented (or at least, severely curtailed) the Palestinians efforts associated with the investigation. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

 

The Palestinian Authority is a fact. The Palestinian government is a fact. Palestinian supplied services are a fact. Palestinian levied taxes are a fact. Palestinian legal system is a fact. Palestinian security forces and media are a fact.

 

Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip, along similar lines, that's a fact too. So are rockets launched on Israel.

 

How are all these possible with Israel being in total control?

 

As for the cooperation part - not all countries are members of the ICC or recognize it's authority. Nothing special about that. I notice you do not express much fake outrage regarding the Palestinians (well, Hamas) rejecting such cooperation as well.

 

Not playing your nitpicking trolling game today. 

 

Learn to read. I welcomed the fact that impartially the ICC is investigating both sides.

 

>>As for the cooperation part - not all countries are members of the ICC or recognize it's authority. Nothing special about that. 
..nonsense. Only those who have something to hide are unwilling to recognise investigations.

 

You appear to condemn Hamas's rejection of the ICC, but defend Israel's. Make up your mind.

 

The first hurdle for the ICC is to overcome Israel's total control of the borders. Let's hope they allow investigators in, so that the truth will out.

[dexterm]

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.

 

 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Not playing your nitpicking trolling game today. 

 

Learn to read. I welcomed the fact that impartially the ICC is investigating both sides.

 

>>As for the cooperation part - not all countries are members of the ICC or recognize it's authority. Nothing special about that. 
..nonsense. Only those who have something to hide are unwilling to recognise investigations.

 

You appear to condemn Hamas's rejection of the ICC, but defend Israel's. Make up your mind.

 

The first hurdle for the ICC is to overcome Israel's total control of the borders. Let's hope they allow investigators in, so that the truth will out.

 

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.

[dexterm]

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.

Edited February 7, 2021 by dexterm

[Morch]

Just now, dexterm said:

>>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, we're not allowing you in.

 

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

 

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.

[dexterm]

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?

Edited February 7, 2021 by dexterm

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

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 it 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?

 

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.

[robblok]

22 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Russia, China, and the USA aren't members and do not recognize the court's authority. Same goes for other countries. In this case, several European countries opined to the court that it does not have jurisdiction. Not quite the wide brush attempt you went for.

By naming Russia and China and the USA your not doing your case much good. I mean Russia and China would hate the ICC as it can bring their bad deeds to light. Same goes for the US. Many war crimes have been committed in their wars in foreign countries. They like to judge them themselves and set their military free. So if anything it demonstrates the need for the ICC. The harder the breakers of rules protests the more it strenghtens the case for ICC.

 

Also the ICC is investigating both sides.

[dexterm]

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.
 

Edited February 7, 2021 by dexterm

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

By naming Russia and China and the USA your not doing your case much good. I mean Russia and China would hate the ICC as it can bring their bad deeds to light. Same goes for the US. Many war crimes have been committed in their wars in foreign countries. They like to judge them themselves and set their military free. So if anything it demonstrates the need for the ICC. The harder the breakers of rules protests the more it strenghtens the case for ICC.

 

Also the ICC is investigating both sides.

 

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.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

>>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 from western countries who have signed up to ICC.
 

 

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.

[robblok]

5 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.

You are complaining about Hamas cooperation. I think that Hamas and the IDF are equally reluctant to work with the ICC. The wrongs on both will be covered up on both sides by hamas and IDF. I have no faith in either side.

 

Yes Israel is a softer target then other places but there is not much we can do with Iran as we already boycot them on almost everything. Its not as if the ICC can do a lot extra damage. Israel should just accept the ICC but I get it they don't like it. No country in the world likes it. The US does not either.

[dexterm]

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.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

You are complaining about Hamas cooperation. I think that Hamas and the IDF are equally reluctant to work with the ICC. The wrongs on both will be covered up on both sides by hamas and IDF. I have no faith in either side.

 

Yes Israel is a softer target then other places but there is not much we can do with Iran as we already boycot them on almost everything. Its not as if the ICC can do a lot extra damage. Israel should just accept the ICC but I get it they don't like it. No country in the world likes it. The US does not either.

 

I am not 'complaining'. I actually get the reluctance to submit to such investigations. There's a load of good reasons not to. My point is that people seem focused on just one of the sides, as it fits their political agendas.

 

As far as I understand, the IDF itself is more open to the notion of investigation, relative to the government's stance. This was discussed just before the protests on the Gaza Strip started. When it comes to the other side - the effort to launch the investigation was headed by the Palestinian Authority, not the Hamas. To the degree that the Hamas accepted the move, it was by it's so-called political wing, not the military one. I think that the notion, as far as Hamas goes, is that they rely on investigations focusing more on Israel, making the PR value worth the odd condemnation.

 

No idea why you brought up Iran. I was actually thinking about Syria. But there are numerous other examples (like the war in Yemen).

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

 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.

 

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.

[Mavideol]

16 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Again, not sure what you're on about.

There's a Palestinian Authority. Does it control nothing? Don't do anything? Got no budgets? Collects no taxes? Provides no services? Got no security forces? Do all these answer to Israel? And in the Gaza Strip, does the Hamas ask Israel's permission before launching rockets on Israeli towns? Did Israel OK the Palestinian push for the OP's investigation, then?

pretty much so, anything they do is and will be under Israel scrutiny, thus Israel controls them by sending in military (so called security) forces to somebody's else land, thus forcing Hamas to retaliate. Have a simple question for you, if somebody illegally intrudes into your home what would be your reaction, bender over and let them do what ever they want

[dexterm]

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.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Mavideol said:

pretty much so, anything they do is and will be under Israel scrutiny, thus Israel controls them by sending in military (so called security) forces to somebody's else land, thus forcing Hamas to retaliate. Have a simple question for you, if somebody illegally intrudes into your home what would be your reaction, bender over and let them do what ever they want

 

Pretty much uninformed nonsense.

 

The Palestinian Authority doesn't seek Israel's approval for everything. There is a measure of autonomy there. If you disagree, please enlighten me as to how the Palestinian Authority was able to push for this investigation with Israel set against it.

 

Hamas generally does not 'retaliate' on issues related to displacement of Palestinians is the West Bank. Hamas is in control of the Gaza Strip, where this is a non-issue. As for labeling all Hamas attacks 'retaliations' - sounds more like a political position than an informed take.

 

I have a simple question for you in return - would it be possible for you to address the issues discussed without using over-simplified, loaded examples?

[dexterm]

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.

[Mavideol]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Pretty much uninformed nonsense.

 

The Palestinian Authority doesn't seek Israel's approval for everything. There is a measure of autonomy there. If you disagree, please enlighten me as to how the Palestinian Authority was able to push for this investigation with Israel set against it.

 

Hamas generally does not 'retaliate' on issues related to displacement of Palestinians is the West Bank. Hamas is in control of the Gaza Strip, where this is a non-issue. As for labeling all Hamas attacks 'retaliations' - sounds more like a political position than an informed take.

 

I have a simple question for you in return - would it be possible for you to address the issues discussed without using over-simplified, loaded examples?

Have a simple question for you, if somebody illegally intrudes into your home what would be your reaction, bender over and let them do what ever they want

oh you didn't like my example, wonder why, did it hit a sensitive spot... the rest of your post is non sense and out of context

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

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.

 

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.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, dexterm said:

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.

 

You are deflecting again.

 

The point made was not about the Palestinians having a right to try for the investigation, but rather that it would not have been possible if Israel was in full control as you claimed. The Palestinians are recognized by various international bodies mainly due the existence of the Palestinian Authority, and it's various functions. Taking up your narrative goes against this. You still haven't been able to resolve the contradiction.

 

Unless you missed it, the OP is about legal issues (which you are happy to dig in to when it suits). As for making the personal references about 'desire for justice' - just more pointless nonsense and accusations out of you.