International Criminal Court says it has jurisdiction in Palestinian territories

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

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

 

Is it out of context to point out that you're wrong? The Palestinian Authority exists and carries out many functions in the daily lives of Palestinians. If you wish to claim otherwise, guess you never actually dealt with the Palestinian Authority and it's officials. It is not out of context to correct you regarding Hamas 'retaliations' either.

 

And the question stands - if Israel controls everything, how come the Palestinian Authority launch this effort? How can the Hamas launch rockets on Israel? Neither ought to be possible.

 

And no, you did not hit a sensitive spot, you're just using a bogus, over-simplified, loaded analogy which is aimed at getting a prescribed answer. That's both dishonest and nonconstructive as far as discussion goes. If you believe things are as simple as that, guess we'll have to disagree.

[dexterm]

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?

Edited February 7, 2021 by dexterm

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, dexterm said:

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 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?

 

You are welcome to deny that the essence of the OP and the issue raised was the court's jurisdiction - and that this is a legal point.

 

On a personal level (which you keep returning to), I do not place much importance on the investigation as such. Kindly stop with your attempts to make this personal, especially when you're twisting my views with no call. Or associating me with Netanyahu and the Hamas. Guess you've got no real arguments to rely on.

 

I do think that many of the reports, investigations and resolutions by UN/international bodies relating to Israel are biased. That's not solely my opinion, of course, nor just Israel's position. You wish to deny that too? No problems.

 

Yes, war crimes ought to be investigated, and if possible, addressed. The problem lies with who decides what is worthy of investigation, how the decision is made, and how the investigation is carried out. You seem to have full trust in the ICC (although, judging from past topic, you'll turn on it if it fails to "deliver") - I do not.

 

International relations being what they are, it is almost impossible to envisage a fully independent, impartial and objective body regulating matters and being free of political influence. Not sure why you imagine the ICC to be different than other such organizations.

 

And, as usual, you're asking questions while ignoring those made by others. Hardly polite, honest or constructive.

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Morch

[KhaoYai]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

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.

That was not my intention - you might note that I said 'Personally I'd like to see anyone who's commited war crimes prosecuted'.

 

The Palestinians have certainly commited crimes, they might not see it that way but they are crimes.  However, and please don't see this as supporting violence - some of their gripes with Israel are genuine, as I said, some have been internationally condemned.  There is very little they can do against a well armed, well funded Israeli military other than run a guerilla style operation against them.  International condemnation of Israel, as I said before, is just words, no meaningful action is taken against them.

[KhaoYai]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

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

I don't think he does but I do think you over-complicate things. I don't think anyone here is party to all the in's and out's of the conflict between Israel and Palestine - yes I say Palestine because I believe they have a right to exist as a state.  But I think you're not alone, the whole situation over there is over-complicated by all parties.

 

A settlement is really quite simple - although I'm not so naive that I don't realise there would have to be significant compromises on all sides. The Palestinians need to accept that Israel exists, its not going anywhere and Israel needs to basically recognise the same. They should stop controlling the movements of Palestinian people and fully recognise their rights to a state and a government with powers of self determination - basically the rights enjoyed by themselves.

 

If Israel really wants peace they need to return all lands that they have stolen previously and stop demolishing Palestinian homes and schools on other land that they 'occupy' illegally (Jordan Valley). Why do Palestinians need 'permits' from Israel to build on that land?  How can Israel require such permits on land they do not own? Does Israel ask the Palestinians for permits to build their settlements in other 'occupied territories? I don't think the Palestinians will ever agree to any meaningful peace deal until that's done.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-54823660

 

Israel may say it wants peace but is that really true?  Their actions seem to indicate otherwise and they use their military power to take what they want.

 

I do not support the 'guerilla' style violence carried out by the Palestinians but neither can I see how else can they fight a well armed Israeli military.

 

I yawn when my government (and others) condemn Israel for their 'land grabs' but do nothing else because of their relationship with the US. They have been told time and time again to revert to the pre '67 borders but refuse to do so - why? Because they know nobody will do anything about it - other than words.

Edited February 7, 2021 by KhaoYai

[herfiehandbag]

On 2/6/2021 at 10:19 AM, PatOngo said:

Did the Palestinians EVER steal land from the Israeli's? Did they EVER occupy Israeli land?

Well, it is worth noting that the declaration of the state of Israel, (in accordance with a UN resolution - Resolution # 181) was met with the invasion of the newborn state of Israel by the armies of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. One of the reasons for the Palestinian Refugee Community is that essentially the Palestinians were told by the invaders to move away, leave their homes, with the promise that they could return once the Israelis had been driven into the sea., reoccupy their own lands and move into the Israeli lands. That is why they all left, locking up their homes and hanging their keys round their necks, where they keep them to this day. The plan didn't work out, the Israelis won. The fighting was savage, but it would be when one side is engaged in a fight for survival, with the events in Europe from 1940 to 1945 fresh in the memory.

 

Now I am not condoning or justifying Israeli war crimes, but I do want to point out that the whole Arab/Israeli imbroglio stems from an Arab/Palestinian attempt to do just that - to seize and occupy Israeli land, and to wipe the country (Israel) from the face of the earth.

 

They cocked it up, and have reliably continued to do so ever since...

[Morch]

2 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

That was not my intention - you might note that I said 'Personally I'd like to see anyone who's commited war crimes prosecuted'.

 

The Palestinians have certainly commited crimes, they might not see it that way but they are crimes.  However, and please don't see this as supporting violence - some of their gripes with Israel are genuine, as I said, some have been internationally condemned.  There is very little they can do against a well armed, well funded Israeli military other than run a guerilla style operation against them.  International condemnation of Israel, as I said before, is just words, no meaningful action is taken against them.

 

You may try to come out  as even-handed, but this post and the following one quickly turn into what is basically another Israel-bad rant.

 

I do not argue that the Palestinians' gripes with Israel are not genuine. Quite the opposite. As for 'guerilla style  operation' - that's mostly in the past. Nowadays, most Hamas violence comes in the form of indiscriminate rocket and mortar fire directed at Israeli towns. That is, for example, one instance which may be considered a war crime (because of the indiscriminate bit).

 

You say that no meaningful action is taken against Israel, and that pretty much true. A lot of it owing to the fact that the USA shields Israel, and some due to many countries not seeing Hamas policy and actions as legit or acceptable.

 

When it comes to Israel's relations with the Palestinian Authority, the occupation of the West Bank and the illegal settlement effort - things are somewhat different, and although you claim otherwise, they are complex. I'll address this in a reply to your other post.

[Scott]

Anti-semitic and Troll posts reported and removed.

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

I don't think he does but I do think you over-complicate things. I don't think anyone here is party to all the in's and out's of the conflict between Israel and Palestine - yes I say Palestine because I believe they have a right to exist as a state.  But I think you're not alone, the whole situation over there is over-complicated by all parties.

 

A settlement is really quite simple - although I'm not so naive that I don't realise there would have to be significant compromises on all sides. The Palestinians need to accept that Israel exists, its not going anywhere and Israel needs to basically recognise the same. They should stop controlling the movements of Palestinian people and fully recognise their rights to a state and a government with powers of self determination - basically the rights enjoyed by themselves.

 

If Israel really wants peace they need to return all lands that they have stolen previously and stop demolishing Palestinian homes and schools on other land that they 'occupy' illegally (Jordan Valley). Why do Palestinians need 'permits' from Israel to build on that land?  How can Israel require such permits on land they do not own? Does Israel ask the Palestinians for permits to build their settlements in other 'occupied territories? I don't think the Palestinians will ever agree to any meaningful peace deal until that's done.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-54823660

 

Israel may say it wants peace but is that really true?  Their actions seem to indicate otherwise and they use their military power to take what they want.

 

I do not support the 'guerilla' style violence carried out by the Palestinians but neither can I see how else can they fight a well armed Israeli military.

 

I yawn when my government (and others) condemn Israel for their 'land grabs' but do nothing else because of their relationship with the US. They have been told time and time again to revert to the pre '67 borders but refuse to do so - why? Because they know nobody will do anything about it - other than words.

 

"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.

[KhaoYai]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

You may try to come out  as even-handed, but this post and the following one quickly turn into what is basically another Israel-bad rant.

I don't try to come out as even handed at all but I repeat - I did say that I'd like to see ANYONE that's committed war crimes prosecuted.

[KhaoYai]

41 minutes ago, Morch said:

When it comes to Israel's relations with the Palestinian Authority, the occupation of the West Bank and the illegal settlement effort - things are somewhat different, and although you claim otherwise, they are complex. I'll address this in a reply to your other post.

You don't need to.  Whatever reasons they may give - Israel occupies land that it doesn't own and in the eyes of most of the international community, they do so illegally.

Edited February 7, 2021 by KhaoYai

[Morch]

28 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Well, it is worth noting that the declaration of the state of Israel, (in accordance with a UN resolution - Resolution # 181) was met with the invasion of the newborn state of Israel by the armies of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. One of the reasons for the Palestinian Refugee Community is that essentially the Palestinians were told by the invaders to move away, leave their homes, with the promise that they could return once the Israelis had been driven into the sea., reoccupy their own lands and move into the Israeli lands. That is why they all left, locking up their homes and hanging their keys round their necks, where they keep them to this day. The plan didn't work out, the Israelis won. The fighting was savage, but it would be when one side is engaged in a fight for survival, with the events in Europe from 1940 to 1945 fresh in the memory.

 

Now I am not condoning or justifying Israeli war crimes, but I do want to point out that the whole Arab/Israeli imbroglio stems from an Arab/Palestinian attempt to do just that - to seize and occupy Israeli land, and to wipe the country (Israel) from the face of the earth.

 

They cocked it up, and have reliably continued to do so ever since...

 

A whole lot of the Palestinians were driven away by Israeli forces. There's plenty of documentation (even Israeli sources) about that. The figures of how many were expelled/driven away and those that ran on their own or followed their leaders' promises can be argued.

 

The 7 armies part is also a bit of myth. Some had very small contingents, and most were poorly organized. This vs. a more unified and easier to control Israeli force. It was a brutal war, for sure, but not quite as one sided to begin with.

 

It is true, that the Palestinian seem to have a penchant for making bad choices, often based on narratives drawing from Arab and Muslim cultures.

[KhaoYai]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

So saying the solution is simple is not quite how things are, is it?

Its not how they are because both sides refuse to compromise.  As I said, they would need to compromise significantly and that's the only way.  So yes, the solution is quite easy - if they'd both accept that compromise is necessary.  However if, and its a big if, there is to be any meaningful discussion, I doubt it will take place until Israel returns stolen land.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

You don't need to.  Whatever reasons they may give - Israel occupies land that it doesn't own and in the eyes of most of the internetaional community, they do so illegally.

 

I do not argue that the occupation is legal or just. But just saying it's illegal and wrong doesn't contribute much to conflict being resolved. I understand that some on here are obsessed with waving words like "justice", "fair" and the like, instead of accepting that international relations often disregard such concepts. To be clearer, if the conflict could be resolved in a way that's acceptable, if not optimal to one party, I wouldn't have issues with that.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Its not how they are because both sides refuse to compromise.  As I said, they would need to compromise significantly and that's the only way.  So yes, the solution is quite easy - if they'd both accept that compromise is necessary.  However if, and its a big if, there is to be any meaningful discussion, I doubt it will take place until Israel returns stolen land.

 

The compromises you allude to involve many issues, and many of these is problematic by itself. Glossing over stuff doesn't work, putting stuff on the back burner doesn't work either. So any negotiation would be a complex one, regardless of your opinion. Add to this sides not being ideologically and politically homogeneous, just to make things even more interesting.

 

There will be no scenario, IMO, in which Israel gives land to the Palestinians without a comprehensive deal in place or in advanced stages. The level of mistrust is that high.

Edited February 7, 2021 by Morch

[KhaoYai]

33 minutes ago, Morch said:

The compromises you allude to involve many issues, and many of these is problematic by itself. Glossing over stuff doesn't work, putting stuff on the back burner doesn't work either. So any negotiation would be a complex one, regardless of your opinion. Add to this sides not being ideologically and politically homogeneous, just to make things even more interesting.

That is what I mean by simple.  Its only complex if you make it so.

 

There are two nations, they both need a home and they both need stop living in their history books and accept that. 

 

The reason why I am openly biased towards the Palestinian side is because of the situation Israel forces upon them.  This is not simply two countries next to each other and fighting - Palestinians have many of the freedoms normally afforded to human beings removed. They've only had a passport since 1995 for example and even that is subject to restrictions imposed by Israel - where do they get the right to do that from?

 

But overall, my biggest gripe is the land Israel has stolen.  Some of it they claim was to prevent rocket attacks -  rubbish, they don't have to build settlements on the land to do that.

 

I support neither side fully, I think they need their head's banging together like naughty children but the whole situation is heavily weighted in favour of Israel, purely because of their Military power. Military power that has grown whilst the international community watched.  When Iran launched its nuclear programme the world was up in arms and the matter is still rumbling on today. Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons yet I don't see the same fuss being made - again, almost certainly due to US influence.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by KhaoYai

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

That is what I mean by simple.  Its only complex if you make it so.

 

There are two nations, they both need a home and they both need stop living in their history books and accept that. 

 

The reason why I am openly biased towards the Palestinian side is because of the situation Israel forces upon them.  This is not simply two countries next to each other and fighting - Palestinians have many of the freedoms normally afforded to human beings removed. They've only had a passport since 1995 for example and even that is subject to restrictions imposed by Israel - where do they get the right to do that from?

 

But overall, my biggest gripe is the land Israel has stolen.  Some of it they claim was to prevent rocket attacks -  rubbish, they don't have to build settlements on the land to do that.

 

I support neither side fully, I think they need their head's banging together like naughty children but the whole situation is heavily weighted in favour of Israel, purely because of their Military power. Military power that has grown whilst the international community watched.  When Iran launched its nuclear programme the world was up in arms and the matter is still rumbling on today. Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons yet I don't see the same fuss being made - again, almost certainly due to US influence.

 

 

 

I don't make it complex, it's just how things are. Treating it as simple is bound to ignore issues which will serve as pitfalls down the line. I think that your assessment is, perhaps, applicable to modern Western thinking, but these people are imbued with historical, cultural and religious notions which cannot be ignored. The rationality expected is sometimes absent.

 

Being biased toward the Palestinian side is fine. So long as one doesn't lose sight of how they contributed and keep contributing to their own predicament. At almost each major historical/political junction they took the wrong turn. But that goes back to the comment above regarding culture, religion and attitudes.

 

As far as I'm aware, Israel does not put up illegal settlements on Palestinian land while using the pretext of preventing rocket fire. The rockets are launched by the Hamas, based in the Gaza Strip, which Israel pulled out of years ago. The illegal settlement effort is happening in the West Bank.

 

Israel's superior military power is a product of organized, concentrated, and long term efforts. Be these of a technological nature, diplomatic ones or whatever. This relates, once more, to the difference between the sides with regards to building toward securing the future. The Palestinians could have made better choices, which would have set them at a better situation at present. Complaining about Israel being stronger doesn't explain why the Palestinians are that much weaker.

 

Either way, I appreciate you're able to discuss this with relative calm, but we're probably drifting a bit from the topic at hand.

[KhaoYai]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

but these people are imbued with historical, cultural and religious notions which cannot be ignored. The rationality expected is sometimes absent.

I would agree - except they must be ignored.  I say the solution is simple and it is - however, getting them to understand that they have to put those issues aside and move on seems impossible.  How many generations will pass before they realise that they've wasted so many years? 

 

The life of the average Palestinian seems a very sad and restricted affair, some Israelis live in fear of more rocket attacks - yet they perpetuate the situation.  But Netanyahu has seriously antagonised the whole matter by grabbing yet more land, building yet more new settlements on that land and announcing that policy will continue.  Then there's the issue of Jerusalem - Trump stuck his nose into that one by moving the US embassy there, great move Donald, well done!

 

I firmly believe that the way forward is not the 'Two State Solution' that has been around so long, I don't see any problem with a 'Three State Solution' - Jerusalem being a separate, shared state.  I can't see any reason why that wouldn't work - but of course it needs the will to make it so.  Therefore, given the stance of both sides and Israel's continued grabbing, it won't happen.

 

Yes, if you look at the history there is a plethora of issues that both sides want dealt with but unless and until, they both put those aside, nothing will change. The relative peace we have in Northern Ireland now was only possible by compromise and the setting aside of issues by both sides.

 

I think though that the issue of Israel's land grabs will have to be dealt with before the 2 sides can even make a start - that's not historic, its recent and continuing.

 

Yes, we have wandered off topic but its related.

Edited February 7, 2021 by KhaoYai

[Morch]

3 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

I would agree - except they must be ignored.  I say the solution is simple and it is - however, getting them to understand that they have to put those issues aside and move on seems impossible.  How many generations will pass before they realise that they've wasted so many years? 

 

The life of the average Palestinian seems a very sad and restricted affair, some Israelis live in fear of more rocket attacks - yet they perpetuate the situation.  But Netanyahu has seriously antagonised the whole matter by grabbing yet more land, building yet more new settlements on that land and announcing that policy will continue.  Then there's the issue of Jerusalem - Trump stuck his nose into that one by moving the US embassy there, great move Donald, well done!

 

I firmly believe that the way forward is not the 'Two State Solution' that has been around so long, I don't see any problem with a 'Three State Solution' - Jerusalem being a separate, shared state.  I can't see any reason why that wouldn't work - but of course it needs the will to make it so.  Therefore, given the stance of both sides and Israel's continued grabbing, it won't happen.

 

Yes, if you look at the history there is a plethora of issues that both sides want dealt with but unless and until, they both put those aside, nothing will change. The relative peace we have in Northern Ireland now was only possible by compromise and the setting aside of issues by both sides.

 

I think though that the issue of Israel's land grabs will have to be dealt with before the 2 sides can even make a start - that's not historic, its recent and continuing.

 

Yes, we have wandered off topic but its related.

 

I doubt that simply forcing sides to comply or ignore their differences and grievances would imply a stable reality post-agreement. Outsiders introducing such changes will simply not carry long lasting weight, and sides will quickly revert to the same old. If there is to be a change it may come either from the people themselves or, more likely, by the sheer force of will of exceptional leadership. In many of my posts I mention both sides' ongoing leadership crises as being central to things not going anywhere. Then again, these sort of leaders are hard to come by. Currently, there doesn't seem to be anyone possessing the necessary character and strength required, on either side.

 

Let me point out again that even your own posts seem to go against your main contention. Starting with the claim that the solution is easy, the narrative quickly expands to mentions quite a few other topic, issues and preconditions. I think it goes toward showing how things are interconnected and that sides have some issues which are unlikely to be resolved by ignoring them. At best, it can be said that the solution is simple (I still disagree), but that making the people involved accept this is hard. Comes down to the same thing. Echoes of Brecht's words on Communism - 'It is the simple thing, That’s hard to do'.

 

Your closing remark exemplifies this problem further. Everything is related, to a degree, but for constructive discussion to take place, things need to be compartmentalized on some level, some focus achieved. All too easy bringing up new issues, rehashing old ones, or simply ignoring what the other sides says while plowing on. Now take that and apply it to dialogue between the sides, as opposed to a forum discussion between outsiders.

 

[meechai]

On 2/5/2021 at 2:16 PM, rooster59 said:

Judges at the International Criminal Court on Friday found the court has jurisdiction over war crimes committed in the Palestinian territories, paving the way for a possible criminal investigation, despite Israeli objections.

 

Finally!

What took so long?

In any case I hope they have teeth ????

[VillageIdiot]

2 hours ago, meechai said:

 

Finally!

What took so long?

In any case I hope they have teeth ????

Teeth they probably have already.

   What they really need is cojones.

[KhaoYai]

10 hours ago, Morch said:

I doubt that simply forcing sides to comply or ignore their differences and grievances would imply a stable reality post-agreement. Outsiders introducing such changes will simply not carry long lasting weight, and sides will quickly revert to the same old......................

There is little more that I can say on the matter except that your entire post exemplifies exactly what I'm getting at.

 

I don't think anybody should be forcing either side to do anything (except give back stolen land). However, if they won't put aside their differences they will never move forward.  In my opinion it is an absolute must that they give up claims, differences and simply agree to be neighbours - at peace.

 

A very simple analogy - I had a dispute with my neighbour, it came very close to fisticuffs at one point. We didn't speak for 5 years and he denied me access to his land. I reciprocated by denying him access to my land a little later.  The situation seemed unsolveable but to cut things short, in the end we simply agreed to forget the past and live our lives. We are not exactly 'good friends' now but we are civil.

 

Now I hear you saying that the situation between Israel and Palestine is far more complicated and goes back centuries but in reality its not.  If they each continue putting up hurdles, they will almost certainly find hurdles that they cannot climb.  The answer is to go around them - that way you arrive at your destination without breaking your legs on the way.

 

Please take this the right way - I'm not trying to be offensive but as I said earlier, you are over complicating things.  I believe you are doing that because the two opposing sides do the same but cut to the quick, they won't ever get anywhere that way.  For example, neither will ever agree to the other having absolute control over Jerusalem - the only answer is to share it.  That is not difficult if the will is there.

 

I agree with you that the situation as is, is very complicated but to repeat, it doesn't need to be.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

There is little more that I can say on the matter except that your entire post exemplifies exactly what I'm getting at.

 

I don't think anybody should be forcing either side to do anything (except give back stolen land). However, if they won't put aside their differences they will never move forward.  In my opinion it is an absolute must that they give up claims, differences and simply agree to be neighbours - at peace.

 

A very simple analogy - I had a dispute with my neighbour, it came very close to fisticuffs at one point. We didn't speak for 5 years and he denied me access to his land. I reciprocated by denying him access to my land a little later.  The situation seemed unsolveable but to cut things short, in the end we simply agreed to forget the past and live our lives. We are not exactly 'good friends' now but we are civil.

 

Now I hear you saying that the situation between Israel and Palestine is far more complicated and goes back centuries but in reality its not.  If they each continue putting up hurdles, they will almost certainly find hurdles that they cannot climb.  The answer is to go around them - that way you arrive at your destination without breaking your legs on the way.

 

Please take this the right way - I'm not trying to be offensive but as I said earlier, you are over complicating things.  I believe you are doing that because the two opposing sides do the same but cut to the quick, they won't ever get anywhere that way.  For example, neither will ever agree to the other having absolute control over Jerusalem - the only answer is to share it.  That is not difficult if the will is there.

 

I agree with you that the situation as is, is very complicated but to repeat, it doesn't need to be.

 

I'm dealing with what is. Wishing that things would be different is nice, but doesn't change reality one bit. So long as sides remain entrenched in their respective positions and narrative, unlikely this goes anywhere. Or maybe, it can get worse.

 

So the question is how such a change of mindset comes about.

 

If discounting dictates from outsiders, expectations that sides will come to their senses, or that a common cause will be found - this remains a matter of leaderships who can actually lead, take unpopular decisions, face strong oppositions and ram things through. Sadly for both sides, their leaders during recent times were not up to the task - more focused on political survival, removal of rivals, and avoiding tackling major issues.

 

I wish I could say that I see promising candidates on either side, but that's not the case. Both Netanyahu and Abbas invested a lot of effort culling, marginalizing and discrediting anyone and anything that resembled a semi-credible alternative. Those remaining, waiting for their elders demise and their turn at the helm, aren't much of an improvement. Then there are the more extreme factions and their leaders...

 

This requires leaders who'll openly let go of notions, concepts and issues which were hammered into the respective national narratives long time ago. And be able to generate enough support for action. Tall order.

 

As with previous analogies offered, too simplistic. Were both you and your neighbor claiming each other's land? Forcefully occupying lands? Engages in ongoing violence? Running around the village badmouthing each other to anyone who'll listen? Sue each other whenever possible?

 

I get that it's makes it easier to try and treat things as simple. It can even be useful up to a point. But tackling  this conflict won't happen based on ignoring and brushing aside the issues of contention.

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by Morch

[Morch]

8 hours ago, VillageIdiot said:

Teeth they probably have already.

   What they really need is cojones.

 

What 'teeth' would these ('probably') be?

 

ICC investigations, processing of information gathered, deliberations and submitting verdicts - we're talking years from now. If there are people named as suspects, it would apply to people holding relatively senior positions directly related to the investigation matter. Actually trying them requires either relevant parties cooperating with the ICC (unlikely), or other countries detaining them if in their territory. The latter is somewhat akin to how Interpol warrants work, but (if I understand correctly) there's no standing warrant as such, but rather local authorities need to be asked to act (opening the way for 'unfortunate delays', 'legal obstacles' and so on).

 

With regard to Hamas personnel, that's not much of a threat. The countries they frequent are unlikely to be cooperative anyway. For Israelis, a recent article said this could potentially effect a few hundred officers, officials and politicians. Not nice, but not quite game changing even if it comes to that.

 

The ICC could refer other recommendations to the UNSC, but with 3 permanent members not being party to the ICC nor recognizing it's authority, plus veto power, kinda don't see this going too far.

 

As said earlier, the main value will be on the PR/Propaganda front.

[CharlieH]

Reported post removed.

[meechai]

JDL has a major interest in this topic it seems

[stevenl]

59 minutes ago, meechai said:

JDL has a major interest in this topic it seems

Can you explain please.

[DaddyWarbucks]

19 hours ago, VillageIdiot said:

Teeth they probably have already.

   What they really need is cojones.

As this slow motion farce has progressed the players have shown a conspicuous lack of both.

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

As this slow motion farce has progressed the players have shown a conspicuous lack of both.

 

Not more so than in other cases/investigations, I think. The ICC isn't quite what people imagine it to be.

[dexterm]

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.

Edited February 9, 2021 by dexterm