Support NeoGAF

[StealthGoblin]

From a UK perspective, the USA are total arseholes with regards to their support of Israel.

I can't see how a nation who considers themselves advanced and who fought through world wars can support a state who has committed war crimes upon war crimes.

I am particularly disappointed in Israel given the extremes the Jews had to suffer during WWII and throughout history. I would like to think that they would be more compassionate and reasonable given what the Jewish community has gone through and should know better.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Israeli officials won't even have to curtail travel. An individual can only be prosecuted by the ICC if they committed the crime within the jurisdiction of the ICC, or are a national of a state which is a signatory of the ICC. The only Israelis capable of being prosecuted will be those who commit crimes actually on whatever the ICC has settled upon as constituting the territory of the State of Palestine; in other words nobody of importance. Even then, they'll only be prosecuted if the Palestinian authorities can actually arrest them within Palestinian territory, of which there is a fat chance.

Got lost on the last page and I feel it's somewhat interesting enough not to be. Boo/hiss/etc. if not.

 

[Dai101]

From a International perspective, the USA are total arseholes with regards to their support of Israel.

Ftfy.

 

[besada]

in other words nobody of importance. Even then, they'll only be prosecuted if the Palestinian authorities can actually arrest them within Palestinian territory, of which there is a fat chance.

You're looking at military officers who have been on Palestinian soil, engaged in action, mostly. But it's not just Palestine they'd have to avoid if there were a judgement against them. Once a judgement was reached, they'd be in danger of arrest in any signatory state, which includes most of Europe.

 

[commedieu]

Got lost on the last page and I feel it's somewhat interesting enough not to be. Boo/hiss/etc. if not.

If it was so pointless, and they didn't care, they wouldn't be so adamantly against this. This is setting a precedent, that will further the development of the Palestinian state in the future. Ultimately, we are just speaking about a country being responsible for their actions. Which isreal is against. It goes against their slimy attempts to always cast themselves as the victims. Yet, they don't even want the Palestinians to have a voice at the ICC. As meaningless as you portray it as. They don't even want that to happen. Even the Palestinians are willing to admit their guilt/disgusting actions as well, just for the little next to nothing chance that Israel will be held responsible for anything.

Israel & The USA is making a mistake in the treatment of this. Their actions don't promote peace or civility. Only a continued apartheid. They've already started punishing them for even attempting to. The USA has said specifically their aid will stop if they make any cases against Israel. Its disgusting to see them disparage Palestine for wanting to be part of a justice system. 100% despicable. Its abundantly transparent that Israel fears losing moral support for their continued murdering, and America just has to double down as we hate to contradict ourselves. Its been baby steps, and only baby steps as far as Palestines progress. But At least they are getting support from more and more nations, to bring official inqueries into their actions, and others.

This just seems like a moral win for Palestine. I don't expect much to come from this, especially considering they have America against their actions to pursue Israel.

 

[Guileless]

It seems pretty likely the U.S. will stand with Israel on this, given its own opinion of the ICC, so I don't expect much to come from it other than some show trials whose conclusions Israel will ignore, and a possible UNSC action, which the U.S. will again veto.

Don't forget the deleterious effect on decades worth of painstaking peace negotiations so Palestinians can devote time and energy to show trials that will have unenforceable verdicts.

But probably worth it for the gifs and internet dudgeon.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You're looking at military officers who have been on Palestinian soil, engaged in action, mostly. But it's not just Palestine they'd have to avoid if there were a judgement against them. Once a judgement was reached, they'd be in danger of arrest in any signatory state, which includes most of Europe.

Yes, this is true; but I think the number of people that the Palestinians could plausibly expect to take to court is vanishingly small. Certainly, senior Israeli army officers will not be in Palestinian territory; they will be commanding from Israeli territory. At the point you get to prosecute two or three fairly inconsequential middle-men, it's clear that Palestine is doing this as part of a state-building exercise and not in the expectation of prosecution.

 

[Tallshortman]

Since technically hamas has ceded nominal authority of Gaza to the reconciled government would that not also open the doors for charges to be brought forward on hamas members for war crimes?

 

[Toxi]

Don't forget the deleterious effect on decades worth of painstaking peace negotiations so Palestinians can devote time and energy to show trials that will have unenforceable verdicts.

But probably worth it for the gifs and internet dudgeon.

Those painstaking peace negotiations amounted to continued oppression and property theft. The way Israel has treated the West Bank has been shameful.

So maybe that's why the Palestinian Authority doesn't care much about a supposed deleterious effect on the peace negotiations.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Since technically hamas has ceded nominal authority of Gaza to the reconciled government would that not also open the doors for charges to be brought forward on hamas members for war crimes?

Yes. In fact, that's the most likely outcome of this. By far the more Palestinian figures will be tried than Israeli, and those tried will largely come from Hamas. This is the real intention of Palestine - not to fuck over Israel legally, but to take another path on the step to statehood by indicating that they would be a responsible nation beholden to international law and recognising the primacy of human rights.

 

[Kickz]

Those painstaking peace negotiations amounted to continued oppression and property theft. The way Israel has treated the West Bank has been shameful.

So maybe that's why the Palestinian Authority doesn't care much about a supposed deleterious effect on the peace negotiations.

Yea can't delete something that doesn't exist.

 

[Cipherr]

What is this, good news day?

 

[Dude Abides]

Don't forget the deleterious effect on decades worth of painstaking peace negotiations so Palestinians can devote time and energy to show trials that will have unenforceable verdicts.

But probably worth it for the gifs and internet dudgeon.

Painstaking peace negotiations? More like pointless theater.

 

[Purkake4]

Just so everyone's on the same page on ICC, keep in mind article 17 of the Rome Statute:

1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall
determine that a case is inadmissible where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has
jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to
carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it
and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless
the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State
genuinely to prosecute;
(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the
subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under
article 20, paragraph 3;
(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.

2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider,
having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law,
whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable:
(a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision
was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal
responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in
article 5;
(b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the
circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned
to justice;
(c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or
impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in
the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person
concerned to justice.

3. In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider
whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national
judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence
and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.

The ICC is a court of last resort, they don't just willy-nilly take any case that falls under the the three crimes recognized in the Rome Statute.

 

[kamorra]

As AP pointed out, once the Palestinian Authority apply any case against Israel to the International Criminal Court, US financial help to Palestine will cease immediately under American law.

What a disgrace.

 

[devilhawk]

Reading quite a few law blogs that say US lawmakers might actually welcome this. Many in the US have been looking for a reason to actively undermine the ICC instead of simply ignoring it. This would give them an excuse to do so. The ICC spending all its resources on Israeli cases that it can't enforce isn't going to help its perception especially after its failures in recent Kenyan and Sudanese cases.

 

[HighResTomato]

Palestine will get there eventually, wether the US cooperates or not. The EU has had enough of AIPAC bought US politicians. Disgusting creatures.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Reading quite a few law blogs that say US lawmakers might actually welcome this. Many in the US have been looking for a reason to actively undermine the ICC instead of simply ignoring it. This would give them a reason to do so. The ICC spending all its resources on Israeli cases that it can't enforce isn't going to help its perception especially after its failures in recent Kenyan and Sudanese cases.

The ICC won't spend resources on Israeli cases. It cannot prosecute Israeli figures unless they commit crimes within Palestinian soil, and even then only if there is not a "reasonable" attempt by an Israeli court to bring about justice. Israel actually puts a fair amount of unimportant soldiers in trials for crimes committed, even if the sentencing is laughable. The ICC might do a review of Israeli conduct, but that's probably about it.

EDIT: changed "Israeli soil" to "Palestinian soil", typo'd.

 

[TarNaru33]

Saudi Arabia, Qatar or the Emirates will pick it up, given PA's confidence.

Will or can? Don't mistake those nations as being true supporters of Palestine.


To be honest I am okay with U.S's response to this, however, I would love for U.S to apply the same consequences to Israel. Force them both into making a deal by threatening funding. U.S isn't a member of ICC nor support the group because it offers U.S's own citizens to foreign prosecution, something U.S is against especially with some nations being very biased as to realities of war.

This move won't have any substantial results imo. U.S and Israel can hold off Palestine indefinitely if they want to, even with little baby steps Palestine is taking. That is the way I see it anyways.

 

[devilhawk]

The ICC won't spend resources on Israeli cases. It cannot prosecute Israeli figures unless they commit crimes within Israeli soil, and even then only if there is not a "reasonable" attempt by an Israeli court to bring about justice. Israel actually puts a fair amount of unimportant soldiers in trials for crimes committed, even if the sentencing is laughable. The ICC might do a review of Israeli conduct, but that's probably about it.

Interesting.

 

[Fenderputty]

FTFY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PLIWZj5Buk

Evangelical Christians are just as large of a reason.

 

[Purkake4]

To be honest I am okay with U.S's response to this, however, I would love for U.S to apply the same consequences to Israel. Force them both into making a deal by threatening funding. U.S isn't a member of ICC nor support the group because it offers U.S's own citizens to foreign prosecution, something U.S is against especially with some nations being very biased as to realities of war.

Are you saying genocide, crimes against humanity and/or war crimes are a reality of war for the US?

Crazy how Europe has managed its wars in the past 10+ years without getting prosecuted for any of those.

 

[Guileless]

Painstaking peace negotiations? More like pointless theater.

I recommend the chapters of Pres. Clinton's memoir about the peace negotiations and the conclusions he drew.

 

[dbztrk]

Plus one for the Palestinians!

 

[Dude Abides]

I recommend the chapters of Pres. Clinton's memoir about the peace negotiations and the conclusions he drew.

Why would I credit a self-serving account when the nature of the farce is in the open?

 

[Prine]

From a UK perspective, the USA are total arseholes with regards to their support of Israel.

I can't see how a nation who considers themselves advanced and who fought through world wars can support a state who has committed war crimes upon war crimes.

I am particularly disappointed in Israel given the extremes the Jews had to suffer during WWII and throughout history. I would like to think that they would be more compassionate and reasonable given what the Jewish community has gone through and should know better.

Just like to point out why there's so much suspicion for US when they're not consistent with their principles. There's a shopping list of bullying by Israel and with backing of US against the Palistinians, we, from UK know its wrong but won't say anything as usual.

 

[Ogimachi]

What happened to Rand Paul? :/

 

[Toxi]

I recommend the chapters of Pres. Clinton's memoir about the peace negotiations and the conclusions he drew.

When I look for nuanced observation of the Israeli-Palestinean Conflict, I always go for US politicians.

It's a fucking joke. There is no progress being made. The West Bank is still occupied, its land is still being stolen, and the only thing the people there can be thankful for is that at least they weren't bombed into rubble like Gaza last year.

 

[Dude Abides]

What happened to Rand Paul? :/

He wants to win a GOP primary and general election.

 

[TarNaru33]

Are you saying genocide, crimes against humanity and/or war crimes are a reality of war for the US?

Crazy how Europe has managed its wars in the past 10+ years without getting prosecuted for any of those.

I am not referring specifically to Israeli-Palestinian conflict when I said "realities of war". It is that Europe has a very strong anti-military/anti-war presence... almost fanatically and those groups are usually anti-U.S. Why would U.S risk it's citizens to that? U.S do not believe in foreign prosecution of it's citizens, same as France.

For example: drone strikes (even when countries like Yemen allows it), war against Afghanistan, Iraq War.

Crazy how it is difficult to prosecute strong global powers. That is what you are saying in your 2nd statement, they are basically in the same boat as U.S. We (U.S and Europe) investigate and prosecute our own people for crimes, which is why the ICC is generally not even needed. The difference is U.S is more lax on it while Europe in general is more restricted, but it is not like Europe has the reach U.S has.

 

[Purkake4]

I am not referring specifically to Israeli-Palestinian conflict when I said "realities of war". It is that Europe has a very strong anti-military/anti-war presence... almost fanatically and those groups are usually anti-U.S. Why would U.S risk it's citizens to that? U.S do not believe in foreign prosecution of it's citizens, same as France.

For example: drone strikes (even when countries like Yemen allows it), war against Afghanistan, Iraq War.

Crazy how it is difficult to prosecute strong global powers. That is what you are saying in your 2nd statement, they are basically in the same boat as U.S. We (U.S and Europe) investigate and prosecute our own people for crimes, which is why the ICC is generally not even needed. The difference is U.S is more lax on it while Europe in general is more restricted, but it is not like Europe has the reach U.S has.

I wasn't referring to Israeli-Palestinian conflict either. If "realities of war" in the US perspective include the crimes that the ICC is prosecuting, you have some problems.

As for "risking US citizens to the whims of the anti-military Europe", you can relax, the ICC is impartial and has judges from across its State Parties including all of South America, most of North America and more than half of Africa (all together 2/3 of all UN members).

Lastly, if the ICC doesn't matter for "strong global powers" why wouldn't the US ratify the Rome Statute? If France that apparently doesn't believe in foreign prosecution of its citizens can ratify it, why not the US?

 

[Chittagong]

This effectively means that the USA views its aid to Palestine as a bribe meant to keep Palestinians from prosecuting Israel for the attricities they have committed. Prosecution = no bribe

 

[Kickz]

What happened to Rand Paul? :/

You don't want to cross AIPAC, etc. Thats political suicide.

 

[TarNaru33]

I wasn't referring to Israeli-Palestinian conflict either. If "realities of war" in the US perspective include the crimes that the ICC is prosecuting, you have some problems.

As for "risking US citizens to the whims of the anti-military Europe", you can relax, the ICC is impartial and has judges from across its State Parties including all of South America, most of North America and more than half of Africa (all together 2/3 of all UN members).

Lastly, if the ICC doesn't matter for "strong global powers" why wouldn't the US ratify the Rome Statute? If France that apparently doesn't believe in foreign prosecution of its citizens can ratify it, why not the US?

U.S won't risk it, simple as that. U.S is involved and gets involved in way more conflicts than Europe for example, so it will be risking troops to prosecution. In practice the ICC can't touch strong global powers, It will still have affects on U.S if U.S was a member and ended up being prosecuted, which we all know U.S do not want.

ICC investigates many war crimes, the only thing stopping it is ICC is usually a last resort when other methods have failed.


Personally, I don't mind U.S joining ICC, I am just saying I understand why U.S is not a member.

 

[Guileless]

Why would I credit a self-serving account when the nature of the farce is in the open?

When I look for nuanced observation of the Israeli-Palestinean Conflict, I always go for US politicians.

Political autobiographies are frequently self-serving, but you can still find useful information. He is not just a "US politician", he is a president who invested enormous personal political capital in a deal and directly participated in extensive negotiations without any more elections to worry about.

If you guys want to suggest a particular Palestinian source to read on the peace process, I will read it, you guys can read the relevant chapters of Pres. Clinton's memoir (widely available in libraries), and we can come back to this thread in 3-4 weeks and see if anyone found anything useful in the exercise.

 

[Purkake4]

ICC investigates many war crimes, the only thing stopping it is ICC is usually a last resort when other methods have failed.


Personally, I don't mind U.S joining ICC, I am just saying I understand why U.S is not a member.

Huh? The ICC literally only investigates three crimes: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity as defined in the Rome Statute.

I can also understand why US is not a member, my original point was that the US has no credibility calling for international criminal justice when it isn't a state party to ICC itself.

 

[massivekettle]

Given Palestine seems to have so many supporters around the world - in fact, an overwhelming majority of the world - it should not worry about the loss of US aid, right?

 

[Dai101]

Given Palestine seems to have so many supporters around the world - in fact, an overwhelming majority of the world - it should not worry about the loss of US aid, right?

Well guess what:

Israel freezes Palestinian tax funds

Transfer of $127m in revenue withheld in retaliation for move to join International Criminal Court, officials say.

SAUCE: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middl...-palestinian-tax-funds-20151318526717391.html

The witrawl of US aid along with the rest of the world are still breadcrums to the 3B+ the US gives israel in aid.

 

[params7]

Uphill battle for the Palestinians. Shameful act from the US.

 

[Xe4]

Good. I can see downsides, but this is a small step towards Palestine gaining recognition as a state eventually. Hopefully statehood happens before it is too late, and Israel has completely usurped the land.

 

[Dude Abides]

Political autobiographies are frequently self-serving, but you can still find useful information. He is not just a "US politician", he is a president who invested enormous personal political capital in a deal and directly participated in extensive negotiations without any more elections to worry about.

If you guys want to suggest a particular Palestinian source to read on the peace process, I will read it, you guys can read the relevant chapters of Pres. Clinton's memoir (widely available in libraries), and we can come back to this thread in 3-4 weeks and see if anyone found anything useful in the exercise.

I've read My Life. It's the standard US narrative about how Arafat wouldn't make a deal. I don't see how you think it's relevant to the issue in the thread exceptas a way to trot out the "it's all the Palestinian's fault" theme that is also so popular in US mainstream political discourse.

 

[Guileless]

I've read My Life. It's the standard US narrative about how Arafat wouldn't make a deal. I don't see how you think it's relevant to the issue in the thread exceptas a way to trot out the "it's all the Palestinian's fault" theme that is also so popular in US mainstream political discourse.

If you know of another first-hand source about the negotiations written by someone in the room the whole time, who sought advice and consent from other world leaders about the progress of the negotiations, and who makes a persuasive argument about the political implications of the deal for each side and whether it was workable, I would be glad to read it. And also to be as persuasive as Pres. Clinton's account, it would also need to be written by someone who is credited with greatly helping, through personal diplomacy between the sides, to resolve another long-standing religiously-charged violent political conflict between border countries.