Israel lobbying countries to cut funding to Int'l Criminal Court

[cracher]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

It provided examples of antisemitism, which include: promoting the harming of Jews in the name of an ideology or religion; promoting negative stereotypes of Jews; holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of an individual Jewish person or group; denying the Holocaust or accusing Jews or Israel of exaggerating it; and accusing Jews of dual loyalty or a greater allegiance to Israel than their own country.

How do you reconcile "holding jews collectively responsible for the actions of an individual person or group" with "denying the Holocaust or accusing Jews or Israel of exaggerating it; and accusing Jews of dual loyalty or a greater allegiance to Israel than their own country"?

The latter two statements assume a Jewish hivemind - you are assuming ALL Jews are not Holocaust deniers and ALL Jews hold greater allegiance to their own country over Israel. The first statement is the anti-hivemind.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Wait a second, you are the poster that attacked my character. I have ignored most of your posts. And I know you don't think I avoid legit discussion, after all, why are you among the group that simply tries to discredit me over and over, such as this? Simply to avoid real discussion.

I post over and over that I want peace in the region, and how I see peace coming about, yet am called every name in the book. I ask for a single hateful post I have made, but there is none to be found.

Instead, you discredit, in order to end discussion. So don't post like you are an angel.

Fantastic post.

Can you list any legitimate grievances that Palestinians may have with Israeli policy?

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

The fact many of the posters ignore absolutely psychotic murderous behaviour around the world, and then go on the attack against Israel for things that pale even compared to how segments of Palestinians have treated themselves, is beyond shady.

So every criticism has to be prefaced with something else that happens in the world to put it into context? Then somehow if we keep that in mind, it totally justifies Israel's actions?

Odd

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I should also add that you attack me as a poster over and over again. Are you afraid that someone is willing to defend Israel so you attempt to bully them? Try to discredit me so that you can push away anyone from this website who is willing to call out the lies and the hatred?

That is pathetic and perfectly aligns with the intimidating tactics seen across university campus' across Canada and the US.

I don't start this thread, and I don't mind engaging in discussion on the topic, but so much of what is posted here is a lie written up in dark dangerous corners of the world. When I see that stuff, I post.

Shame on you.

Thoughts and prayers. You're such a victim.

[Nyah]

I think Nage should become a Scientologist lawyer. He can argue anyone's pants off, even if for the most part it doesn't make any sense.

For the record, I think anyone who is completely on one side or the other of this conflict is delusional. Both sides have huge issues and neither is squeaky clean.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

The fact many of the posters ignore absolutely psychotic murderous behaviour around the world, and then go on the attack against Israel for things that pale even compared to how segments of Palestinians have treated themselves, is beyond shady.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Fantastic post.

Can you list any legitimate grievances that Palestinians may have with Israeli policy?

I did it again didn't I? I made Wage disappear

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I did it again didn't I? I made Wage disappear

He comes, rampages about how persecuted he is, and leaves.

[Regorium]

The question is always wondering why these threads are made.

Where was this thread when the US expressed opposition to the ICC, and they continue to do so?

What about the fact that India and China don't even recognize the ICC at all? A brief search on CP shows that there aren't any threads about the ICC regarding these two countries.

Then, why is it such a big deal that Israel expresses opposition to the ICC then, if major superpowers can't even agree on its existence, that a full CP thread needs to be written about it?

The fact of the matter is that it's a continuous anti-Israel rhetoric that we continue to hear every single day. It seems quite clear to me why Nage and blankall feel unfairly targeted.

For me, as a pipeline engineer, it's exactly like whenever the Keystone thread is bumped, it's always a poster that is posting negative rhetoric. It makes me wonder where that poster is when key milestones are reached, when environmental reports are great, and the courts approve of the procedure.

[Flash Walken]

Let's get this discussion back on track,

From The Washington Post:

Israeli government officials have reacted furiously to the Palestinian Authority’s decision to join the International Criminal Court. While Israel and its allies have attempted for years to prevent it from signing the Rome Statute of the ICC, Israel has not previously been opposed in principle to the court. Indeed, the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s position is that “Israel has been a long-standing advocate of the Court.” Now, however, in response to the ICC’s launch of a preliminary investigation into alleged crimes in Palestinian territory, Israeli government officials have chosen to challenge the very existence of the court. Is Israel’s campaign to delegitimate the ICC likely to advance its interests? Based on comparable campaigns by aggrieved states, the answer is almost certainly no.

States generally don’t like their actions or policies coming under the microscope of the ICC. But not every state responds in the same way to its record facing the judicial scrutiny of the ICC. Some reactions and responses may be more appropriate and useful than others. When it became apparent that the actions of British troops in Iraq would come under ICC investigation, for example, British officials responded tersely but maintained public support for the court and apportioned significant resources to demonstrate that the state had sufficiently investigated and punished British citizens responsible for abuses in Iraq. More recently, when the ICC reported that it was conducting a preliminary investigation into the U.S. military’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques”in Afghanistan, the U.S. response was to coolly reiterate its policy that the court did not have jurisdiction over its citizens.

Israeli leaders seem to believe that they cannot afford the lower key approach adopted by Britain and the United States. The Netanyahu government seems to fear the ICC and to see political opportunity in highlighting its fervent opposition to its functioning. One view is that the government knows that the Israel Defense Forces committed atrocity crimes in Gaza (and perhaps in the construction of Israeli settlements in occupied territories) and therefore will be targeted by the court. Another explanation is that the government believes that institutions like the ICC are so biased against Israel that they will inevitably be unfairly targeted. Some combination of these fears seems to have convinced senior members of the government to launch a campaign against the court.

Recently, Israel has shifted its strategy from apportioning blame on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the PA to lashing out at the ICC – not just for its potential investigation. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman declared last week that any decision by the ICC to investigate the alleged crimes was “solely motivated by political anti-Israel considerations”and that Israel would seek to “dismantle this court, a body that represents hypocrisy and gives terror a tailwind.” Lieberman went so far as to state that the ICC should be out of business altogether:

We will demand of our friends in Canada, in Australia and in Germany simply to stop funding it. This body represents no one. It is a political body. There are a quite a few countries – I’ve already taken telephone calls about this – that also think there is no justification for this body’s existence.

That will almost certainly be a central theme in the campaign of attack ads Netanyahu reportedly plans to unleash on the ICC and its Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.

The closest equivalent case in the ICC’s brief history to Lieberman’s position was the campaign unleashed by John Bolton, who during his tenure as President George W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations publicly rejoiced at his mandate of undermining the court. Bolton argued that the United States should “isolate [the ICC] through our diplomacy, in order to prevent it from acquiring any further legitimacy or resources.” In 2002, when the Bush administration took the famous and unprecedented step of “un-signing” the Rome Statute, Bolton called it “the happiest day of my life.” But Bolton’s efforts did not have their intended effect. After investing significant political and legal resources in an attempt to trounce the ICC, U.S. lawmakers ultimately realized that their overzealous anti-ICC mission was counter-productive and that a functioning court could actually serve Washington’s interests. By 2006, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice stated that the United States’ policies toward the court were “sort of the same as shooting ourselves in the foot.”

From Haaretz:

In principle, nothing is wrong about joining the ICC. If they are serious about their commitment to international law, all countries must sign and also ratify the Rome Statute, which paves the way in that process. International law is not an open buffet of “pick and choose.” The ICC is the direct outcome of World War II and the Nuremberg trials, and ratification of the statute is a requisite, especially for the U.S. and Israel.

Already in 2000, the U.S. and Israel had signed the statute but did not ratify it. On August 28, 2002, Israel made it clear that it would never ratify it, primarily because of the inclusion of article 8(2)(b)(8), which makes the transfer by an occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, a war crime.

In my opinion, the chances that Palestinian leaders – especially those affiliated with non-PA organizations such as Hamas – will be tried before the ICC is nearly zero.

As for the PA leaders, official Israel has never made any serious argument supporting the accusations that they have been involved in any hostile armed activity against Israel. On the contrary, President Mahmoud Abbas has constantly been calling for a peaceful struggle against the Israeli occupation – publicly condemning, in English and in Arabic, armed attacks against Israelis – and has been working hand with hand with Israel’s security forces in maintaining law and order in the West Bank.

As for the Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip, they cannot leave, given the Israeli blockade, which also bars international figures from entering Gaza. Other Hamas leaders are being held in Israeli military jails, in most cases serving more than one life sentence. Therefore, their only hope of being released, if at all, would be within the framework of a prisoners' exchange deal.

From the CBC:

One Canadian official, who briefed The Canadian Press on condition they not be named, said Baird and Netanyahu met for almost an hour in the prime minister's office and discussed a range of issues, including "the Palestinian Authority's misguided attempt to accede to the Rome Statute."

The Rome Statute is the international treaty that led to the creation of the International Criminal Court, giving it jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and war crimes.

On Dec. 31, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas formally signed the documents necessary to accede to the treaty, one day after the UN Security Council rejected a resolution brought by the Palestinians that would have set a three-year deadline for the establishment of a Palestinian state on lands occupied by Israel.

As Baird arrived in Israel this past Friday, the prosecutor of the ICC announced she was starting a preliminary investigation that could clear the way for a full-scale investigation into possible war crimes in the Palestinian territories.

It is a development that has serious implications for both sides of the Middle East conflict.

The investigation could look at allegations of war crimes by Israel during last summer's Gaza war, in which Palestinians suffered heavy civilian casualties, as well as Israel's settlement construction on occupied Palestinian lands.

It would also likely consider alleged war crimes by Hamas, which fired thousands of rockets at crowded Israeli neighbourhoods from Gaza.

Canada has been one of only a few Western countries to stand by Israel as it comes under fierce international criticism over deadlocked negotiations with the Palestinians, the recent Gaza war and its continued construction of settlements.

From The Toronto Star:

Calling for Israel’s prosecution in the International Criminal Court has been the Palestinians’ “nuclear option” in their long battle for statehood.
On Friday, it neared critical mass with a decision by prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to open a “preliminary examination” that could eventually lead to charges against Israel, if the court decided there was substantial evidence of war crimes.

Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman reacted immediately, calling the decision “scandalous,” and saying its “only goal is to try and damage Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism.”

At the UN Security Council Thursday, Israel’s ambassador denounced the Palestinian move to become a state party to the court as a “message that they aren’t interested in negotiating (for statehood) and they aren’t willing to compromise.”

Meanwhile, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad al-Maliki welcomed Bensouda’s decision as “a historic event.”

It follows the Palestinian Authority’s endorsement of the ICC’s Rome Statute, making it eligible for action by the court — and crucially, back-dating the court’s jurisdiction to July 2014, before Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, in which civilians as well as militants suffered heavy losses.

“Signing on to the ICC came as a result of a great deal of frustration,” said Diana Butto, a Toronto-born lawyer and former adviser to the Palestinians in peace negotiations. “I think it was largely that (Palestinian President Mahmoud) Abbas reached the point where he realized nothing would come through the negotiations process. When he submitted to the UN Security Council a very watered-down resolution on ending the occupation — which encapsulated the U.S. position — the U.S. still voted against it.”

But who risks the most from the ICC move is an open question.
For Israel, it’s international condemnation and threat of arrest warrants for its leadership: but only in a remote, worst-case scenario.

“This just turned the key in the judicial vehicle,” says Richard Dicker, director for international justice at Human Rights Watch. The wheels of justice, he added, are notoriously slow. The court’s examinations can drag on for years, and even indicted war crimes suspects like Sudan’s President Omar al Bashir have travelled freely with no ICC police force to arrest them. Israel could also count on Washington’s support.

For the Palestinians, the strategy is riskier and reprisals have already begun. Israel froze the transfer of more than $100 million a month in taxes it collects for the Palestinians, and U.S. lawmakers have called for cutting of an annual $400 million in funds. Foreign Minister John Baird called the ICC accession a “dangerous development” that would carry “unfortunate consequences.”

The court decision could also expose Palestinian militants to prosecution. Nevertheless many Palestinians feel the risks are worth it, Butto says, “if the Israelis have to think twice when they carry out a whole range of actions.”

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by Regorium

The question is always wondering why these threads are made.

Where was this thread when the US expressed opposition to the ICC, and they continue to do so?

What about the fact that India and China don't even recognize the ICC at all? A brief search on CP shows that there aren't any threads about the ICC regarding these two countries.

Then, why is it such a big deal that Israel expresses opposition to the ICC then, if major superpowers can't even agree on its existence, that a full CP thread needs to be written about it?

The fact of the matter is that it's a continuous anti-Israel rhetoric that we continue to hear every single day. It seems quite clear to me why Nage and blankall feel unfairly targeted.

For me, as a pipeline engineer, it's exactly like whenever the Keystone thread is bumped, it's always a poster that is posting negative rhetoric. It makes me wonder where that poster is when key milestones are reached, when environmental reports are great, and the courts approve of the procedure.

Because this is part of an ongoing effort by Israel to deny the Palestinians any international legitimacy. Also, Israel has withheld tax revenue owed to the Palestinians for having the "audacity" to join the ICC.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Regorium

The question is always wondering why these threads are made.

Because it's news. It's a new thing that is happening.

Where was this thread when the US expressed opposition to the ICC, and they continue to do so?

We talked about Crazy John Bolton on CP when he was doing the same thing.

What about the fact that India and China don't even recognize the ICC at all? A brief search on CP shows that there aren't any threads about the ICC regarding these two countries.

Because they haven't been in the news lately trying to convince Canada to stop funding it.

Then, why is it such a big deal that Israel expresses opposition to the ICC then, if major superpowers can't even agree on its existence, that a full CP thread needs to be written about it?

Because one is part of the other and it is a new event.

The fact of the matter is that it's a continuous anti-Israel rhetoric that we continue to hear every single day. It seems quite clear to me why Nage and blankall feel unfairly targeted.

How is it anti Israel rhetoric to report on international news involving Israel, that the Israeli government itself initiated?

[Regorium]

I'm clearly not talking about "lately", I mean "ever". My remark about using a forum search (rather than browsing the first page) should have clearly implied that.

In the entire history of CP, there has not been a single thread discussing the US's stance on the ICC. Or China, or India. Even when those were new events. Why did you feel like this particular piece of news required hours of your time reading and quoting various articles? Does the USA's stance on the ICC infuriate you as much as Israel's stance?

Looking at WCW Nitro's posting history, in 2.5 years of him being at CP, he has started 5 threads, 3 of which are about Jews or Israel. And you're still trying to convince me that there isn't any bias, or emotion or double standard here, and it's just merely "reporting on international news"?

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I'm clearly not talking about "lately", I mean "ever". My remark about using a forum search (rather than browsing the first page) should have clearly implied that.

In the entire history of CP, there has not been a single thread discussing the US's stance on the ICC. Or China, or India. Even when those were new events. Why did you feel like this particular piece of news required hours of your time reading and quoting various articles? Does the USA's stance on the ICC infuriate you as much as Israel's stance?

Looking at WCW Nitro's posting history, in 2.5 years of him being at CP, he has started 5 threads, 3 of which are about Jews or Israel. And you're still trying to convince me that there isn't any bias, or emotion or double standard here, and it's just merely "reporting on international news"?

Some people are passionate about Israel/Palestine... I'm not sure why this is an issue. WCW obviously follows news from that area quite meticulously, what's wrong with that?

If you feel the need to start a thread regarding other issues, by all means go ahead.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I'm clearly not talking about "lately", I mean "ever". My remark about using a forum search (rather than browsing the first page) should have clearly implied that.

In the entire history of CP, there has not been a single thread discussing the US's stance on the ICC. Or China, or India. Even when those were new events. Why did you feel like this particular piece of news required hours of your time reading and quoting various articles? Does the USA's stance on the ICC infuriate you as much as Israel's stance?

Looking at WCW Nitro's posting history, in 2.5 years of him being at CP, he has started 5 threads, 3 of which are about Jews or Israel. And you're still trying to convince me that there isn't any bias, or emotion or double standard here, and it's just merely "reporting on international news"?

I don't care for either because I find countries tend to be opportunistic and hypocritical in these dealings while human lives take the hit.

However, in case you've missed it, there have been and are multiple megathreads about posters expressing their outrage / concern / support about US politics, US economics, US gun laws, US healthcare, US use of torture etc.. etc...

So if anyone wants to feel emotionally aggrieved simply because disappointing actions by and within their country of birth are being aired out and peed on over and over and over, I'd say it would be US-born posters who peruse the CP OT forum. From what I've read over the last ~10 years, no country is immune.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I'm clearly not talking about "lately", I mean "ever". My remark about using a forum search (rather than browsing the first page) should have clearly implied that.

In the entire history of CP, there has not been a single thread discussing the US's stance on the ICC. Or China, or India. Even when those were new events.

Calgarypuck didn't exist in the 90s when China and India made their opinions known. The US' stance on the ICC predates my posting on CP.

China and India's stance has been pretty much the same since, so, not much 'news' on that issue. When the US passed their Servicemen protection act, there was some curfuffle about that, but again, they have been obstructionist against international law since the 1970s, so this isn't really 'news'.

Why did you feel like this particular piece of news required hours of your time reading and quoting various articles? Does the USA's stance on the ICC infuriate you as much as Israel's stance?

Because I am interested in news, international relations, and Canadian politics. I'm especially interested in American foreign policy history. I spend hours every day reading news and opinion articles, books and journals.

The USA's stance on the ICC and various other UN laws, policies and organizations does infuriate me more than Israel's stance as I view Israel's opposition to be symptomatic of America's. America is an enabler.

Looking at WCW Nitro's posting history, in 2.5 years of him being at CP, he has started 5 threads, 3 of which are about Jews or Israel. And you're still trying to convince me that there isn't any bias, or emotion or double standard here, and it's just merely "reporting on international news"?

There might be a whole heap of bias involved for all I know, i'm not WCW Nitro. Does that invalidate this as news? News organizations seem to think it's news, this discussion didn't come from Alex Jones. Hell, I'm using the Washington Post here as source material.

Either everyone is out to get Israel, or this is an actual substantive new pieces with broad ramifications for international relations, trade, and local politics.

International news organizations and governments seem to think it's newsworthy, why don't you?

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I'm clearly not talking about "lately", I mean "ever". My remark about using a forum search (rather than browsing the first page) should have clearly implied that.

In the entire history of CP, there has not been a single thread discussing the US's stance on the ICC. Or China, or India. Even when those were new events. Why did you feel like this particular piece of news required hours of your time reading and quoting various articles? Does the USA's stance on the ICC infuriate you as much as Israel's stance?

Looking at WCW Nitro's posting history, in 2.5 years of him being at CP, he has started 5 threads, 3 of which are about Jews or Israel. And you're still trying to convince me that there isn't any bias, or emotion or double standard here, and it's just merely "reporting on international news"?

As long as I'm not posting fake stories, why does it make a difference about which world conflict I post most about? And that too a grand total of three threads in 2.5 years.

[afc wimbledon]

It's perfectly ok to be anti Israel based on their actions, doesn't mean you are an anti Semite. I don't like N Korea, doesn't mean I'm anti Korean.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It's perfectly ok to be anti Israel based on their actions, doesn't mean you are an anti Semite. I don't like N Korea, doesn't mean I'm anti Korean.

I agree. However, the issue is racially charged, and it's very easy to slip into either anti-semitic or anti-islamic/arab thought and speech. Clearly Naga Waza is a little quick to jump the gun (obviously), but he does raise a point about why the obsession with Israel exists when much worse is going on in the region and the world.

From your own previous comments:

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Zionism is rooted in a sense of righteousness with a healthy dose of socialism and my Jewish friends, several of whom have left Israel to avoid serving in the IDF, are in a position of trying to defend the actions of a bellicose right wing fundamentalist country, it's a conversation that is painfull for most of them.

No.

Zionism is rooted in the Jewish desire for sovereignty, which is a desire shared by almost all people. The Palestinians want their own state. Does that make them "self-righteous". Comments like this totally ignore the way Jews have been persecuted in the Arab and Christian world.

Here's a hint. Typically when you have to justify a comment with "I have a black/gay/Jewish/muslim/etc... friend" you're not off to a good start.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

Clearly Naga Waza is a little quick to jump the gun (obviously), but he does raise a point about why the obsession with Israel exists when much worse is going on in the region and the world.

I'll never understand this line of reasoning. So we should find the one true important injustice on this earth and we should all be concerned with that. Any concern with "lesser" injustices is an "obsession."

Here's the converse of that argument: As long as larger injustices continue, the world should turn a blind eye to Israelis being killed by mortar attacks.

Does that sound appropriate or respective of human rights and dignity? I don't think so, and no one else should either.