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

[Itse]

Originally Posted by blankall

You can argue that the concept of state is new, and I'd agree. Most modern European states (Italy, Greece, Germany, etc..) weren't formed until the 19th century or later, when empires collapsed and regional states amalgamated.

Zionism has more to do with the desire to live under Jewish rule than any specific political structure. This is not a new concept. The only difference is that this time, they managed to pull it off and it stuck.

That's kind of like saying "the West has always seeked to dominate oil rich areas, for example North America". While technically true, and while some of the motivations of colonization of North America were essentially the same (gaining control of natural resources), it still obviously makes no sense to say that.


That reading also creates a false continuity in a vast spread of time, when in fact the idea of Jewish dominance in that area has probably come and gone numerous times over, depending on numerous social, political, economical and religious factors, most of which we have no knowledge of today and probably many of which we would only poorly understand even if we did.

Even the concept of what "being a jew" means has changed between 100 and 2000.

While obviously connected to ideas that previously existed, zionism is still a fundamentally nationalistic idea. Even though it's superficially the same as before, I would claim there is probably important differences in the way zionism affects how people think and how people act, in comparison to the ideas that pre-date it.


Now, with that criticism said, I'd like to make a counterpoint to myself.

If we look at the situation from your angle, that it's "the same old thing", it isn't very flattering for Israel. From that angle, Israel itself becomes an anachronistic creation, a modern nation state, but with ideals straight from pre-modern tribalism.

(This reading has some merit as, it offers an explanation to the severe disconnection in many discussions around Israel. In the language of pre-modern tribalism and early nationalism the situation in Palestine is about dominance and conflict, us and them.

The criticism is mostly a post-modern discussion, where the old tribal conflict is re-framed as racism, the tribal state is re-framed as an apartheid system, and questions of "us" and "them" become completely different questions of legality, international treaties, living standards and human rights.


Also, your reading gives a chance to create this storyline:

After WWII the jews took ownership of the legend of the holocaust in Europe (despite actually being only one out of a number of persecuted minorities). They used that sympathy to create unity in their diaspora, and to gain international support, and then used those new resources to gain victory in a completely unrelated tribal conflict; a conflict so old it in fact predates even the existance of Islam. The holocaust and the historical persecution of the jews in Europe has ever since been used as a very effective propaganda weapon to shut down criticism towards the state of Israel and it's apartheid system.


History is tricky in the sense that all these readings are in some way true.

(I'll stop now, I'm sure I have already bored everybody. )

[blankall]

The Holocaust had little to do with Zionism. The last big push for Zionism occurred well before that. The Balfour declaration was well before that.

The majority of the Jews living in Israel come from Arab lands, not European ones.

I have yet to see anyone say we shouldn't discuss Israel because of the Holocaust. If anything it's you who is c attempting to shut down discussion by accusing people of exploting the Holocaust.


Your analogy about north America is also wrong. It's not like comparing an established colonial power grabbing more resources. It's a diaspora attempting to return back to a land of their heritage.

Yes the desire to do so will fluctuate through time, but that doesn't mean it's a new invention. And yes it is tribalism. But so is the establishment of a Palestinian state. You're essentially setting this John Lennon-esque ideal, that Israelis and Jews should have to live among the people of the world without borders, and then accusing them of racism and apartheid when they chose the more practical reality of their own nation state, which is what everyone else is doing.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by _Q_

It's overly simplistic to assume that the many different ethnicities that lived in the Middle East have all vanished and a unified "Arab" rule now occupies all 22 countries.

That's kind of the crux of the whole Palestine/Israel debate and for some reason is extremely difficult for Westerners to understand.

In what way is it overly simplistic? The genocides of the Kurds, Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, etc.. That formerly inhabited the area and their replacement by Arabs is well documented. And happened on a massive scale.

Ironically it was the cleansing of Jewish populations from these newly formed Arab empires that allowed for Israel to exist. Without the massive influx of Asiatic Jews into Israel, it simply wouldn't exist anymore.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by blankall

The Holocaust had little to do with Zionism. The last big push for Zionism occurred well before that. The Balfour declaration was well before that.

The majority of the Jews living in Israel come from Arab lands, not European ones.

I have yet to see anyone say we shouldn't discuss Israel because of the Holocaust. If anything it's you who is c attempting to shut down discussion by accusing people of exploting the Holocaust.


Your analogy about north America is also wrong. It's not like comparing an established colonial power grabbing more resources. It's a diaspora attempting to return back to a land of their heritage.

Yes the desire to do so will fluctuate through time, but that doesn't mean it's a new invention. And yes it is tribalism. But so is the establishment of a Palestinian state. You're essentially setting this John Lennon-esque ideal, that Israelis and Jews should have to live among the people of the world without borders, and then accusing them of racism and apartheid when they chose the more practical reality of their own nation state, which is what everyone else is doing.

I think the Holocaust link is pretty relevant though. The migration of European or more westernized Jews contributed to a culture clash in the region. Obviously there was no intent, but from a Palestinian/Arab/Muslim perspective, it probably did seem like an "invasion" of sorts. Add to that, the Western empires did sell out their Arab tenants in the region.

Having said that, I am a supporter of Israel being a homeland for Jewish people. Some things probably need to change in order to move back from the tit-for-tat aggression the things have deteriorated to, but for the most part I see Israel as reacting to the pressure put on them and not a naturally aggressive people.

[BigNumbers]

1. Hey, this thread has 3 pages of responses and is a topical issue, I should open it
2. Opens thread and starts reading
3. Sees Nage Waza et al. doing their 'woah-is-Isreal' thing
4. 
   

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by blankall

I think his point is that these threads always devolve into the same bickering, and you can't actually discuss the relevant events that the thread was meant to discuss.

Can we get back on topic, please?

Canada is reaffirming its unequivocal support of Israel's bid to block a Palestinian attempt to pursue war-crimes charges against the Jewish state at the International Criminal Court.

The Palestinians "made a huge mistake" by going to the ICC, an United Nations institution that Canada played a lead role in creating in the 1990s, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Monday in Jerusalem.

Prior to meeting Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon as part of his five-day visit to the region, Baird said the Palestinians crossed a "red line," and that he "communicated that in no uncertain terms" to Palestinian leaders a day earlier.

Baird's spokesman Adam Hodge said Canada is "considering a number of options in response to ... the purported Palestinian accession to the ICC." Canada has told the prosecutor that "the Palestinians are not a state" and should not be allowed to join the court.

"We intend to communicate further views to the prosecutor in due course," Hodge said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked Baird personally for the Canadian support.

"You know that it's a travesty of justice to haul Israel to the dock in The Hague, and you know that the entire system of international law could unravel because of this travesty," Netanyahu said.

"I thank you for your support and for your moral leadership, and I pledge this to you: Israel will not have its hand tied by a politicized ICC."

Before shaking hands with Netanyahu, Baird replied: "Canada doesn't stand behind Israel; we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with it."

New Democrat foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar objected to Canada taking action to block the Palestinians at the ICC, describing as overly hyperbolic Baird's characterization that they crossed a "red line."

"We are part of the ICC. The ICC should be independent. It is very important as a judicial institution that it be able to take in information and make decisions independently," said Dewar.

"If a red line is actually people going to the International Criminal Court ... we've gone a far way from where we started years ago, supporting the institution, creating the institution."

One Canadian official, not authorized to discuss the matter and speaking on condition of anonymity, 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 —a development with 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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01...n_6499056.html

Former US president Jimmy Carter said on Wednesday that the International Criminal Court should probe both Israel and Hamas for possible war crimes committed during Operation Protective Edge.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, the Nobel laureate said that such an investigation would be “good for both sides.”

"I think it might be a good thing for the International Criminal Court to take an inquisitive look not only at what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians but vice versa," Carter said.

"I’ve been to the places in Israel where Hamas rockets land and I have been there and I’ve condemned the rockets on television, so there are problems both ways. But I think that to expose what has happened on both sides to the world in a very careful and judicial way will probably be good for both sides."

When asked if he believed Israel was guilty of war crimes in Gaza, Carter was noncommittal.

"I think that’s something to be determined by a legal investigation,” the former president said. “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having the ICC investigate an allegation on both sides and then present their findings to the world.”

Israel has rejected any international inquiry into its 50-day Gaza offensive. It has vowed not to cooperate with the UN Commission of Inquiry headed by Canadian jurist William Schabas.



Carter said that the United States “is in lockstep with Israel” in its opposition to a Palestinian state, a position that is losing traction in the international community.

“About 150 nations recognize Palestine as a nation and an official state, and some of the European countries do as well. Both the parliament of Great Britain and the parliament of France have recently advocated that Palestine be recognized as a state, so even though the United States has always been in lockstep with Israel on these kinds of matters, it’s not a common belief all over the world."

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Jim...l-Hamas-387700

The ICC has yet to address any violations carried out by Western liberal states. Simply put, the geography of the ICC’s investigations – from Côte d’Ivoire to Uganda – both reflects and reproduces an old colonial frame of justice. Even within this blinkered framework, the court’s success rate has not been particularly impressive: in its 12 years of existence, the ICC has carried out 21 investigations; only two people have been convicted.

Given that record, why has Bensouda’s announcement provoked such outrage in the Israeli government? Binyamin Netanyahu condemned ‘the absurd decision of the ICC prosecutor to ignore international law and agreements under which Palestinians don’t have a state and can only get one through direct negotiations with Israel’. The foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, announced that Israel would take all necessary measures to dismantle the ICC. (Israel signed the 1998 Rome Statute but has so far refused to become a party to the treaty.)

Netanyahu and Lieberman can’t really be worried about Israeli officials being prosecuted. If they are apprehensive, it’s because even the ICC’s preliminary examination may change the way the question of Palestine is perceived, framing it in terms of human rights, international law and war crimes, with the potential to produce a historical narrative very different from the hegemonic Zionist one.

Irrespective of whether the ICC’s examination leads to a full-blown investigation, it already raises some crucial questions. Who is the victim – a particularly charged category given the two peoples’ history – and who is the perpetrator? Can the displacement and ethnic cleansing of indigenous people be legal? Which kinds of violence can be considered legitimate and which illegitimate?

http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2015/01/21...l-and-the-icc/

[_Q_]

^^ a. I don't understand what it is that Israel is afraid of. This is a typical case of "if you're not guilty then you have nothing to lose"
b. Why is Canada so staunchly pro-israel? How does such a relationship benefit Canada?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by _Q_

^^ a. I don't understand what it is that Israel is afraid of. This is a typical case of "if you're not guilty then you have nothing to lose"
b. Why is Canada so staunchly pro-israel? How does such a relationship benefit Canada?

A) That's not really true. If they do not trust the intentions of the court as they say, then there is something to fear even if they've done nothing wrong
B) Harper and the right. That is all

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

A) That's not really true. If they do not trust the intentions of the court as they say, then there is something to fear even if they've done nothing wrong
B) Harper and the right. That is all

I'd also add that there seems to be no intention to equally scrutinize the Palestinian side. Why would anyone in a conflict like to have their actions highlighted without any investigation of the other side.

You've also got the UNs track record of total one sidedness. This makes the UN the least impartial forum possible other then perhaps the Arab league.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by blankall

I'd also add that there seems to be no intention to equally scrutinize the Palestinian side. Why would anyone in a conflict like to have their actions highlighted without any investigation of the other side.

You've also got the UNs track record of total one sidedness. This makes the UN the least impartial forum possible other then perhaps the Arab league.

3 posts up, bro:

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 —a development with 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.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

It's hard when narratives collide with facts and reality.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by blankall

You've also got the UNs track record of total one sidedness. This makes the UN the least impartial forum possible other then perhaps the Arab league.

Yes. The UN is one-sided in something. Absolutely.

You are obviously arguing just to win an argument, and as a result have become so wrapped up in your own fantasy world that it doesn't matter much what anyone else says. That's it for me again.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

3 posts up, bro:

And the UN has such a strong record of holding the Palestinians responsible for their actions.... I'm sure that statement is all the Israelis need.

In the last Gaza war the UN got caught allowing Hamas to house rockets in their buildings.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Itse

Yes. The UN is one-sided in something. Absolutely.

You are obviously arguing just to win an argument, and as a result have become so wrapped up in your own fantasy world that it doesn't matter much what anyone else says. That's it for me again.

You don't think the UN has acted one sided? We are taking about an organization that allowed anti-blasphemy laws to be passed at a human rights convention.

The UN human rights commission voted to keep the blasphemy law every year between 1999 and 2011. The law was used to uphold anti-homosexual legislation.


They also created a special definition of refugee that applies only to Palestinians.

[WCW Nitro]

So, in summary, Israel can bomb the Palestinians every couple of years, build wherever they want in violation of int'l law, and oh yeah any organization that is critical of Israel is biased.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Can we get back on topic, please?




http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01...n_6499056.html

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Jim...l-Hamas-387700

http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2015/01/21...l-and-the-icc/

The Conservatives' dealings with and stances on Israel/Palestine have been pretty repulsive.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

And the UN has such a strong record of holding the Palestinians responsible for their actions.... I'm sure that statement is all the Israelis need.

In the last Gaza war the UN got caught allowing Hamas to house rockets in their buildings.

Do you think maybe, just maybe, the continued attempt to deprive Palestinians of recognized statehood and other forms of international recognition and accountability contributes, in turn, to your complaint about their lack of accountability?

Putting the Palestinian statehood into equal footing on the world stage, with rights commensurate with those of a sovereign state, would also bring them into a legitimate area where repercussions could be considered and meted.