You may have missed this: Israel fesses up to war crimes

[RoccoR]

Beelzebub, et al,

Thank you for the kind words.

And yes, the combination of language of one state and two state and of a continuing war is confusing.

"Nationalisation" in the English language context would only work if it were one state.
It would be annexation in a two state.
And during war, or occupation, colonising the land would be a war crime.

(COMMENT)

Actually we are close to a Two-State Solution (State of Israel --- State of Palestine). As I said, there is no colonization; merely aberrations of the Oslo Accords.

The two state solution looks to be dead. But at the very least is not implemented.
The one state solution looks to be a trap whereby apartheid rules would mean it were no better for Palestinians. And in any case is not implemented.
Occupation and war are the state of play. And as such this is a war crime.

(COMMENT)

Implementation is a subjective evaluation. The UNPC said "implemented." There are Two-States (a Jewish State and an Arab State). In the UN Decision "to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations" (December 2012), it recalls "its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947."

I don't believe a state needs to sign up to any rules to be accountable for its war crimes. I could be wrong there, but it would sound an odd state of affairs. Human rights are universal, and as such, you don't ask "Has the state infringing my human rights got a licence to do so."

(COMMENT)

For the International Criminal Court to sit in judgement, it must have jurisdiction. Israel has to agree to this foreign jurisdiction. Hence the reason for the Treaty Arrangement.

I enjoy your suggestion that retrospective agreement to the land theft might make it NOT a crime, but it is much more likely that a court will convene and pass judgement than Israel would change its policy and actually allow for a final state agreement to be implemented.

But you are right that the legal system can be thwarted. And I am sure you have teams of lying thieving dishonest lawyers more than willing to frustrate justice. But they will only be looking to get off on a technicality or two.
You're not fooling anyone but yourselves.

(COMMENT)

It is how the Rule of Law works.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Forester]

For the International Criminal Court to sit in judgement, it must have jurisdiction. Israel has to agree to this foreign jurisdiction. Hence the reason for the Treaty Arrangement.

I enjoy your suggestion that retrospective agreement to the land theft might make it NOT a crime, but it is much more likely that a court will convene and pass judgement than Israel would change its policy and actually allow for a final state agreement to be implemented.

But you are right that the legal system can be thwarted. And I am sure you have teams of lying thieving dishonest lawyers more than willing to frustrate justice. But they will only be looking to get off on a technicality or two.
You're not fooling anyone but yourselves.

(COMMENT)

It is how the Rule of Law works.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, let me run this by you.
In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted a report from the Secretary-General and a Commission of Experts which concluded that the Geneva Conventions had passed into the body of customary international law, thus making them binding on non-signatories to the Conventions whenever they engage in armed conflicts.

Looks to me like Israel is "on the hook".

 

[montelatici]

Beelzebub, et al,

Thank you for the kind words.

And yes, the combination of language of one state and two state and of a continuing war is confusing.

"Nationalisation" in the English language context would only work if it were one state.
It would be annexation in a two state.
And during war, or occupation, colonising the land would be a war crime.

(COMMENT)

Actually we are close to a Two-State Solution (State of Israel --- State of Palestine). As I said, there is no colonization; merely aberrations of the Oslo Accords.

The two state solution looks to be dead. But at the very least is not implemented.
The one state solution looks to be a trap whereby apartheid rules would mean it were no better for Palestinians. And in any case is not implemented.
Occupation and war are the state of play. And as such this is a war crime.

(COMMENT)

Implementation is a subjective evaluation. The UNPC said "implemented." There are Two-States (a Jewish State and an Arab State). In the UN Decision "to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations" (December 2012), it recalls "its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947."

I don't believe a state needs to sign up to any rules to be accountable for its war crimes. I could be wrong there, but it would sound an odd state of affairs. Human rights are universal, and as such, you don't ask "Has the state infringing my human rights got a licence to do so."

(COMMENT)

For the International Criminal Court to sit in judgement, it must have jurisdiction. Israel has to agree to this foreign jurisdiction. Hence the reason for the Treaty Arrangement.

I enjoy your suggestion that retrospective agreement to the land theft might make it NOT a crime, but it is much more likely that a court will convene and pass judgement than Israel would change its policy and actually allow for a final state agreement to be implemented.

But you are right that the legal system can be thwarted. And I am sure you have teams of lying thieving dishonest lawyers more than willing to frustrate justice. But they will only be looking to get off on a technicality or two.
You're not fooling anyone but yourselves.

(COMMENT)

It is how the Rule of Law works.

Most Respectfully,
R

The two-state solution is over, the Israelis are explicitly rejecting it.

Israel will rule over the non-Jews as long as their numbers and military power allow them to do so.

"Israeli ministers reject bills promoting two-state solution"

Israeli ministers reject bills promoting two-state solution

"Netanyahu: Gaza conflict proves Israel can’t relinquish control of West Bank"

Read more: Netanyahu: Gaza conflict proves Israel can't relinquish control of West Bank | The Times of Israel Netanyahu Gaza conflict proves Israel can t relinquish control of West Bank The Times of Israel
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

 

[toastman]

Beelzebub, et al,

Thank you for the kind words.

And yes, the combination of language of one state and two state and of a continuing war is confusing.

"Nationalisation" in the English language context would only work if it were one state.
It would be annexation in a two state.
And during war, or occupation, colonising the land would be a war crime.

(COMMENT)

Actually we are close to a Two-State Solution (State of Israel --- State of Palestine). As I said, there is no colonization; merely aberrations of the Oslo Accords.

The two state solution looks to be dead. But at the very least is not implemented.
The one state solution looks to be a trap whereby apartheid rules would mean it were no better for Palestinians. And in any case is not implemented.
Occupation and war are the state of play. And as such this is a war crime.

(COMMENT)

Implementation is a subjective evaluation. The UNPC said "implemented." There are Two-States (a Jewish State and an Arab State). In the UN Decision "to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations" (December 2012), it recalls "its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947."

I don't believe a state needs to sign up to any rules to be accountable for its war crimes. I could be wrong there, but it would sound an odd state of affairs. Human rights are universal, and as such, you don't ask "Has the state infringing my human rights got a licence to do so."

(COMMENT)

For the International Criminal Court to sit in judgement, it must have jurisdiction. Israel has to agree to this foreign jurisdiction. Hence the reason for the Treaty Arrangement.

I enjoy your suggestion that retrospective agreement to the land theft might make it NOT a crime, but it is much more likely that a court will convene and pass judgement than Israel would change its policy and actually allow for a final state agreement to be implemented.

But you are right that the legal system can be thwarted. And I am sure you have teams of lying thieving dishonest lawyers more than willing to frustrate justice. But they will only be looking to get off on a technicality or two.
You're not fooling anyone but yourselves.

(COMMENT)

It is how the Rule of Law works.

Most Respectfully,
R

The two-state solution is over, the Israelis are explicitly rejecting it.

Israel will rule over the non-Jews as long as their numbers and military power allow them to do so.

"Israeli ministers reject bills promoting two-state solution"

Israeli ministers reject bills promoting two-state solution

"Netanyahu: Gaza conflict proves Israel can’t relinquish control of West Bank"

Read more: Netanyahu: Gaza conflict proves Israel can't relinquish control of West Bank | The Times of Israel Netanyahu Gaza conflict proves Israel can t relinquish control of West Bank The Times of Israel
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

You're forgetting that Israel made considerable offers for a two state solution in 1967, 2000 and 2008

 

[montelatici]

"International Criminal Court to sit in judgement, it must have jurisdiction. Israel has to agree to this foreign jurisdiction"

That's not true. If that were the case President Al-Bashir of Sudan would not have an arrest warrant on his head. Sudan is not a signatory but was referred to the ICC by UNSC members who are signatories. In addition, crimes committed by agents of a non-signatory on the territory of a signatory, e.g. Lebanon, are under the ICC's jurisdiction, without referral.

 

[montelatici]

Beelzebub, et al,

Thank you for the kind words.

And yes, the combination of language of one state and two state and of a continuing war is confusing.

"Nationalisation" in the English language context would only work if it were one state.
It would be annexation in a two state.
And during war, or occupation, colonising the land would be a war crime.

(COMMENT)

Actually we are close to a Two-State Solution (State of Israel --- State of Palestine). As I said, there is no colonization; merely aberrations of the Oslo Accords.

The two state solution looks to be dead. But at the very least is not implemented.
The one state solution looks to be a trap whereby apartheid rules would mean it were no better for Palestinians. And in any case is not implemented.
Occupation and war are the state of play. And as such this is a war crime.

(COMMENT)

Implementation is a subjective evaluation. The UNPC said "implemented." There are Two-States (a Jewish State and an Arab State). In the UN Decision "to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations" (December 2012), it recalls "its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947."

I don't believe a state needs to sign up to any rules to be accountable for its war crimes. I could be wrong there, but it would sound an odd state of affairs. Human rights are universal, and as such, you don't ask "Has the state infringing my human rights got a licence to do so."

(COMMENT)

For the International Criminal Court to sit in judgement, it must have jurisdiction. Israel has to agree to this foreign jurisdiction. Hence the reason for the Treaty Arrangement.

I enjoy your suggestion that retrospective agreement to the land theft might make it NOT a crime, but it is much more likely that a court will convene and pass judgement than Israel would change its policy and actually allow for a final state agreement to be implemented.

But you are right that the legal system can be thwarted. And I am sure you have teams of lying thieving dishonest lawyers more than willing to frustrate justice. But they will only be looking to get off on a technicality or two.
You're not fooling anyone but yourselves.

(COMMENT)

It is how the Rule of Law works.

Most Respectfully,
R

The two-state solution is over, the Israelis are explicitly rejecting it.

Israel will rule over the non-Jews as long as their numbers and military power allow them to do so.

"Israeli ministers reject bills promoting two-state solution"

Israeli ministers reject bills promoting two-state solution

"Netanyahu: Gaza conflict proves Israel can’t relinquish control of West Bank"

Read more: Netanyahu: Gaza conflict proves Israel can't relinquish control of West Bank | The Times of Israel Netanyahu Gaza conflict proves Israel can t relinquish control of West Bank The Times of Israel
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

You're forgetting that Israel made considerable offers for a two state solution in 1967, 2000 and 2008

A two-state solution was not offered. It was continued military occupation under a different name. That's why it was not accepted.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[montelatici]

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I'm not so sure you have the right perspective. Let me offer you an alternative view.

Stop your lip flapping. It is the Israeli blockade that is the act of war against the inhabitants of Gaza. They have every right to resist the blockade and attempt a breakout and to attack the blockading oppressor through tunnels or otherwise. You have a completely cockeyed view of the facts on the ground. It is the Jewish Israelis that have more than a million people penned up in Gaza. That's a war crime.

(COMMENT)

• Fact #1: HAMAS openly acknowledges its adopted Jihadist Policy.
• Fact #2: HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization.
• Fact #3: HAMAS has a number of associates and affiliates which are designated terrorist organizations.
• Fact #4: HAMAS has a past criminal history going back a quarter century; and established pattern of criminal behaviors.

Then, Israel and all States, undertake the measures to prevent and combat terrorism, in particular by denying terrorists access to the means to carry out their attacks, to their targets and to the desired impact of their attacks: to strengthen coordination and cooperation among States in combating crimes that might be connected with terrorism, including drug trafficking in all its aspects, illicit arms trade, in particular of small arms and light weapons, including man-portable air defence systems , money laundering and smuggling of nuclear, chemical, biological, radiological and other potentially deadly materials. [Part II. Measures to prevent and combat terrorism --- Plan of Action, A/RES/60/288]

Curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them” is a key element in the suppression and control of many threat organizations.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Forester, et al,

We are talking about two different things.

Rocco, let me run this by you.
In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted a report from the Secretary-General and a Commission of Experts which concluded that the Geneva Conventions had passed into the body of customary international law, thus making them binding on non-signatories to the Conventions whenever they engage in armed conflicts.

Looks to me like Israel is "on the hook".

(COMMENT)

I totally agree, the Genevea Convention is part of "Customary International Humanitarian Law." That is a different thing from the Jurisdiction of the ICC.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Israel is blockading and/or occupying land that the non-Jews live on. 'Terrorist" is a relative term. The ANC (including Mandela) were deemed terrorists by the US. Most in the world deemed them freedom fighters. The Afghan Muhajedin were deemed freedom fighters by the U.S. and terrorists by the Russians. Now the latter day Muhajedin (Taliban) are deemed terrorists by the U.S.. See how it works Rocco.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I try to not invoke the "never" or "not possible" when discussing topics. So I'll just render some information for your considerations.

"International Criminal Court to sit in judgement, it must have jurisdiction. Israel has to agree to this foreign jurisdiction"

That's not true. If that were the case President Al-Bashir of Sudan would not have an arrest warrant on his head. Sudan is not a signatory but was referred to the ICC by UNSC members who are signatories. In addition, crimes committed by agents of a non-signatory on the territory of a signatory, e.g. Lebanon, are under the ICC's jurisdiction, without referral.

(COMMENT)

There is the potential for a referral.

Article 11 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Jurisdiction ratione temporis

1. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry
into force of this Statute.
2. If a State becomes a Party to this Statute after its entry into force, the Court may
exercise its jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into
force of this Statute for that State, unless that State has made a declaration under
article 12, paragraph 3.​

In the case you cited, there is such a thing as a "referral."

Article 14
Referral of a situation by a State Party

1. A State Party may refer to the Prosecutor a situation in which one or more crimes
within the jurisdiction of the Court appear to have been committed requesting the
Prosecutor to investigate the situation for the purpose of determining whether one
or more specific persons should be charged with the commission of such crimes.
2. As far as possible, a referral shall specify the relevant circumstances and be
accompanied by such supporting documentation as is available to the State
referring the situation.​

Having said that, you must remember, that once the referral is accepted, then immediately, the leadership of HAMAS (a designated Terrorist Organization) become a target of such investigations as many be necessary to prefer charges.

Remember, that is fully known in the open source domain that the State of Palestine has committed thousands of events --- recorded as to violations of the Customary International Humanitarian Law.

However, in the case of the Occupation of the West Bank, there are the Oslo Accords; and Article 68.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, this is the "good guys are bad guys" argument.

Israel is blockading and/or occupying land that the non-Jews live on. 'Terrorist" is a relative term. The ANC (including Mandela) were deemed terrorists by the US. Most in the world deemed them freedom fighters. The Afghan Muhajedin were deemed freedom fighters by the U.S. and terrorists by the Russians. Now the latter day Muhajedin (Taliban) are deemed terrorists by the U.S.. See how it works Rocco.

(COMMENT)

Let's just drop the crystal ball --- future knowledge --- benefits. Let's stick to what we know today.

I think The Hague is going to do a lot of soul searching before they take-up the cause for another Islamic Terrorist Group/Organization; given the past history, their covenant and policies, and the potential if let loose. I think The Hague is going to look very hard at prosecuting any nation that is actively engaged in defending its sovereignty from a known terrorist organization that even the Arab Kingdoms are skeptical of today.

You can tout the morality, integrity, and the heroic character of HAMAS and the Palestinians in general. But the fact of the matter is, they are dangerous to Israel and the Regional Security of the entire Middle East.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Forester]

(COMMENT)

Let's just drop the crystal ball --- future knowledge --- benefits. Let's stick to what we know today.

I think The Hague is going to do a lot of soul searching before they take-up the cause for another Islamic Terrorist Group/Organization; given the past history, their covenant and policies, and the potential if let loose. I think The Hague is going to look very hard at prosecuting any nation that is actively engaged in defending its sovereignty from a known terrorist organization that even the Arab Kingdoms are skeptical of today.

You can tout the morality, integrity, and the heroic character of HAMAS and the Palestinians in general. But the fact of the matter is, they are dangerous to Israel and the Regional Security of the entire Middle East.

Most Respectfully,
R

Au contraire, I think it's definitively been shown that Israel is indeed MUCH MORE dangerous to the Palestinians civilians, esp. their children, as opposed to the contrary. War crimes abound. Prosecution/referral to be determined. Hell, I'm in favor of a vigorous prosecution, myself. Gotta keep the "strong men" & "rogue dictators" in check somehow.

 

[toastman]

Beelzebub, et al,

Thank you for the kind words.

And yes, the combination of language of one state and two state and of a continuing war is confusing.

"Nationalisation" in the English language context would only work if it were one state.
It would be annexation in a two state.
And during war, or occupation, colonising the land would be a war crime.

(COMMENT)

Actually we are close to a Two-State Solution (State of Israel --- State of Palestine). As I said, there is no colonization; merely aberrations of the Oslo Accords.

The two state solution looks to be dead. But at the very least is not implemented.
The one state solution looks to be a trap whereby apartheid rules would mean it were no better for Palestinians. And in any case is not implemented.
Occupation and war are the state of play. And as such this is a war crime.

(COMMENT)

Implementation is a subjective evaluation. The UNPC said "implemented." There are Two-States (a Jewish State and an Arab State). In the UN Decision "to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations" (December 2012), it recalls "its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947."

I don't believe a state needs to sign up to any rules to be accountable for its war crimes. I could be wrong there, but it would sound an odd state of affairs. Human rights are universal, and as such, you don't ask "Has the state infringing my human rights got a licence to do so."

(COMMENT)

For the International Criminal Court to sit in judgement, it must have jurisdiction. Israel has to agree to this foreign jurisdiction. Hence the reason for the Treaty Arrangement.

I enjoy your suggestion that retrospective agreement to the land theft might make it NOT a crime, but it is much more likely that a court will convene and pass judgement than Israel would change its policy and actually allow for a final state agreement to be implemented.

But you are right that the legal system can be thwarted. And I am sure you have teams of lying thieving dishonest lawyers more than willing to frustrate justice. But they will only be looking to get off on a technicality or two.
You're not fooling anyone but yourselves.

(COMMENT)

It is how the Rule of Law works.

Most Respectfully,
R

The two-state solution is over, the Israelis are explicitly rejecting it.

Israel will rule over the non-Jews as long as their numbers and military power allow them to do so.

"Israeli ministers reject bills promoting two-state solution"

Israeli ministers reject bills promoting two-state solution

"Netanyahu: Gaza conflict proves Israel can’t relinquish control of West Bank"

Read more: Netanyahu: Gaza conflict proves Israel can't relinquish control of West Bank | The Times of Israel Netanyahu Gaza conflict proves Israel can t relinquish control of West Bank The Times of Israel
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

You're forgetting that Israel made considerable offers for a two state solution in 1967, 2000 and 2008

A two-state solution was not offered. It was continued military occupation under a different name. That's why it was not accepted.

It was not accepted because there was no right of return involved.
Arafat sad himself that he didn't accept the offer because he would he 'drinking tea with Rabin'
Abbas might have also felt that his life would be in danger if he accepted the deal by extremists who oppose any deal with Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

Forester, et al,

"Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts." [Rule 97. The use of human shields is prohibited.]

Au contraire, I think it's definitively been shown that Israel is indeed MUCH MORE dangerous to the Palestinians civilians, esp. their children, as opposed to the contrary. War crimes abound. Prosecution/referral to be determined. Hell, I'm in favor of a vigorous prosecution, myself. Gotta keep the "strong men" & "rogue dictators" in check somehow.

(COMMENT)

The collateral civilian casualties, given the scope and nature of the conflict, were not inordinately high to begin with. The casualty rate could have been reduced had HAMAS not demonstrated a callous disregard for the population it was suppose to protect. HAMAS made no effort to evacuate the population away from the forward edge of battle. By doing nothing (nonfeasance) it was able to camouflage/hid itself within the population.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Beelzebub]

As Israel allegedly DID try to herd Gazans away from areas, before killing them in the areas it directed them too, "evacuation" is an entirely specious concept in Gaza.

 

[Daniyel]

Once they will stop prioritizing their ego, nobody will die because of the conflict, but its too much to ask.

 

[Vigilante]

Ummm.... one of 20 Palestinian's shot to death by Hamas as a spy for Israel, dragged through the streets of Gaza, by that bastion of humanity, Hamas.... Only depraved animals would do this kind of shit, ISIS, and the muslim brotherhood also come to mind....

 

[José]

And this is what the depraved animals who rule Israel do to the same people they should treat as citizens.