‘We lost Europe,’ says Israeli official

on 102 Comments

Haaretz says that Germany has backtracked on decision to oppose Palestinian non-member status at the U.N., and will abstain. “We lost Europe,” an Israeli Foreign Ministry official says.

Early Thursday morning, just hours before the vote — scheduled to take place around 11:00 P.M. (Israel time) — Germany changed its mind, deciding to abstain from voting rather than opposing the Palestinian initiative, as Israel had assumed it would.

“The decision wasn’t taken lightly,” Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said. “Germany shares the goal for a Palestinian state. We have campaigned for this in many ways, but the recent decisive steps towards real statehood can only be the result of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians,” the German official said.

Ma’an says Israeli peace groups are for the Palestinian bid:

Israeli peace organizations said Wednesday they would hold demonstrations in Tel Aviv to support Palestine’s bid to upgrade its status at the UN..

The statement was also signed by groups like Peace Now, Israel’s centrist peace organization, and Machsom Watch, which monitors Israeli checkpoints in the occupied West Bank.

Jewish Voice for Peace is for it:

This vote will not create an independent Palestinian state. It could, however, give Palestinians the ability to hold Israel accountable in the International Criminal Court. Despite its limitations as a tool to achieve a fair resolution, Jewish Voice for Peace supports the move.

A successful bid will show that the majority of the world’s countries support Palestinian political and social rights.

Meanwhile, Israel and the United States are lobbying furiously against it. Both countries, which say they support Palestinian independence, have worked at nearly every turn against a just and lasting peace for both peoples.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Bernard Avishai that he supports the statehood initiative, to save Israel:

“I believe,” Olmert wrote me, intending his statement to be made public, “that the Palestinian request from the United Nations is congruent  with  the basic concept of the two-state solution. Therefore, I see no reason to oppose it. Once the United Nations will lay the foundation for this idea, we in Israel will have to engage in a serious process of negotiations, in order to agree on specific borders based on the 1967 lines, and resolve the other issues. It is time to give a hand to, and encourage, the moderate forces  amongst the Palestinians. Abu-Mazen”—an alias for Abbas—”and Salam Fayyad need our help. It’s time to give it.”

Zionists are already seeking to discount the anticipated victory. Mark Leon Goldberg at Open Zion says Palestine can’t take Israel to the International Criminal Court because that court is only for African countries, and Israel can pressure its way out. “The ICC is primarily a legal institution, but it is not sealed off to the dynamics of international power politics.” More:

An investigation of Israel would be a radical departure from the cases the court currently pursues. The seven cases before the court all deal with African countries with barely functioning justice systems, and are the result of primarily intra-state, rather than inter-state, violence. … [T]he court is simply not accustomed to pursuing charges against a western country with a strong legal system for its conduct in international conflict.

Even if the court could get over these hang-ups, pursuing charges against Israelis would be tantamount to political suicide for the court. It would not be unreasonable to think that several European countries would hold back their funding for the ICC, which is already cash-strapped.

Thanks to Ilene Cohen.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

102 Responses

  1. Les
    November 29, 2012, 9:53 am

    “that court is only for African countries” is a statement from a racist. White racist, Jewish racist, what’s the difference?

    • mondonut
      November 29, 2012, 11:18 am

      Are you calling out Philip Weiss as a racist? Because that is who made the statement that offends you.

      From Mark Goldberg…

      An investigation of Israel would be a radical departure from the cases the court currently pursues. The seven cases before the court all deal with African countries with barely functioning justice systems, and are the result of primarily intra-state, rather than inter-state, violence. This is not to say that situations have to fulfill these criteria to be before the ICC, but the court is simply not accustomed to pursuing charges against a western country with a strong legal system for its conduct in international conflict.

    • piotr
      November 29, 2012, 2:49 pm

      There is also former Yugoslavia.

      Among more advanced countries, perhaps only USA engaged in mass murder, but Europe does need a more systematic approach to conflicts, including minority rights.

      “The ICC is primarily a legal institution, but it is not sealed off to the dynamics of international power politics.”

      Indeed. ICC is not immune from pressure and manipulation, but it is kind of crass to OPENLY rely on that.

  2. seafoid
    November 29, 2012, 10:09 am

    Zionism backed by more or less all of Judaism has swept the Palestinians under the carpet but Galut knows that they are under the carpet and is concerned about them . And nobody trusts Netanyahu.

    Israel lost the Germans. FFS.


    “The German decision not to oppose the Palestinian bid for non-member observer state status, and to abstain in the vote at the United Nations General Assembly this evening has shocked the top brass at the Foreign Ministry and the Prime Minister’s office. A top German official who took part in discussions in Berlin, however, stressed that the writing was on the wall.

    The senior German official, who has requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, has told Haaretz that Germany has been trying to help Israel on the Palestinian issue for a long time but Israel has not taken the necessary steps to advance the peace process. “The Israelis,” he said, “did not respond in any way to our request to make a gesture on settlements.””

    Israel now has to choose between Europe and the Hebron Jews. Procrastination is over. Hevron will never be Israeli. And YESHA is a joke.

  3. pabelmont
    November 29, 2012, 10:16 am

    I don’t doubt that the western countries would withhold money from the ICC if they didn’t like its doings. But that would not stop Palestine from trying. Let Israel (and USA and UK et al) be SEEN as the destroyers of human-rights organizations, be SEEN as taking the world back to the moral/ethical conditions of the dark ages.

    But Germany and others are wrong who say that a Palestinian State can emerge only from negotiations with Israel. If the hand of God were to descend over Israel and deprive it of most of its oxygen, for example, the Palestinians might easily achieve a state by negotiating with the remnants of the catastrophe.

    This could happen, figuratively, if the nations decided to impose major trade sanctions on Israel to end the occupation (or at least end the settlement program), for trade is the “oxygen” for Israel, and the international community (hitherto the do-nothing God of all nations) could descend on Israel (for its international lawlessness) just as the hand of God’s Nature recently descended on New York City and the New Jersey shore (and do not forget God’s Nature descending on the American Midwest and West with drought and fire) (and if I am not mistaken, God’s Nature has descended with hell and high water elsewhere on earth as well).

    At some point people will stand up on their legs and say, “Enough!”. And the nations will hear tham and, all too tardily, follow suit.

    • ritzl
      November 29, 2012, 12:23 pm

      What seems to be at stake here is the whole post WWII system of international law. If Palestine is blocked from using the ICC, then the countries doing the blocking are, in one stroke, trashing the whole concept and international consensus structure of legal enforcement of “never again.” All for Israel.

      That may well be the legacy of the Nobel Peace Prize President.

      • sardelapasti
        November 29, 2012, 2:01 pm

        “That may well be the legacy of the Nobel Peace Prize President.”

        Unfortunately, it’s from day one, from 1945, that the colonial powers and their “lawyers” have been destroying and emptying the Nuremberg principles, creating a maze of impossible regulations and formal requirements and making it all but impossible to bring to justice the criminals against humanity. At the very moment in which Jackson was promising the world, in the name of the US, that this international order was not dependent on nationality, that the same principles would apply to the US, shit-tongued government shysters were making sure that the colonial criminals would be impossible to hunt. Just look at the interminable messages even here on the bulletin board, forbidding resistance to the occupation in the name of some abstruse postscript.

      • ritzl
        November 30, 2012, 9:13 pm

        Agree, but now its a full frontal assault, in plain view. No what I would call “backgrounding” the effort.

        Hostage posted a quote a few days ago that I thought succinctly describe the process, or at least the ultimate effect of the process you describe.

        Experts in the field have noted that “The more rights are advocated in the face of demonstrable nonperformance and no adoption of force, the more they turn into rites.” http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15336-2/no-return-no-refuge/excerpt


        Yes, TPTB never want to be constrained. Yeah it’s deliberate and ongoing. But I don’t recall (as very much a non-expert) so blatant a push to, I don’t know, ignore the entire body of international law on human and refugees’ rights all at once, in plain sight.

        Perhaps I’m overstating, but if so, I don’t think by much. The drafters of the UDHR (Humphreys, and Cassin particularly) must be spinning in their graves. Very, very sad, with the saddest part being that it is being done at the behest of the very people that it was [arguably] principally designed to protect.

        I pray for a little multi-generational institutional memory/perspective on this.

  4. Citizen
    November 29, 2012, 10:18 am

    Czech Republic has also decided to exchange its anticipated NO for ABSTAIN.

    • piotr
      November 29, 2012, 2:53 pm

      Will Latvia remain the last bastion of unconditional support for Israel? And how solid is the support of Israel among Pacific island nations? Lost of Palau would be a humiliating blow.

      • JennieS
        November 29, 2012, 4:27 pm

        To my delighted surprise I learned this morning that NZ will vote in favour of Palestine. I had expected us to wimp out and abstain as usual. Also Australia has been forced to abstain rather than vote no by a revolt in PM Gillard’s party.

      • J. Otto Pohl
        November 30, 2012, 2:46 pm

        No Latvia and the other two Baltic states abstained. Since the Soviet Union subjected much of their indigenous population to forced removal in 1941 and again in 1949 (also 1948 for Lithuania) they probably have more sympathy for the Palestinians than the Czechs. The Czechs are still celebrating their own version of the Nakba against ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland, Zipser, and other areas.

    • Cliff
      November 30, 2012, 3:14 am

      Can someone explain the political value of an ‘abstain’ vote? It’s not a ‘No’ and it’s not a ‘Yes’.

      What message does it send and is it the first step towards a ‘Yes’?

      Do we know if the abstains are the usual suspects or include new parties.

      Historically speaking, when it comes to voting on this issue – has there been ‘Abstains’ that became ‘Yes’s eventually? Or ‘Nos’ eventually?

      I know Canada didn’t always vote along with the US and Israel – or maybe that was Australia.

      • lysias
        November 30, 2012, 11:01 am

        Canada and Sweden are two formerly independent countries that seem to have been bought by the Empire.

        How did Sweden vote on the PA?

      • Taxi
        November 30, 2012, 11:09 am

        An Abstention more often than not means: Yes, But…. we don’t want to upset Mister X by saying it directly.

        It’s really a ‘diplomatic’ maneuvering tool.

        Sometimes it means: I don’t care – whatever!

        Hahahaha I’m sure Hostage can explain it a lot more acrobatically legalese than I can. Few others out there too.

      • eljay
        November 30, 2012, 11:53 am

        >> It’s really a ‘diplomatic’ maneuvering tool.

        It strikes me as the cowardly option, used by representatives of a country to avoid having to take a moral and just stand on an issue.

        Canada made a bold and firm stand in favour of injustice and immorality. Australia abstained, so it gets to wait-and-see how this all plays out:
        – If good results from Palestinian statehood, Australia can proudly join “the right side of history”.
        – If no good results, Australia can safely re-join its friends in supporting the supremacist “Jewish State” project.

      • mmayer
        November 30, 2012, 11:54 pm

        There was a time, pre-Harper days, when Canada usually stayed pretty even handed in this. Then we voted in a douche bag, who has prorogued our government twice in a year, is now buying F-35s (yes, 65 of them) which until yesterday’s vote I had no idea what we were going to use them for. It seems of late, we are starting to make many enemies.

    • J. Otto Pohl
      November 30, 2012, 2:40 pm

      No it did not. The Czech Republic was the only European state to vote against upgrading Palestine’s status. I suspect it is because of the common refusal to acknowledge their own ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans and Hungarians after WWII that they share with the Israelis. They seem to have a mutual ethnic cleansing admiration society going.

  5. Shmuel
    November 29, 2012, 10:27 am

    Italy has announced that it will vote yes (source: ANSA).

  6. Citizen
    November 29, 2012, 10:36 am
    • seafoid
      November 29, 2012, 10:57 am

      From the link

      “Those countries that are not voting yes appear likely to abstain, with the probability that none of the EU’s 27 member states will oppose the bid, due to be voted on at the UN General Assembly in New York after 5pm Thursday local time. ”

      Israel was expecting Euro disunity which would allow it to say that no serious country voted in favour. It really does look as though Israel is propped up by lobby money and not much else.

      • Kathleen
        November 29, 2012, 12:03 pm

        And the I lobby in Europe seems to be losing ground. Excellent. Been a long time coming

      • seafoid
        November 29, 2012, 1:35 pm

        It is easier for zionism to corrupt the US since everything goes through DC while there are 27 capitals in the EU…

      • piotr
        November 29, 2012, 2:57 pm

        Another aspect is that in some European countries support of Israel is basically marker of pro-Americanism. On one hand, it is not as strong as it used to be even among the right wing parties. On the other, with a tepid Administration, voting for Israel is not a source of “tradable favors”. Those two aspect may reinforce each other.

      • seafoid
        November 29, 2012, 3:59 pm

        Israel has very little leverage in Europe. Maybe because Europe’s Jews are more reasonable than their Yank brethren. Or could it be that Manifest Destiny doesn’t sell as well here ?

      • W.Jones
        November 29, 2012, 10:56 pm


        Yours facts are correct, but the reason you mentioned may not be the main factor: We have 50 capitols in America and 300 million people, and the many-headed congressional level is even more affected than the singular presidential one, apparently.

    • American
      November 29, 2012, 12:03 pm

      “In a last-ditch move on Wednesday, William Burns, the US deputy secretary of state made a personal appeal to Mr Abbas promising that President Barack Obama would re-engage as a mediator in 2013 if Mr Abbas abandoned the effort to seek statehood. But the Palestinian leader refused, according to senior aide Saeb Erekat.”…..from telegraph.co.uk

      rotflmao!..what Palestine in their right mind would want the US, Israel’s enforcer, as a mediator? Israeli occupied Washington really is on another f’ing planet…totally living in a alternate universe from the rest of the world…playing the same broken record over and over and over and over.

      • American
        November 29, 2012, 12:35 pm



        Send Burns a email and tell him where he can stick BO’s mediator role.
        Click questions/comments. Select Foreign Policy. Select Middle East.
        And let it rip.

      • piotr
        November 29, 2012, 9:28 pm

        The proposal of Obama serving as mediator is absolutely lovely.

        To appreciate how lovely read about anime show in which the main character is “the mediator”. The show title is “Humanity Has Declined”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinrui_wa_Suitaishimashita

        As humanity is plagued by ennui, there are only two levels of government left: village council and United Nations. Mediator, a girl who just graduated from high school (the last graduating class as the decline is progressing) is UN Mediator to fairies, who coerce her (by being cute and awesome) to provide them with sweets. Fairies can make anything but if the Mediator does not give them sweets they are sad.

        As the show shows, it is not hard to be a Mediator but it is very hard to be impartial. And the fairies are not only cute and awesome, but also utterly devious in their pursuit of more sweets (which have to be hand-made by the Mediator).

        While utterly absurd, the show hits upon some features of US-Israel relationship (or more precisely, BECAUSE the show is utterly absurd … ).

  7. seafoid
    November 29, 2012, 10:49 am


    “At that time (February of 2011 – then too in the context of the nature of a vote at the UN when the Germans lined up with the U.K. and France, and voted in favor of a Security Council resolution condemning construction in West Bank settlements.)
    Haaretz revealed that in the wake of the vote Netanyahu phoned Merkel and voiced his disappointment. Merkel reacted angrily to Netanyahu’s remarks”

    He probably screamed at her thinking she was a Republican senator who is used to doing whatever K street says

    But Europe is different. We are sick of Israeli hypocrisy and being asked to pay for what Israel destroys.

    • jewishgoyim
      November 30, 2012, 6:11 am

      I wish I could be that optimistic. I’m glad about yesterday’s vote but I think “neoconism” is making huge progress in Europe. Maybe it does not show on such a high profile issue and traditions get the better of new trends but I think that since the Iraq war, the US pro Israel lobby has identified Europe as a possible issue and has directed some of its efforts towards having a better handle on politicians here.

      And I think it worked. Not in this particular case. But in making any Chirac-Schröder axis impossible, it certainly did succeed. Also Europe is a lot less vocal against Israel at a time when Israel’s behaviour is more and more unacceptable.

      So, yes, as the vote shows, Europe is different. But its ability to bring a bit of sanity in the middle of the orchestrated “clash of civilization” is less than it was ten years ago. Significantly less in my view. I mean Europe is even leading the way for “humanitarian” intervention in Libya or Syria.

      Here is Bernard-Henri Lévy pitching Syria intervention at the Foreign Policy Initiative (former PNAC) to Robert Kagan. Remember Chirac and measure how France has changed (I recognize Lévy is not a French official but the role French politicians have let him play in the past few years has been substantial so he is somewhat of a (radical) proxy to France’s positions).

      • jewishgoyim
        November 30, 2012, 6:22 am

        I forgot the link of Lévy at FPI with Kagan.

  8. American
    November 29, 2012, 10:58 am

    Hamas has the strategy…..and it will be supported by newly emboldened ME leaders…whether the NYT likes the idea of ‘sucide bombers’ who won’t recongize the “Jewish” State having a stragety or not…lol….the NY rag always does have to sneak in the terrorist thing doesn’t it?


    Hamas Chief Revives Talk of Reuniting With P.L.O.By ANNE BARNARD
    Published: November 28, 2012
    BEIRUT, Lebanon — On the eve of the United Nations vote on whether to declare the Palestinian Authority a nonmember state, the leader of Hamas revived a long-percolating proposal for his militant party to join the Palestine Liberation Organization, the group that, with Israel, signed the Oslo Accord, which Hamas has long derided.

    Khaled Meshal, center, last week. “Hamas will always be with the resistance,” he said Wednesday.
    Speaking at an academic conference here by video link from his new base in Doha, Qatar, the Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal, called on Wednesday for the politically divided Palestinians to unite through new P.L.O. elections that would rebuild the organization “on a correct basis that includes all Palestinian forces.”

    There are rumored discussions about giving Mr. Meshal a leadership role in the P.L.O., either through an appointment by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, or through a vote by a P.L.O. body called the Palestine Central Council, said a political analyst close to the P.L.O. and the ruling Palestinian Fatah party. The move could help heal the bitter political split between Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, and Fatah, the party that controls the P.L.O. and the West Bank.

    By taking an influential role in the P.L.O., Hamas could follow allied Islamist movements that have come to power through elections in the wake of the Arab uprisings in early 2011, gaining legitimacy and assuming what it considers its rightful place in Palestinian politics.

    Yet joining the P.L.O. is a difficult issue for Hamas, which pioneered suicide bombings against Israel, and for Mr. Meshal’s Islamist base of support throughout the Arab world. In his remarks, he was careful to insist that Hamas was not abandoning its uncompromising stance.

    “Hamas will always be with the resistance,” he said. “Resistance is not a hotel that we can check into and out of.”

    But Mr. Meshal faced skeptics at the conference, which was organized by the Al-Zaytouna Center for Studies and Consultations in Beirut. The meeting focused on empowering the movement against Israeli occupation after the collapse of pro-Western dictatorships in the region, and some presenters criticized Mr. Meshal for abandoning the cause just as it was gathering strength. ”


  9. Taxi
    November 29, 2012, 11:01 am

    “We lost Europe”.

    Boohoo hooo.

    Isreal’s gonna lose Historic Palestine soon.

    Yay yipee yay!

  10. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    November 29, 2012, 11:13 am

    Will be interesting to see if Britain votes ‘no’ or abstains. Given that Britain is basically an American colony these days, I suspect they’ll take their lead from the Yanks.

    Other than them, it looks as though Europe is solidly behind the vote, which is good…. sort of. Let’s not forget that the EU firmly backed Israel’s rampage in Gaza, and rewarded them for the last little killing spree with upgraded trade relations. So, unfortunately, I don’t think we can celebrate too much about this.

  11. seanmcbride
    November 29, 2012, 11:26 am

    It was obvious that Israel had lost a critical mass of Western elite opinion quite some time ago — from this stage forward the unraveling of Israel’s relations with the entire world will be predictable and inexorable, unless it radically changes course. This process will turn into an avalanche.

    • Chu
      November 29, 2012, 1:06 pm

      The hasbara has been running on fumes for quite a while – any half interested observer know this well. Let’s hope this is the first stone falling from the avalanche that is to come.

      • seafoid
        November 30, 2012, 10:21 am

        The UN show featured everything- The Zionist lied, the Palestinian appealed to the world’s conscience, the vast majority of the world supported the Palestinian and the Yanks went for the side of darkness.

    • Castellio
      November 29, 2012, 11:14 pm

      Perhaps it doesn’t need pointing out, but Canada is the strongest supporter of Israel right or wrong, and that policy has played well in creating the Conservative majority by helping to carry critical seats in Metro Toronto. In fact, it should be said, the current heads of all three major parties subscribe entirely to the Zionist narrative.

  12. seafoid
    November 29, 2012, 11:30 am

    The settlers are sure it it is still 1968


    In short, it was a pool press conference, Hebrew and English.

    Bibi said:

    a) nothing the UN does will affect the historical connection between the people of Israel and the Land of Israel.

    b) the UN will not alter the reality of what occurs here which will be concluded through negotiations.

    c) and since Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza and received rockets, a Hamas-regime and Iranian weapons supply, we will not disregard threats to our national security.


    Quotation from Herb Keinon:

    Bibi on UN: “Don’t get excited. Unimportant how many vote against us, no force in world will get me to compromise Israel’s security.”

  13. Chu
    November 29, 2012, 11:46 am

    Israel is prepared to live in peace with a Palestinian state, but for peace to endure, Israel’s security must be protected. The Palestinians must recognize the Jewish State and they must be prepared to end the conflict with Israel once and for all. None of these vital interests, these vital interests of peace, none of them appear in the resolution that will be put forward before the General Assembly today and that is why Israel cannot accept it,” Netanyahu said Thursday morning during a visit to the Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem.
    Why does Netanyahu get to make preconditions when Palestinians are told they cannot? At least this vote is one step closer to shaming the Apartheid State to stop the slaughter of civilian refugees of historic Palestine.

  14. justicewillprevail
    November 29, 2012, 11:50 am

    Trust the Zio propaganda machine to crank into denial and divert mode. Unable to stop the Palestinians, now the ICC is to be redefined by Israel as ‘only for Africa’. Really? You expect people to be so naive and stupid as to accept such an arbitrary and evidence-free claim? Apparently so.

    The relevant definitions:
    “As of July 2012, 121 states[9] are states parties to the Statute of the Court, including all of South America, nearly all of Europe and roughly half the countries in Africa.[10] A further 32 countries,[9] including Russia, have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute;[10] one of them, Ivory Coast, has accepted the Court’s jurisdiction.[11] The law of treaties obliges these states to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty until they declare they do not intend to become a party to the treaty.[12] Three of these states—Israel, Sudan and the United States—have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their former representatives’ signature of the Statute.[10][13] 41 United Nations member states[9] have neither signed nor ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute; some of them, including China and India, are critical of the Court.[14][15] The Palestinian National Authority, which neither is nor represents a United Nations member state, has formally accepted the jurisdiction of the Court.[16] On 3 April 2012, the ICC Prosecutor declared himself unable to determine that Palestine is a “state” for the purposes of the Rome Statute.


    Article 5 of the Rome Statute grants the Court jurisdiction over four groups of crimes, which it refers to as the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole”: the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The Statute defines each of these crimes except for aggression.[4] The crime of genocide is unique because the crime must be committed with ‘intent to destroy’. Crimes against humanity are specifically listed prohibited acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.”

    Hmm, nothing about only for Africa. Nice company Israel, Sudan and the US keep together. Of course, if Israel is a democratic country, which recognises human rights and upholds international treaties, then it will have nothing to fear from the ICC and will look forward to being fully vindicated in any cases brought to it. Won’t they?

  15. eljay
    November 29, 2012, 11:52 am

    >> ‘We lost Europe,’ says Israeli official

    That’s not as bad as losing your soul when you choose Zio-supremacism over justice and equality (among other things).

  16. Kathleen
    November 29, 2012, 11:59 am

    So great that many of these relatively newly formed Jewish groups who support the push for justice for the Palestinians have taken these stands in support for the Palestinian upgrading at the UN. . Great changes in the Jewish community been a long time coming. Always better late than never..Always

  17. Kathleen
    November 29, 2012, 12:01 pm

    “that court is only for African countries” naked racism

    • mondonut
      November 29, 2012, 1:02 pm

      Kathleen says: “that court is only for African countries” naked racism.
      Read the link, and then tell us who actually wrote that quote.

      • yonah fredman
        November 30, 2012, 5:25 pm

        mondonut- Shows how kneejerk some people here are.

      • eljay
        November 30, 2012, 6:47 pm

        >> y.f.: mondonut- Shows how kneejerk some people here are.

        I agree that Phil incorrectly paraphrased Mark Goldberg’s comment, and that people are misinterpreting the remark.

        But it’s funny as hell to see you consoling mondonut about “kneejerk” reactions instead of suggesting he take the time to discuss “initial attitudes” with these people.

      • thankgodimatheist
        November 30, 2012, 10:57 pm
      • Woody Tanaka
        November 30, 2012, 7:31 pm

        “Read the link, and then tell us who actually wrote that quote.”

        It is a summation of the words of Mark Leon Goldberg over at Beinart’s zionism fanclub over at Daily Beast.

      • mondonut
        December 1, 2012, 11:44 am

        Woody Tanaka says: It is a summation of the words of Mark Leon Goldberg over at Beinart’s zionism fanclub over at Daily Beast.
        Most of us know that, I included Goldberg’s words in a comment up at the top. The problem of course is that Goldberg’s words do not display racism, while the incorrect summation does. Once again Woody, who wrote the offensive words?

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 3, 2012, 11:13 am

        “The problem of course is that Goldberg’s words do not display racism, while the incorrect summation does.”

        Baloney. Goldberg’s words absolutely reek of the casual racism typical of zionists. He flat out says that investigating a non-African country would be a “radical departure” for the Court.

        “Once again Woody, who wrote the offensive words?”

        Once again, zio, Goldberg did.

  18. MRW
    November 29, 2012, 12:06 pm

    “We lost Europe”

    Judging from comments all over the web, Israel has lost a lot of US support. The remarks I’m reading are relatively informed, and efforts by obvious hasbara teams to declare the writers anti-Semitic or as ‘Jewphobes’ are swatted down or ignored.

    The latest Gaza war putsch was a complete PR disaster in advance of this vote. What was Netanyahu thinking? Anyone think that if the PA wins tonight that Netanyahu might lose in Jan?

    • Chu
      November 29, 2012, 1:00 pm

      -Anyone think that if the PA wins tonight that Netanyahu might lose in Jan?

      I was thinking the same. Livni or Ehud are waiting on the wings. But I like Netanyahu. He shows the world the face of the true Israeli plan, and as he is hostile to the leader of the nation that allows them to exist, I think another term for Netanyahu is needed.

      I was hoping big Obama may abstain from this vote. Any chance of that happening? I’m kidding of course.

    • MLE
      November 29, 2012, 2:52 pm

      No I don’t think he’ll lose. If he does it will be to a more right wing faction.

      • MRW
        November 29, 2012, 7:24 pm

        Is there more right wing than Netanyahu and his latest coalition?

      • W.Jones
        November 29, 2012, 10:59 pm

        More than Net., but maybe that more right wing would include part of his coalition.

  19. Kathleen
    November 29, 2012, 12:06 pm

    Hope folks post anything they hear said or reported in the US MSM about this vote today. Total silence on Cspans Washington Journal and NPR’s Diane Rehm show. Total silence. Bet Rachel Maddow will continue to be silent also. She is such a human rights phony along with Ed, Al Sharpton etc. The only hope to hear any kind of indepth report in the MSM on this issue will be on Chris Hayes this weekend again. Otherwise SILENCE

    • Chu
      November 29, 2012, 1:03 pm

      How sad these Monday to Friday liberals are so completely mum –
      but it’s only their integrity at stake. lemmings they are…

      I guess that’s why Chris Hayes is only on Saturday mornings.

      • chinese box
        November 29, 2012, 4:16 pm


        Good point, but I’m not sure if framing this is as a “liberal” issue is helpful (I’m not sure if that’s what you were doing). It should be about a sense of fairness and justice, whatever one’s political persuasion is. I’m no conservative but let’s not forget there have been people on the right (albeit few) who have stood up for Palestine while liberals were silent or openly hostile.

      • Chu
        November 30, 2012, 11:11 am

        CB – They are not liberals, but are branded by the major news organization as such. They are really middle of the road television personalities who have a base that believes they are leaders of liberal causes.
        But yes, anyone who seeks justice for people such as Palestinians on either side can see through the dissipating smoke screen.

    • LanceThruster
      November 29, 2012, 3:28 pm

      This is probably the most troubling aspect of media hegemony from my perspective. Voices that are otherwise considered progressive do not tackle issues that the gatekeepers bury. Pointing out the emperor has no clothes seems to do little in getting them to acknowledge to blatant omissions.

    • W.Jones
      November 29, 2012, 3:50 pm

      The WSJ portrayed/spinned it today as a positive move to boost PLO over Hamas due to the recent Hamas “survival” in the Gaza attack.

      • Rusty Pipes
        November 29, 2012, 8:40 pm

        Ignoring that Hamas has recently reopened the possibility of joining the PLO as an act of Palestinian unity.

    • Ellen
      November 29, 2012, 4:57 pm

      I’ve also noticed the silence….it is deafening.

  20. seafoid
    November 29, 2012, 12:07 pm

    “It would not be unreasonable to think that several European countries would hold back their funding for the ICC, which is already cash-strapped”.

    Last week it was unthinkable that Germany would act against Israel.

    “The German decision not to oppose the Palestinian bid for non-member observer state status, and to abstain in the vote at the United Nations General Assembly this evening has shocked the top brass at the (Israeli ) Foreign Ministry and the Prime Minister’s office. A top German official who took part in discussions in Berlin, however, stressed that the writing was on the wall”.

    • American
      November 30, 2012, 3:38 pm

      “The German decision not to oppose the Palestinian bid for non-member observer state status, and to abstain in the vote at the United Nations General Assembly this evening has shocked the top brass”……

      Well the German adm can say whatever it wants to about Isr-Pal “negotiating” still being the only way to a settlement…but their abstaining and not voting against Palestine is big, huge, a monumental message………that WILL be noticed by many other countries and will further shore up more countries positions against Israel’s occupation..

      • Citizen
        December 2, 2012, 10:53 am

        Considering the German guilt, fed to all Germans in grade school on up, I agree that Germany’s abstention is a major signal to the world that, eventually, “Never Again” applies to all countries, even Israel. The irony is that Germany cannot rely on America to agree, as if the Nuremberg Trials never were.

  21. Kathleen
    November 29, 2012, 12:18 pm

    Roger Water’s ripping it up. When did “IT” really start. End the occupation

  22. straightline
    November 29, 2012, 12:32 pm

    The drip drip is turning into a trickle! Soon the torrent!

  23. Les
    November 29, 2012, 1:50 pm

    What a difference a year makes since the proposal was pushed off the stage. “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

    Israel lost Europe the way the US lost China in 1949.

  24. W.Jones
    November 29, 2012, 2:01 pm

    Wall Street Journal portrays the show of support / vote of reality as “OK” on the pretense excuse that the international community must boost the Pal. Authority and Fatah after Hamas survived the Gaza onslaught and got political backing for Gaza’s survival from Egypt and other countries.

    Yeah, I don’t think Wall Street Times emphasized the advantages of boosting Fatah in international bodies over Israeli and NeoCon-gressional objections in 2009 when Gaza was assaulted about 10 times worse.

  25. W.Jones
    November 29, 2012, 4:10 pm

    I would like to see commentary on J Street’s recent position announced on the Resolution:

    1) We urge Israel’s friends to focus their energy on a threat far more serious to the country’s long-term security and character than the vote at the UN – and that is the possible failure to achieve a two-state solution before it is too late.

    2) Whether the resolution’s passage actually advances the two-state solution depends on how Israeli, Palestinian and American leaders choose to respond.

    3) We urge President Abbas to act on his previously stated readiness to return to negotiations without preconditions after passage of the resolution. We would urge that he indicate clearly his willingness to entertain a new diplomatic initiative proposed by President Obama and the international community grounded in specific parameters and a concrete timeline. 4) A firm commitment to refrain from proceeding with any action at the International Criminal Court would also be an important sign of good intention to resolve the conflict through negotiation.
    1) Isn’t the first sentence implying UN Recognition- along lines J Street admits matches its own- is a “threat”?
    2) So if Israeli leaders respond BADLY to a move for statehood, then it is the UN recognition itself that is a block to 2 states?
    Isn’t international recognition an important element or reflection of statehood, and Palestinian statehood the only thing currently lacking in the existence of “2 states”?
    3) Hasn’t this been the refrain from Israeli leaders for a long time- keep “negotiating” while the settlements continue without a condition on stopping the settlements?
    4) That’s remarkable. Israeli forces jail hundreds of kids but Palestinians should not go to the ICC to complain about persecution?

    • Citizen
      November 30, 2012, 2:53 pm

      @ W.Jones
      Yeah, they shouldn’t go after Israeli war criminals, but the Israelis should keep grabbing more land and air space to whittle down the 22% left of native land. Good not to set any such conditions on peace negotiations towards a two-state solution. Makes sense if you have nukes, the 4th strongest military, a $3B annual direct dole from the only superpower, plus another $12B indirect subsidy from USA.

      • W.Jones
        November 30, 2012, 11:33 pm


        Can you please point me to where you heard the 12 billion annual subsidy, or where I can read more on that?

        I remember hearing from an Arab American PAC that the 3 billion was really a 6 billion, perhaps because of subsidies like you mention.

      • Citizen
        December 1, 2012, 8:43 am

        @ W.Jones
        I can’t find the url that specified that amount at the moment. I read it a week or so ago.

        Yet, I think that sum is conservative. See if you can put a lower price tag on it, considering all the forms of direct and indirect aid to Israel discussed here: http://www.wrmea.org/archives/373-washington-report-archives-2011-2015/november-2011/10815-congress-watch-a-conservative-estimate-of-total-us-aid-to-israel-more-than-123-billion.html

        Also, the Israeli army’s chief of staff recently said that “US taxpayers have contributed more to the Israeli defense budget than Israeli taxpayers.” I think he’s alluding to the myriad of ways Americans fund Israel, suggested by my first linked reference here. He was clearly talking about indirect aid, not merely the annual direct $3Billion (+ interest).

      • Citizen
        December 1, 2012, 10:08 am

        Meanwhile increasing numbers of Americans are living out of dumpsters and the average net worth of an American is at a 43 year low point: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/12/m-net_worth_of_american_households_at_43-year_old_low.html

        Even if you only look at direct foreign aid to Israel, it amounts to a US government check to every Israeli in sum of $500.00 per year (I’m sure the Arab Israelis get less than the Jewish Israelis). And that does not even count the interest the US pays to Israel on its free direct gift to Israel.

  26. yourstruly
    November 29, 2012, 9:09 pm

    the court is not accustomed to pursuing charges against western countries with strong legal systems {ie, no matter what is said or done, the powers that be always come out on top)

    besides, won’t do them no good to try, cause we’ve not only got the connections, the system’s rigged


    turnabout, justice for palestine




    just right

  27. piotr
    November 29, 2012, 10:23 pm

    I wonder if the trends in Europe are not worse that the vote shows.

    I checked the website of the largest Polish newspaper. Polish government courageously and steadfastly refused to disclose the voting intentions until the actual vote, and then Foreign minister justified the “abstain vote” saying he does not support the lack of negotiation. So far, rather standard for the current government that is fanatically opportunistic. However, what was astonishing were the comments of the reader.

    Some context: they were quite a few comments to stories like Israel shooting a Palestinian at the fence a day after ceasefire or a Lt. Colonel beating up bicycling leftists. Some liked that (“killing of the idiot” or “properly treating leftist scum”), more did not. In this case there were many more comments, and perhaps one was approving — although it could be snark. “Very good decision”. It did not help that the wife of Foreign Minister is an American-Jewish journalist. It did not help that Sikorski cited the German example. His wife was cited more often then Merkel and much more snidely, but whether he followed Ann Applebaum, Clinton or Merkel, or whether he was motivated by the urge to lick the posterior of USA or their most important ally in ME — all these explanations were considered and none had any appeal to his countrymen who very rarely agree on anything.

  28. southernobserver
    November 29, 2012, 10:42 pm

    If the ICC cannot address this conflict, then it is only a mechanism for abusing failed dictators and is of no value.

  29. hophmi
    November 30, 2012, 2:30 am

    The ICC would have no jurisdiction. Israel has a functioning judicial system. Therefore, the court would exceed its jurisdiction if it attempted to try Israelis. Moreover, Israel could take the same approach against Palestinians guilty of war crimes and atrocities.

    • seafoid
      November 30, 2012, 10:14 am

      Israel has 2 functioning justice systems. One for Jews and the other for non Jews.

      • yonah fredman
        November 30, 2012, 5:29 pm

        seafoid- Israel has laws that differentiate between Jews and nonJews, but Israel has two justice systems- a military system for nonIsraelis living in occupied territory and a civil system for Israelis both Jews (including those living in occupied territory) and nonJews (those living in Israel).

      • eljay
        November 30, 2012, 6:42 pm

        >> seafoid: Israel has 2 functioning justice systems. One for Jews and the other for non Jews.
        >> y.f.: Israel has laws that differentiate between Jews and nonJews, but Israel has two justice systems- a military system for nonIsraelis living in occupied territory and a civil system for Israelis both Jews (including those living in occupied territory) and nonJews (those living in Israel).

        Oh, well, that’s MUCH better… :P

        Pardon my “moral snobbery”, but:
        1. There should not be laws that differentiate between Jews and non-Jews.
        2. There should not be two justice systems.
        3. There should not be an occupation.

        But what do I know: I’m just a “cheerleader” for justice, equality and accountability.

    • marc b.
      November 30, 2012, 10:36 am

      hopee, as usual talking out of your hat.

      The ICC would have no jurisdiction. Israel has a functioning judicial system.

      even if that were true, it is irrelevant in this case.

      the court would exceed its jurisdiction if it attempted to try Israelis.

      the ICC can exercise jurisdiction over non-member states (like israel and the US) if the UN security council refers a case to the ICC for prosecution, or if a non-member states commits a violation of international law in a state that is a member or which voluntarily submits to ICC jurisdiction. which is why the criminal class in israel is peeing its pants over palestinian statehood.

    • Koshiro
      November 30, 2012, 10:54 am

      a) The ICC decides that question by itself. There is no higher controlling authority.
      b) Israel is not a party to the ICC’s statute and does not accept the authority of the ICC. It cannot bring any cases before the court.

    • Chu
      November 30, 2012, 11:18 am

      So the ICC could potentially work for Israel when they accuse Palestinians of war crimes, but Palestinians use of the ICC would have no jurisdiction because of Israel’s judiciary?

      • Taxi
        November 30, 2012, 2:15 pm


        Israel isn’t a signatory/member of the ICC therefore it cannot use it to prosecute ANYBODY there. It can’t even get in the door.

        You’ll forgive hops, he’s in shock and doesn’t know what he’s talking about. A fool’s bravado if I saw one.

      • Chu
        November 30, 2012, 2:52 pm

        and he’s also talking about a double standard that makes no sense.
        He’s probably freaking out right now about the enormity of this vote.

        It wasn’t even 60/40 so he could explain it. It was 138(yeah)/9(neah)
        with 41 swiss on the sidelines. That’s a thrashing shut-out for Hophmi’s
        true team.

    • eljay
      November 30, 2012, 9:11 pm

      >> Moreover, Israel could take the same approach against Palestinians guilty of war crimes and atrocities.

      And so it should. Palestinians who are potentially guilty of war crimes should be tried and, if found guilty, held accountable. Similarly, Israelis who are potentially guilty of war crimes should be tried and, if found guilty, held accountable.

      I’m all for it. Are you? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.

  30. eGuard
    November 30, 2012, 5:35 am

    The only European country voting No: Chech Republic (total 1).
    European countries that Abstained: Germany, UK (19)
    European countries voting Yes: France, Italy, Russia, Spain (20)

  31. hophmi
    November 30, 2012, 11:19 am

    The UNSC is not going to refer a case involving Israel to the ICC. I think we all know that. The ICC complementarity rules would make any prosecution of an Israeli difficult and frankly, highly unlikely. Not to mention that the deal that Abbas made with the Europeans, apparently, was to refrain from bringing cases in exchange for votes, a very good deal, in my opinion.

    So the calls of Mark LeVine and others to use the ICC as a political cudgel is misplaced and only exposes the plain political goal of such prosecutions.

    • Woody Tanaka
      November 30, 2012, 2:40 pm

      “Not to mention that the deal that Abbas made with the Europeans, apparently, was to refrain from bringing cases in exchange for votes,”

      From what I’ve read, UK requested such a deal and Abbas said no. Although it’s interesting to me is that everyone knows the israelis are a bunch of criminals who should be locked up for their crimes, and that’s why these “deals” are being talked about.

    • Citizen
      November 30, 2012, 3:03 pm

      @ hophmi
      England specifically made it a condition of voting Yes that the natives refrain from bringing cases against Israeli officials for war crimes–the natives declined.

    • Koshiro
      November 30, 2012, 3:12 pm

      The UNSC is not going to refer a case involving Israel to the ICC.
      That is irrelevant. The ICC can prosecute cases independently of the UNSC, if they involve territory of a state member, which would now be the case if Palestine joined.
      The subsidiary principle is, as I said, judged by the ICC alone. Considering Israeli military courts’ track record, it’s not likely that they are considered sufficient.

      Not to mention that the deal that Abbas made with the Europeans, apparently, was to refrain from bringing cases in exchange for votes, a very good deal, in my opinion.
      You are misinformed. In fact, Abbas refused to agree to this condition, which is precisely why the UK abstained instead of voting yes.
      Get it into your head that European countries voted for the resolution because they agree with it and because they disagree with Israel’s despicable conduct, not because of any “deals”. Also get it into your head that this ‘losing Europe’ is still the kids’ gloves version. If it were up to the German people instead of the government, for example, the vote would have been “yes” instead of a mere abstention. People in Europe are thoroughly fed up with Israel’s bullshit.

  32. justicewillprevail
    November 30, 2012, 11:24 am

    Even European footballers (not known for their political views, or their willingness to stand up and be counted) are disgusted at Israel being handed a tournament whilst carrying on the detention and harassment of Palestinians:


  33. J. Otto Pohl
    November 30, 2012, 1:18 pm

    It is my understanding that the only European country to vote no on Palestinian statehood was the Czech Republic. Given that the Benes Decrees which ordered the mass expulsion of Czechoslovakia’s German and Hungarian minorities in 1945 are still on the books this is not really surprising. The Czech Republic has been much more militant than Poland in recent decades in justifying and defending the massive ethnic cleansing of its citizens of German heritage at the end of World War II. There seems to be a meeting of the minds between Czechs and Israelis on ethnic cleansing. The Czechs view the Palestinians as Arab Sudeten Germans and the Israelis view the ethnic Germans of the Sudetenland and Zipser as European Palestinians. Fortunately, much of the rest of the world is slowly moving away from the racist attitudes that motivated both the Czech and Israeli programs of ethnic cleansing during the 1940s.

  34. American
    November 30, 2012, 6:59 pm

    Finally. We and the Jews (but maybe not Israelis) may be getting somewhere when articles like this appear on Open Zion. This is something I and others have said for years is a huge problem within the Israel supporting community— this basically giving all Jews or any Jewish connected agenda a sort of immunity from everything, like even from reality and logic and responsibility, because of the Holocaust. It takes nothing away from the horror, victims or importance of the holocaust to point out that the notion of a’ forever get out of jail free’ card for any person or group of people or any country, once victimized or not, is actually insane…the world absolutely cannot work that way. I agree also that this UN vote really did, very importantly, refect a sea change in the world attitude about holocaust prilivage and abuse by Israel. Everyone is just tired of it, it’s gone too far.
    Will Israel get the message? I don’t know, but probably not.


    The Vote And The Holocaust
    by Edward S. Goldstein Nov 30, 2012 5:15 PM EST

    A central component of Israeli diplomacy and Jewish thinking has long been the assumption, asserted as necessary, that the Holocaust confers permanent, unassailable virtue on Israel and Jews. In light of the Holocaust, whatever Israel does is justified, especially if declared to be security related. Whatever and however Jews argue in support of Israel is correct. The obverse is also assumed and frequently asserted: in light of the Holocaust, no one has the right to criticize Israel, especially Europeans, and anyone who does may be suspected of anti-Semitism.
    Yesterday’s U.N. vote marked a sea change in this mindset.”

    …..read the entire article, it’s excellent.

  35. American
    November 30, 2012, 9:35 pm

    If this is true it could add some more complications to the ME mix…depending on who the next king is. I read some time back that Crown Prince Salman would probably be the next king……he’s suppose to be a ‘pragmatist” according to reports….but a real royalist. Always so many rumors in Saudi you never know, but Abdullah is so old he can’t last much longer. There was a rumor Prince Bandar was killed but Ian Black writing for the Telegraph says Bandar is still alive and is handling the “Syria” problem for Saudi…but no one has actually seen him so who knows about that either.


    Saudis deny report King Abdullah is clinically dead
    Special to WorldTribune.com
    ABU DHABI — Saudi Arabia has been awash with rumors regarding the
    fate of its elderly king.
    Arab diplomatic sources said the Gulf Cooperation Council kingdom was
    battling rumors that King Abdullah was dying. They said
    Abdullah, believed to be more than 95 and hospitalized since Nov. 16, was
    struggling after another round of spinal surgery.

    “Abdullah has not been seen after the operation by anybody but his sons, and this has sparked concern,” a diplomat said.
    One rumor, linked to the Saudi-owned A-Sharq Al Awsat, asserted that the king was clinically dead. The rumor, attributed to an unidentified reporter of A-Sharq Al Awsat and published on a Jordanian website, said Abdullah’s vital organs have not been functioning for nearly two weeks, setting the stage for what could be a violent succession struggle. The Saudi Royal Office denied the report.
    “The fate of the king will be decided over the next three to four days,”
    the Jordanian website said.
    On Nov. 26, Crown Prince Salman Bin Abdul Aziz issued a statement that sought to reassure Saudis that the king’s condition was stable. At a Cabinet session, Salman, however, prayed for Abdullah’s health.
    “The crown prince prayed to Allah Almighty to grant the king good
    health,” a government statement said.
    The official Saudi Press Agency said Abdullah was being treated at a
    hospital operated by the National Guard. The agency said the crown prince,
    also believed to be in poor health, met the sons of Abdullah, including
    National Guard commander Prince Miteb Bin Abdullah, but was not reported to
    have seen the king.

  36. piotr
    December 1, 2012, 6:14 am

    I am not sure if J.O.P. reads situation in Poland correctly. It would be hard to find a Pole not justifying the ethnic cleansing of Germans — many more than from Bohemia. It may be less of an issue than what happened in Bohemia because Germans more-or-less accepted the narrative: during WWII, Germany annexed big part of Polish ethnic territory and made a big campaign of resettlement and enslavement of millions, with terror and genocide to top it off, thus creating the situation where the reverse action was approved by all Allied nations.

    From what I could see, Poles are livid at their FM (for not voting yes). The vocal supporters of Israel tend to hate leftist and Muslim but of such people, most hate the government too. Actually, given national mythology/narrative that is pretty close to Palestinian, the most natural friend of Israel would be a fervent patriotic anti-Semite who believes that Jews control international banks and American government so it is in the national interest to be nice to them.
    Other friends of Israel hate of the leftists, and/or Muslim. But the alignments are different than in Czech Republic. Czech government there is right wing, anti-EU, anti-minority (that really means Gypsies, sorry, Roma), pro-American, and somewhat anti-Catholic (Catholic church is much more supportive of Palestinian rights that right wing American Catholics let you notice). Mind you, the next government can be quite, quite different. I actually liked when Czech government lifted restrictions on providing abortion services to tourists — which means Polish women, as abortion is outlawed in ultra-Catholic Poland.

    I think this is a bit rambling. The bottom line is that there is no coherent pro-Israel “narrative” in Europe, the support is wearing thin, the resentment is growing, and in the case of Czech republic, we see the outcome of various idiosyncrasies that aligned just right for Israel. But the public trend is clear. Most people do not care, but those that do, do not like how their governments support oppressive policies of Israel, at least as I can see in Poland, England and Canada. And the benefits of having FM who is “an American errant boy” are less and less clear.

Leave a Reply