Trending Topics:

‘Netanyahu won’t act without a cane to his ass’ — Erekat says, urging ICC on Abbas

News
on 166 Comments
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. (Photo: AFP)

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. (Photo: AFP)

In a leaked recording released this week, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat slammed Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas over his handling of negotiations with Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his failure to go to the International Criminal Court. The audio surfaced last week on the site Awraqq, and the Times of Israel posted a translation the following day.

The quotes are strung together into a three-minute matchless dump from Palestine’s top arbiter. Typically Abbas’s party does not publicly step out of line, even when a series of resignations from the position of Prime Minister rolled out last year. However, Erekat likens Abbas to Saddam Hussein and laments that he too tried to leave his post over Abbas’s ineptitude and his “commitment” not to go to international bodies:

“This isn’t your daddy’s farm! This is a nation, this is Palestine. This is bigger than individuals. He didn’t listen to me. I swear, I submitted my resignation twice.”

The date and time of the statements in the recording are unknown.

From the Times of Israel:

“Abu Mazen [Abbas], if you want to move Netanyahu, work on the [application] documents for international institutions. He said: I made a commitment’ [not to apply to international institutions]. What commitment have you made? This isn’t your daddy’s farm! This is a nation, this is Palestine. This is bigger than individuals. He didn’t listen to me. I swear, I submitted my resignation twice.”

Erekat goes on to say Netanyahu deserves to be humiliated, but “he isn’t worth the bullet” to shoot him; and that Abbas had the ability to limit the Prime Minister’s travel by going to the United Nations, but tossed the opportunity.

“Without a cane to his ass [Netanyahu won’t act]. I don’t say shoot him. He isn’t worth the bullet … he’s ideologically corrupt, I’ve known him for 31 years.”

‘Quite honestly, the Arabs don’t believe you [Abbas],’ Erekat said. ‘They either doubt you, or attack you, or are scared of you.’

“Why did Netanyahu engage in these random negotiations if not to build more settlements? … You, Abu Mazen, have the ability to prevent Netanyahu from traveling anywhere in the world, except from Ben-Gurion airport to New York. He’s a despicable, filthy war criminal. Let him take [the land] from the river to the sea. Did he leave you a [Palestinian] Authority anyway? When you [Abbas] travel from Ramallah to Amman you have to call a lieutenant [at the IDF coordination office] in Beit El and tell him how many cars are traveling with you. They humiliate you.”

Erekat also likens Abbas to Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad continuing,

“He [Abbas] is 79 years old. How much longer will he live? All he must do is take a patriotic stand. He can do anything, but it seems like he wants to become like Bashar Assad or Saddam Hussein … this way of thinking is useless. There are cards in your hand — use them.”

 

 

Allison Deger

Allison Deger is the Assistant Editor of Mondoweiss.net. Follow her on twitter at @allissoncd.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

166 Responses

  1. Woody Tanaka on June 14, 2014, 11:09 am

    “You, Abu Mazen, have the ability to prevent Netanyahu from traveling anywhere in the world, except from Ben-Gurion airport to New York. He’s a despicable, filthy war criminal.”

    So true. And it’s a shame that the dispicable, filthy war criminal can poison the soil of the USA with his footsteps.

  2. amigo on June 14, 2014, 11:10 am

    The Israeli response to these threats is all the proof you need of their value.The ICC is more than a cane to nietanyahu,s ass.It is the sword hanging above his head by a very thin thread .

    Cut that thread and put the zionist thieves and criminals on notice.

    No more Mr gullible guy.You Mr nietanyahu had multiples of chances to make a deal but you continued to murder and steal and ethnically cleanse the citizens of Palestine while you planted vile illegal settler thugs on their property.

    Pay back time is now overdue.Wipe that smug grin off yahoos face and those who surround and defend his crimes.

  3. iResistDe4iAm on June 14, 2014, 11:11 am

    Mahmoud Abbas is the Chief Buthelezi of Israeli Apartheid.

    Like Chief Buthelezi who ruled the KwaZulu bantustan with the express permission of his Afrikaner masters, Mahmoud Abbas rules the West Bank bantustan with the express permission of his Israeli masters.

    Like Chief Buthelezi’s fragmented KwaZulu bantustan which comprised only 2.6% of South Africa, chief Abbas’ heavily fragmented “Area A” bantustan currently comprises only 18% of the West Bank (equivalent to a mere 3.7% of historic Palestine).

    Like Chief Buthelezi who collaborated with the Apartheid regime and started a bloody civil war against anti-apartheid African groups, chief Abbas collaborates with the Israeli regime and started a bloody civil war against anti-occupation Palestinian groups.

    Like the chief collaborator of KwaZulu who tried his hardest to save Apartheid by delegitimising boycotts[1], the chief collaborator of the West Bank tries his hardest to save Israeli Apartheid by delegitimising BDS.

    Unlike the chief collaborator of KwaZulu whose bantustan had defined borders, the chief collaborator of the West Bank has a bantustan that keeps shrinking.

    [1] “Zulu leader Gatsha Buthelezi, chief of South Africa’s largest tribe, told Sen. Edward M. Kennedy today that pulling U.S. investments out of South Africa to protest its racial policies hurts blacks more than the ruling white minority.” – The Miami News, 10 January 1985
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9pQmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YQEGAAAAIBAJ&pg=2562%2C2292964

    • Citizen on June 14, 2014, 3:47 pm

      @ iResistDe4iAm
      Re your last paragraph, Buthelezi sounds there like our SodaStream actress.

  4. JohnWV on June 14, 2014, 11:17 am

    How many thousands of Palestinian teens have similarly disappeared? That is, been seized by the Jewish state and indefinitely incarcerated incommunicado or killed.

  5. HarryLaw on June 14, 2014, 11:36 am

    Abbas said in a New York Times interview not long ago “I don’t like to go to the courts. I don’t like courts. I want to solve my problems directly between the parties.” Even after appeals from 17 NGO’s recently to apply for the UN Agencies and the ICC, Abbas will not move, he acts like a Pharaoh, but in reality he is doing the work of US/Israel, in effect, facilitating the settlement enterprise, that’s why he said the security arrangements with Israel are sacred, he would not last five minutes if he did otherwise. It would appear Erekat has been reading Mondoweiss.

    • Hostage on June 14, 2014, 4:12 pm

      It would appear Erekat has been reading Mondoweiss.

      The Daily News and Analysis from the General Delegation of the PLO to the United States covers the mainstream news and commentaries. Hardly a day goes by when it doesn’t cover one or more Mondoweiss articles. http://plodelegation.us/resources/sign-up/

    • Walid on June 14, 2014, 4:46 pm

      ISIS yesterday claimed to have kidnapped the 3 teens but this is not dramatic enough for Israel that’s insisting on holding the PA responsable. The ISIS people are saying they did it in retaliation for Israel having killed a couple of its men 2 months back. ISIS operating against Israelis could be the start of a new trend.

    • ziusudra on June 15, 2014, 12:07 am

      Greetings HarryLaw,
      …..It would appear Erekat has been reading Mondoweiss…..
      Chuckle, chuckle. Great say.
      Euro & US News outlets, all mute,24/7/365 who does more than MW on
      Falesteena? Press TV gives its all. Even Al J & RT get in on de
      action for the Falesteeni.
      ziusudra
      PS MW even gives us constructive views on Israelis & their
      living in Zionistan.

  6. LuLu on June 14, 2014, 12:37 pm

    Dang.. This guy should be running Palestine… True Abbas needs not to be a pleaser but look at the entire situation as a humanity and what is in their best interest not what the US and Zionist war criminal Netenyahoo pull.

    • amigo on June 14, 2014, 1:41 pm

      “Dang.. This guy should be running Palestine…” LuLu.

      Beg to differ.The guy who should be is long locked up in Israeli prison in contradiction of GC ,s, based on trumped up fake charges.

      Marwan Barghouti. That is why Israel needed to get him out of the way.

      • Walid on June 15, 2014, 1:39 am

        Amigo, your man would take you back to the days of Arafat and more since to be released, he’d be coming out with all kinds of Israeli strings tied to him. A Palestinian state would need more than charisma to make it work; it would need a statesman much more than a scrapper, someone along the lines of a Mustafa Barghouti.

      • amigo on June 15, 2014, 6:50 am

        Walid, Marwan Barghouti would unite Palestinians and he could have people like Mustafa advising him.

        As to having strings attatched –every Palestinian leader eventually reaches the status of Terrorist in Israel,s eyes when they dont play along.

        F—k Israel,s strings.

  7. talknic on June 14, 2014, 1:53 pm

    If Netanyahu acted as he should, he’d be assassinated. Jewish folk need to wake up. We’ve been duped. Fed bullsh*t for 66 and more years.

    The Zionist Movement‘s state is out of control and no Israeli leader is going to go against the fanatics behind Israel’s insane intransigent policies.

    • W.Jones on June 14, 2014, 3:13 pm

      Rabin.

      • Walid on June 15, 2014, 1:30 am

        W. Jones, can’t make the terrorist into a saint; when he was ethnically wiping out Palestinians and their villages or ordering soldiers to break the bones of Palestinians, he was out of control just as much as the Zionists nutjobs that killed him. Ben Gurion, Dayan, Rabin, Sharon, Baruch Goldstein, Amir, Peres, Netanyahu; Is there one of those names that you’d take off that list because he’s not like the others on it?

      • W.Jones on June 15, 2014, 1:55 am

        Walid,
        I mentioned Rabin’s name in relation in particular to the first sentence talknic wrote. It does not mean I disagree with you.

        On a sidenote, someone, perhaps Hostage, helpfully pointed me to a series of speeches whereby Ben Gurion opposed taking over the West Bank as a principled matter or one of realism. Yet I later read in Haaretz that in 1956 he met with a top French official to plan to take over the West Bank at the end of the 1956 war. Yet then again later he was against taking over the West Bank. So I am wondering what his actual position on taking over the West Bank was, if any. It sounds like he was against it because he worried about international pressure.

      • Walid on June 15, 2014, 3:46 am

        W. Jones, don’t believe all these stories they circulate about Ben Gurion’s goodness. From the early 30s he plotted and negotiated with Arab monarchs to transfer out Palestinian Arabs first to Iraq and later to Syria (or vice versa). Plan Dalet, the blueprint for ethnically cleansing Palestinians was not put under Ben Gurion’s pillow by the tooth fairy.

        Herzl had written in 1895, ““We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country… expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.”

        By August 1937 after repeated failures to conclude transfer agreements with the Saudis because of price-per-head bickering, at the 20th Zionist Congress in Zurich, Ben Gurion told those those in attendance that were aware that the process of dispossessing the Palestinian peasants (the fellahin) mainly by purchasing land from absentee owners that had been underway for years:

        ““You are no doubt aware of the (Jewish National Fund’s) activity in this respect. Now a transfer of a completely different scope will have to be carried out. In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the Arab fellahin…Jewish power (in Palestine), which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out this transfer on a large scale.”

        A year later Ben-Gurion told a meeting of the Jewish Agency that he supported compulsory transfer, “I don’t see anything immoral in it.”

        W. Jones, you’d never find an honest and moral Israeli politician, unless of course Shmuel decides on a career change and goes into politics.

      • Naftush on June 15, 2014, 7:56 am

        According to Shlomo Aronson (BG and the Jewish Renaissance), BG and associates based Israel’s ultimate defense on one of two: holding the high ground (“West Bank”) or having a nuclear option. They chose the latter due to reluctance to rule an Arab population. (Thanks to King Hussein and the other Arab rulers, Israel got both.)

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 10:07 am

        (Thanks to King Hussein and the other Arab rulers, Israel got both.)

        All of us here know that Israel conducted a massive invasion of the Hebron region of the West Bank of Jordan in November of 1966. That was an act of aggression which the Security Council roundly condemned. Even Michael Oren admitted it was the departure point for Israel’s path to war in 1967. He also noted that PM Levi Eshkol chastized the IDF General staff for initiating a war of choice and that they planned in advance to consolidate illegal territorial gains. So you can stop blaming others for Israeli aggression.

      • W.Jones on June 15, 2014, 9:16 pm

        Walid,

        Ben Gurion did fight with others openly in public speeches with strong words against occupying the West Bank, in the late 1940’s and then again after the Suez Crisis. And yet before the crisis, he also conspired with the French minister to take it over. So this is confusing.

      • Walid on June 15, 2014, 9:45 pm

        W.Jones, Ben Gurion had 2 faces, one that showed his true nature to the Jews and which was advocating the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians almost 30 years before the birth of Israel and another face that he showed to the international community, which was one of a “bon père de famille” always interested in making peace with the Palestinians. His yearning for for peace was just as phony as Shimon Peres’ and Netanyahu’s.

  8. W.Jones on June 14, 2014, 2:00 pm

    The ICC ordering the Israeli government to stop brutalizing Palestinians is not a cane or other abusive treatment. Even BDS is not abuse. It is just avoiding buying an abuser’s products to avoid one’s own support for the violations of people’s rights.

    Unfortunately, the people with actual canes to their asses are real Palestinians, frequently schoolchildren of both genders from 9 years old and up, and the canes are Israeli.

    Minute 1:28
    How old was she?

    • W.Jones on June 14, 2014, 9:47 pm

      ^People need to wake up to the reality of Apartheid. They are skittish to use the term, and I believe that this is because they do not recognize the reality. If they understood what it really meant to have hundreds of kids abused in prisons with lifelong scars, they would not be so skittish about calling it Apartheid.

      That is why when G.W.Bush visited the West Bank, he said it was awful.

  9. DaBakr on June 14, 2014, 2:35 pm

    The ICC is a “sword” that swings both ways.

    • Hostage on June 14, 2014, 4:20 pm

      The ICC is a “sword” that swings both ways.

      The Court cannot be used to prevent the liberation of the Palestinian people. But it can be used to end the Zionist enterprise.

      • Naftush on June 15, 2014, 7:58 am

        The court has no jurisdiction vis-a-vis Israel until/unless Israel agrees that it should. And then the PA and its “progressive Left” (ht: Judith Butler) will have to answer in the same forum for thousands of rockets launched at civilians. I can’t see the court letting its mandate be abused in this manner.

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 9:55 am

        The court has no jurisdiction vis-a-vis Israel until/unless Israel agrees that it should.

        The Court can always prosecute crimes committed by Israeli nationals on the territory of any other State that has accepted ICC jurisdiction, without obtaining Israel’s consent. The Court may have no jurisdiction over crimes committed in Israel proper, but that doesn’t include Jerusalem, or the occupied Arab territories. The Rome Statute doesn’t allow Security Council referrals of “situations” crafted to grant impunity or immunity to one side of an armed conflict. For example, a referral of the “situation” in Syria would include Israeli activities on the Golan Heights.

        Likewise, the ICC can obtain jurisdiction over individuals with dual nationality from any of their countries of nationality, e.g. South Africa could confer jurisdiction over a South African Jew who participated in the IDF planning for Operation Cast Lead in accordance with the terms of Article 12 of the Rome Statute.

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 8:07 pm

        The Rome Statute doesn’t allow Security Council referrals of “situations” crafted to grant impunity or immunity to one side of an armed conflict.

        What does that matter when Security Council referrals can simply be voetoed? The more we look into these procedures, the more we see that they are rigged to ensure those in power never face justice.

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 9:37 pm

        What does that matter when Security Council referrals can simply be voetoed?

        It matters because the USA continues to try to use Security Council resolutions to refer situations to the ICC, while granting some perpetrators immunity. I was pointing out that the Court is not bound by the terms of those referrals. The fact that the Security Council can veto a resolution doesn’t prevent the Court from acquiring jurisdiction by one of the other methods outlined in the Statute itself. In this case, Palestine has provided the Court with an Article 12(3) declaration accepting the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction for any crimes committed on the territory of Palestine since the Rome Statute entered into effect in July of 2002.

        There are political forces in play to prevent the use of a statutory declaration with retroactive effect and to only permit prosecution of crimes committed after Palestine joins the court as a contracting state party. In other words, those forces want to grant Israel immunity for all of the crimes committed to date, by pretending that joining the ICC is some sort of constitutive act and that the State of Palestine won’t exist for the purposes of the Rome Statute until that happens.

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 10:52 pm

        It matters because the USA continues to try to use Security Council resolutions to refer situations to the ICC, while granting some perpetrators immunity.

        Which it appears to be doing with success, apart from Syria.

        I was pointing out that the Court is not bound by the terms of those referrals.

        I appreciate that, but either way, the system is clearly broken because it means that justice is entirely rigged and corrupted to suit the desires of the permanent membes of the UNSC.

        In this case, Palestine has provided the Court with an Article 12(3) declaration accepting the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction for any crimes committed on the territory of Palestine since the Rome Statute entered into effect in July of 2002.

        But that sounds like it’s futile unless the UNSC refers crimes perpetrated by Israel, the ICC has no mandate to investigate them. What am I missing?

        In other words, those forces want to grant Israel immunity for all of the crimes committed to date, by pretending that joining the ICC is some sort of constitutive act and that the State of Palestine won’t exist for the purposes of the Rome Statute until that happens.

        Are the terms and statutes that vague that they can be manipulated so easily? Is it a case of Palestine being a unique situation whereby precedent cannot be applied?

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 11:54 pm

        I appreciate that, but either way, the system is clearly broken because it means that justice is entirely rigged and corrupted to suit the desires of the permanent membes of the UNSC.

        No I’ve pointed out that the UNSC doesn’t have a veto over Article 12(3) declarations. It certainly has no power to interfere with any trials conducted by the courts of ICC member states. Many of them have harmonized their national laws with the Rome Statute, while retaining their own universal jurisdiction, e.g. http://www.cdiph.ulaval.ca/blogue/universal-jurisdiction-canada-quebec-court-appeal-judgement-munyaneza-clarifies-law-and-paves

        The long arc of history is bending toward denial of immunity and impunity for serious crimes.

      • Shingo on June 16, 2014, 1:06 am

        The long arc of history is bending toward denial of immunity and impunity for serious crimes.

        Yes, so long in fact that none of us will likely be alive to witness it.

      • Hostage on June 16, 2014, 3:32 am

        The long arc of history is bending toward denial of immunity and impunity for serious crimes.

        Yes, so long in fact that none of us will likely be alive to witness it.

        I don’t think that’s the case. The pundits predicted that the Rome Statute would never enter into force and that the majority of states would never ratify it. Then they predicted it would never adopt the customary definition of aggression. All of those predictions were wrong. The current attempts to prevent it from prosecuting a few western countries will predictably backfire and the majority of western states in the ICC lawmaking body will help impose a democratic solution.

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 7:58 pm

        The court has no jurisdiction vis-a-vis Israel until/unless Israel agrees that it should.

        Doesn’t matter. All signatories to the ICC are bound by it’s rulings, which means Israeli leaders can be found guilty in absentia as individuals and as Erekat said, forbidden to travel without risk of being arrested.

        And then the PA and its “progressive Left” (ht: Judith Butler) will have to answer in the same forum for thousands of rockets launched at civilians. I can’t see the court letting its mandate be abused in this manner.

        Drean on, srael would first have to become a signatory to the ICC before referring such matters to the court, which means it opens itself up to the ICC’s jurisdiction.

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 9:10 pm

        All signatories to the ICC are bound by it’s rulings, which means Israeli leaders can be found guilty in absentia

        No, the ICC has authorized some defense requests for attendance of heads of state accused of crimes through remote video conferencing facilities, but it’s only the Special Tribunal for Lebanon that has resorted to trials in absentia so far. I don’t believe ICC member states are debarred from conducting their own trials in absentia, but the Rome Statute prevents the ICC from doing that.

  10. amigo on June 14, 2014, 3:02 pm

    “The ICC is a “sword” that swings both ways.” dabakr

    Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention prohibits the transfer of citizens ( Israelis) of the Occupying power,(Israel) to the Territory Occupied (Palestine).

    So each person transferred represents a War Crime.So how many Illegal squatters are there???. That,s an awful lot of War crimes and I have not mentioned Syrian Heights —yet.

    Murdering unarmed civilians such as snipers shooting three minors a couple of weeks ago, two of which died –also a War Crime.Collective Punishment –also a War Crime.Stealing Land belong to those under Occupation.Transfer of citizens of the territory to territory of the Occupier is also in contravention of the Geneva Conventions.

    Shall I continue.

    The sword will swing towards many more of your war criminals then Palestinians resisting your vile occupation and Apartheid rogue nation.

    Don,t you ever get tired appearing like a loser.

    • DaBakr on June 14, 2014, 9:34 pm

      right. your understanding of exactly what the ICC can accomplish -especially in light of what they have accomplished so far- is fascinating.

    • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 12:40 am

      The sword will swing towards many more of your war criminals then Palestinians resisting your vile occupation and Apartheid rogue nation.

      First of all, the 2009 Article 12(3) declaration of the PA ministers accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC. It covered all crimes committed on the territory of Palestine since July 2002 by either the Palestinians or Israelis. http://iccforum.com/media/background/gaza/2009-01-21_Palestinian_National_Authority_Declaration.pdf

      However Article 124 of the Statute gives contracting states some definite advantages, once they join the Court, notwithstanding Article 12:

      Article 124
      Transitional Provision

      Notwithstanding article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, a State, on becoming a party to this Statute, may declare that, for a period of seven years after the entry into force of this Statute for the State concerned, it does not accept the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the category of crimes referred to in article 8 when a crime is alleged to have been committed by its nationals or on its territory. A declaration under this article may be withdrawn at any time. The provisions of this article shall be reviewed at the Review Conference convened in accordance with article 123, paragraph 1.

      That only applies to war crimes (article 8), not crimes against humanity or genocide (listed in articles 6 & 7) and doesn’t bar investigation or prosecution by others or by the ICC at the end of the seven year non-renewable term.

  11. Walid on June 14, 2014, 4:34 pm

    Israeli Apaches are now firing missiles into an open field in Rafah, Gaza. No injuries reported. It could have something to do with the full moon.

    • just on June 14, 2014, 4:49 pm

      it could be the full moon or it could be b/c Egypt is opening the crossing for 4 days…. there was a rocket that supposedly was fired from Gaza into Israel this morning….or it could be b/c 3 settlers are missing….or…..

      “GAZA CITY (Ma’an) — The Rafah border crossing will open on Sunday for four days in order to allow travelers to cross, the Palestinian ambassador to Egypt said on Saturday.

      Barakat al-Farra said in a statement that the crossing will open Sunday and Monday for pilgrims, and on Tuesday and Wednesday it will be open for humanitarian cases.”

      who knows?

      http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=704640

  12. Justpassingby on June 14, 2014, 5:29 pm

    Great criticism!
    Lets see what “Hostage” say, that have denied that abbas is a puppet.

  13. Hostage on June 14, 2014, 7:52 pm

    Great criticism!
    Lets see what “Hostage” say, that have denied that abbas is a puppet.

    I’ve been asking why the leadership of the international Palestinian solidarity movement have opposed the statehood bid at the UN and why they haven’t been demanding that the ICC Prosecutor take action using the existing declaration Abbas provided the ICC in 2009? After all, the very first treaty that called for an international criminal tribunal was the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. The logical action for a Buntustan victim state to take is to ask the ICC to investigate and prosecute the responsible officials.

    I’m still waiting on mental midgets, like yourself, to explain who was pulling the strings when this puppet collaborator Abbas filed the PA declaration on January 21, 2009 accepting the ICC’s jurisdiction in the first place? See Disentangling the Knots: A Comment on Ambos’ ‘Palestine, ‘Non-Member Observer’ Status and ICC Jurisdiction’ http://www.ejiltalk.org/disentangling-the-knots-a-comment-on-ambos-palestine-non-member-observer-status-and-icc-jurisdiction/

    Why do you suppose that Ali Abunimah and Omar Barghouti kept on ignoring the ICC’s inaction and pretending that the Goldstone report had to be referred by the Security Council instead of the PA? I’ll give you a clue, Ali Abunimah and Omar Barghouti will recognize the existing occupied state of Palestine the day after the Likud Party recognizes the State of Palestine.

    Here’s my original take on the situation, since you asked:

    From: Hostage
    To: Philip Weiss ; [email protected]*****.com
    Sent: Friday, November 4, 2011 7:40 AM
    Subject: Where are the Adult Palestinian Leaders?

    You prosecute violations of international law like persecution, apartheid, illegal settlement expansion, and illegal blockades in the ICC, not the Russell Tribunal.

    Where the hell are Diana Buttu, Noura Erakat, and the rest of the activist Palestinian lawyers and legal community? It is more than a little odd that they have fallen silent, and aren’t making headlines about the new expanded opportunity to present their complaints directly to the ICC Prosecutor? Who is looking-out for the legal interests of all the Palestinian victims mentioned in the Goldstone report while these folks are away doing more important things?

    The other day you ran an article that cited Craig Murray’s Palestine Can Now Join the International Criminal Court. Since then the top human rights legal expert, who authored the Oxford Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court summed-up the consequences of Palestine’s full membership in UNESCO:

    Thus, nothing stands in the way of Palestine acceding to the Rome Statute except Palestine itself. . . .He [the Prosecutor] should now move on to an assessment of the substance of the allegations that crimes under the Statute have been committed in Palestine since 1 July 2002.

    We are all majoring in minors. Since the UNESCO vote, the BDS and EI community have been silent about taking the battle to the ICC. Everyone has been shreying about the cutoff of UNESCO funding, a possible attack on Iran, the Goldstone Op-Ed, the upcoming (and anti-climactic) vote in the Security Council, and the attempt to further publicize the blockade.

    • Citizen on June 14, 2014, 8:11 pm

      So why the dragging of the feet to take the Palestinian case to the ICC? I don’t get it.

      • Hostage on June 14, 2014, 11:59 pm

        So why the dragging of the feet to take the Palestinian case to the ICC? I don’t get it.

        The current ICC Prosecutor spent 12 years as the former Prosecutor’s deputy. Both of them have sought any excuse to avoid taking action against western countries and have made it unmistakably clear that they will continue to do so, even if Palestine becomes a contracting party to the Rome Statute. They both seem to feel that the institution is good for Africans, but not for others. See Luis Moreno-Ocampo: The Gift that Keeps on Giving http://humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.com/2014/05/luis-moreno-ocampo-gift-that-keeps-on.html

        Why on Earth would a bankrupt country sign-on and pay dues for the honor of being ignored like the situations in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Cyprus?
        See:
        * UK Supreme Court Rejects Jack Goldsmith’s Interpretation of GC IV
        http://opiniojuris.org/2012/11/01/uk-supreme-court-rejects-jack-goldsmiths-interpretation-of-gc-iv/
        * Can the ICC investigate UK higher echelons’ command responsibility for torture committed by the armed forces against Iraqi detainees?
        http://opiniojuris.org/2012/11/01/uk-supreme-court-rejects-jack-goldsmiths-interpretation-of-gc-iv/
        *The OTP’s Remarkable Slow-Walking of the Afghanistan Examination http://opiniojuris.org/2013/12/01/otps-remarkable-slow-walking-afghanistan-examination/

        Unless the public gets outraged and applies political pressure, that situation isn’t ever going to change.

      • just on June 15, 2014, 8:17 am

        From what I can gather– the Prosecutor is elected for a term til 2021! Is there any way to change the way this operates beyond public outrage? I know that we are not a member state, what can be done about that? Political pressure?

      • Justpassingby on June 16, 2014, 2:57 am

        Hostage

        You deny that Abbas froze for 9 months to go to the ICC.
        You deny that ICC said its up to palestinians if ICC is going to look at the situation as my HRW link showed.
        With that being said its no point going on with discussion.

      • Hostage on June 16, 2014, 6:55 am

        Hostage, You deny that Abbas froze for 9 months to go to the ICC.

        Yes, after a state accepts the court’s jurisdiction in writing and anyone at all calls attention to information about relevant illegal situation(s) in very general terms, there is no longer any such thing “as going to the ICC”. Joining the Court as a contracting state party is simply not a prerequisite to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction. Maybe if you’d read: “Article 12 Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction” from the Rome Statute and “Article 15 Prosecutor” that fact would finally sink in and you could just shut-up about it.

      • Justpassingby on June 15, 2014, 1:01 am

        Citizen

        Just because they are puppets something “Hostage” refuse to admit.
        Now he tries the ICC-dont-deal-with-western-states-card. But that isnt the issue, the issue itself is that Abbas REFUSE to go to ICC at all, and that has nothing to do with the bias of ICC itself to do with that has everything to do with abbas is a puppet which is the argument Erekat is doing.

        That he call people that call out his hypocrisy “mental midgets” says it all. I take Erekats insider’s knowledge over “Hostage” any day.

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 5:13 am

        Citizen, Just because they are puppets something “Hostage” refuse to admit.

        You still haven’t explained to Citizen who exactly you think was pulling the strings when Abbas accepted the Court’s jurisdiction in January 2009? A cable that Wikileaks published says that Israel considered the complaint filed in the Hague to be an act of war and asked the US government for help getting it dismissed. http://wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10TELAVIV417.html

        Now he tries the ICC-dont-deal-with-western-states-card. But that isnt the issue, the issue itself is that Abbas REFUSE to go to ICC at all, and that has nothing to do with the bias of ICC itself to do with that has everything to do with abbas is a puppet which is the argument Erekat is doing.

        You’re a clueless ignoramus. Abbas has already taken the situation in Palestine to the ICC and has never withdrawn the Article 12 declaration in which Palestine accepted the Court’s jurisdiction going forward. From a legal standpoint, there’s no difference at all between a state party accepting the responsibilities in Part 9 of the Statute in accordance with Article 125 and a non-member state accepting those same responsibilities in accordance with the last clause of Article 12(3). The Prosecutor is free to exercise jurisdiction in either case. Many people who are demanding that Palestine join the Court are simply trying to claim that the 2009 declaration is somehow invalid in order to give Israel a “get of jail free card” for Operation Cast Lead and construction of settlements between July 2002 and November of 2012. I’m not stupid enough to spread Israeli hasbara, but people who claim that Abbas still needs to overcome additional legal hurdles are guilty of doing exactly that.

        It’s pretty obvious that the Court is treating Africans under different rules than the ones it applies to western states. The fact that the UK Supreme Court held that the US Guantanamo Bay detention center violated Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention, but took no legal action to address the situation, should have triggered the ICC’s jurisdiction under the terms of Article 17. The same thing applies to the efforts to quash arrest warrants issued by the UK Courts in order to grant immunity to visiting Israeli officials. Those are graphic examples of unwillingness to investigate and prosecute the individuals responsible for crimes listed in Article 5 of the Statute and committed on the territory of states that have accepted ICC jurisdiction.

      • Justpassingby on June 15, 2014, 5:51 am

        Hostage

        You still haven’t explained to Citizen who exactly you think was pulling the strings when Abbas accepted the Court’s jurisdiction in January 2009?

        Again the issue itself, as I tried to explain to you earlier, is Abbas refusal to go to the ICC. That he have accepted the court’s jurisdiction doesnt mean he have filed a case against Israel which is the issue of this question you try to deny in this discussion.

        You’re a clueless ignoramus. Abbas has already taken the situation in Palestine to the ICC

        Ridiculous lie.
        This is from last month:
        http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/05/palestinians-urged-turn-icc-201458184931213648.html

        Since the United Nations General Assembly recognised a “state of Palestine” as a non-member observer in 2012, Abbas has had the option of seeking access to the ICC in The Hague.

        However, the United States and Israel have objected to Palestine trying to join international agencies and conventions, saying it is an attempt to bypass peace talks.

        Abbas froze such efforts during nearly nine months of US-brokered peace talks with Israel.

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 7:57 am

        Hostage

        You still haven’t explained to Citizen who exactly you think was pulling the strings when Abbas accepted the Court’s jurisdiction in January 2009?

        Again the issue itself, as I tried to explain to you earlier, is Abbas refusal to go to the ICC.

        You’re lucky that ignorance isn’t painful. I already pointed out that Palestine filed a criminal complaint and that Wikileaks had revealed that Israel asked the US government for assistance in that connection. Even the Prosecutor’s status reports to the UN noted that the members of the Arab League of States, including Palestine, had commissioned their own independent international fact finding mission report on Operation Cast Lead and turned it over to the ICC Prosecutor. That was accomplished months before the Goldstone mission report and its recommendation for and independent Israeli investigation came to naught. See “Report of the Independent Fact Finding Committee On Gaza: No Safe Place” http://web.archive.org/web/20100904180212/http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/Report%20full.pdf

        Ridiculous lie.

        You are still cluelessly quoting Al Jazeera, when I’ve given you the link to the ICC Prosecutor’s website background materials that prove Abbas “went to the ICC in 2009” and the EJIL article which explains the Court still has jurisdiction on that basis. http://www.ejiltalk.org/disentangling-the-knots-a-comment-on-ambos-palestine-non-member-observer-status-and-icc-jurisdiction/

        You might try reading this and then just STFU: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/icc-prosecutor-statement-fears-over-justice-gaza-victims-2012-04-04

      • Justpassingby on June 15, 2014, 8:14 am

        Hostage

        You link to a 2010 (wikileaks) and a 2012 (amnesty), that is: outdated documents.
        Again the Al jazeera link I gave you show that the NGO’s want Abbas to go to the ICC last month. This urge came AFTER Abbas got the semi recognition for statehood in the UN. Since then Abbas have REFUSED to use the ICC. He himself is on record all over the net saying he wont go to the ICC and here you are denying that he have ever done so. Hopeless.

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 8:54 am

        You link to a 2010 (wikileaks) and a 2012 (amnesty), that is: outdated documents.

        There’s nothing out of date about the Amnesty International article that I cited. It explains that there is a statutory requirement for the Judges to decide issues of inadmissibility. Those provisions of the Rome Statute have not been amended since the 2012 AI article was written.

        I also linked to a 27 May 2014 article in the European Journal of International Law which explains that Palestine’s 2009 declaration accepting ICC jurisdiction is still valid. I could also provide you with articles which explain that the rules contained in the UN Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) which say that members of UNESCO, like Palestine, are states capable of concluding treaty agreements actually govern interpretations of Article 12 of the Rome Statute. Disputes are not governed by the unwritten customary rules regarding a country’s UN observer status that the Prosecutor cited as the basis for inadmissibility, e.g. Palestine at the ICC: Politics Prevail Once More http://www.alhaq.org/advocacy/targets/united-nations/555-palestine-at-the-icc-politics-prevail-once-more

      • Justpassingby on June 15, 2014, 9:38 am

        Hostage

        Of course there is a difference, thats why all these NGO’s call to go to the ICC.

        Do you deny that Abbas froze going
        to the ICC during the past 9-month peace-talks?

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 10:16 am

        Hostage Of course there is a difference, thats why all these NGO’s call to go to the ICC.

        Okay smart guy name one of these differences. The ICC’s FAQ and the Registrar’s letter on this subject both indicate that 1) a decision on the validity of Palestine’s Article 12(3) declaration will be made by the “Judges”, not by the Prosecutor; and 2) pending a judicial determination, Palestine’s declaration has triggered mutual obligations to cooperate and provide judicial assistance, including the application of all the rules pertaining to contracting State Parties contained in Part 9 of the Rome Statute:

        The Court has not made any determination on the applicability of article 12(3) to this particular communication. A conclusive determination on its applicability would have to be made by the judges at an appropriate moment.
        link to icc-cpi.int
        I acknowledge receipt on 22 January 2009 of your correspondence which refers itself to article 12, paragraph 3 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
        Without prejudice to a judicial determination on the applicability of article 12, paragraph 3 to your correspondence, I wish to inform you that a declaration under article 12 paragraph 3 has the effect of the acceptance of jurisdiction with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5 of relevance to the situation and the application of the provisions of Part 9 and any rules thereunder, concerning States Parties, pursuant to Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
        link to icc-cpi.int

        Rule 45 requires the Prosecutor to notify the President when a state files a complaint. Rule 46 requires the President to assign the situation to a panel of Judges. What everyone would like to know is: Why has none of that ever happened yet?

      • Justpassingby on June 15, 2014, 10:33 am

        Hostage

        As usual you refuse to approach why Abbas froze the ICC file.

        Will you also refuse what ICC said recently too?
        http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/08/palestine-go-international-criminal-court

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 7:39 pm

        Hostage As usual you refuse to approach why Abbas froze the ICC file.

        No, I’ve explained in the past that Abbas and other heads of state can’t do any such thing, once they initiate the process and get the ball rolling. The Appeals Court ruling in the Laurent Gbagbo case explained that non-member states have to accept the Court’s jurisdiction for any crime listed in the Rome Statute, and cannot limit the scope of their Article 12(3) declarations in order to make them apply to certain situations, while excluding others, or withdraw a declaration after the fact. http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1526463.pdf They can only terminate them prospectively, and Abbas has done no such thing. That means that the Prosecutor can still use the declaration to investigate any crime reported in Palestine from July 2002 to the present day by any party, including Abbas himself – and that Palestine can only terminate the applicability of the declaration to future crimes after giving the registrar prior written notice. Nothing is legally preventing the Prosecutor from investigating and prosecuting crimes in the Arab League or Goldstone reports; those reported in more than 400 written communications from the public cited in the Prosecutor’s UN update report; or any news report or information available in the public domain.

        Will you also refuse what ICC said recently too?

        Of course. For the last time: If you are claiming that membership in the ICC is a prerequisite to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction, you are simply clueless or deliberately spreading false Zionist propaganda. Nothing, except indifference, is preventing the ICC Prosecutor from bringing the perpetrators of the crimes committed by both sides since July 2002 to justice.

        You have cited yet another misleading article which implies that Abbas hasn’t already granted the Court jurisdiction. FYI, the current Prosecutor has stated publicly that the Court can exercise its jurisdiction using the existing Palestinian Article 12(3) declaration. She has also arbitrarily decided (in contradiction of the explicit terms of Article 12 of the Rome Statute) to take no further action, unless Palestine also agrees to become a state party to the Rome Statute. You need to raise hell with the Hague about that, not Ramallah. Compare:
        * link to timesofisrael.com
        * link to arabnews.com

        The Prosecutor is not empowered to make determinations like that or determinations regarding statehood or inadmissibility. Under the terms of the Statute, those decisions belong to the Judges (not the UN, or the Office of the ICC Prosecutor). Under the terms of the VCLT the Prosecutor can’t revoke the rights granted to third party states and accepted in writing under the terms of Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, without obtaining the consent of all the contracting state parties and the consent of the third party state concerned, i.e. Palestine.

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 8:16 pm

        If you are claiming that membership in the ICC is a prerequisite to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction, you are simply clueless or deliberately spreading false Zionist propaganda.

        Didn’t the ICC make that claim themselves? That they would refuse to commence proceedings in Palestine because Palestine was not recognized by the UN as a state?

        And now that they are recognized as a state, the ICC is still stonewalling. So even of your arguments were valid, they are moot because the ICC has proven itself corruptable and influenced by it’s more powerful members.

        In other words, the ICC is just another tool for powerful states to use against weak ones.

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 10:06 pm

        Didn’t the ICC make that claim themselves? That they would refuse to commence proceedings in Palestine because Palestine was not recognized by the UN as a state?

        No, the ICC Prosecutor reported that he was not empowered to make any such determination. Without bothering to ask the General Assembly or Secretary General if they already considered Palestine a state capable of concluding international agreements, he speculated that they did not. But he based that opinion solely upon Palestine’s non-binding and irrelevant UN observer status. The Cook Islands acceded to the Rome Statute without ever becoming a UN member or observer state, based solely upon a study conducted by the Secretary General of the contents of UN General Assembly resolutions which implied that it was considered a state.

        The Secretary General, acting as the UN depositary has been accepting accessions from Palestine for multilateral treaties since 2003. A simple review of the 1998 resolution that granted Palestine’s former observer status would have revealed that the General Assembly acknowledged the statehood of Palestine by recalling its resolutions on the 1988 UDI and by pointing out Palestine’s full membership as a state in several international governmental or treaty organizations that are not open to membership by non-state entities. Furthermore the resolution pointed out the establishment of the Palestinian Authority on part of the territory of Palestine after democratic elections. See A/RES/52/250, 13 July 1998 http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/162094FCBE8245D30525665E00536281

        Under the customary rules governing international recognition, the thing that an elected regime “governs” is always considered a “state”. The US and Secretary Kerry never acknowledged the Declaration of the State of Palestine, but the United Nations can’t employ that excuse. It acknowledged the 1988 UDI and the role of the PLO Executive as the provisional government of “Palestine”:

        “Let me be very clear: the United States does not recognize a government with respect to Palestine, because that would recognize a state and there is no state,” Kerry said. “This is not an issue of recognition of a government.”

        Kerry: US doesn’t recognize Palestinian gov’t because there is no Palestinian state link to ynetnews.com

      • john h on June 16, 2014, 2:40 am

        What specifically does Abbas give as his reasons for not taking their case to the ICC? And what are considered to be the real reasons, if different?

      • Hostage on June 16, 2014, 6:38 am

        What specifically does Abbas give as his reasons for not taking their case to the ICC? And what are considered to be the real reasons, if different?

        There is a misunderstanding here about the procedures employed by the ICC. Once the Security Council or the relevant state have given the Court jurisdiction, Article 15 authorizes the Prosecutor to initiate investigations on the basis of any publicly available information about crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. At last report, the Prosecutor had over 400 communications regarding Operation Cast Lead alone, including the Goldstone report.

        The ICC Appeals Chamber has explained in its rulings on Article 12(3) Declarations that states are not allowed to pursue specific “cases” through the Court. They can only make a general referral of an illegal “situation” and let the Court decide who to prosecute after it conducts its own investigation. In any event, the only course of action available to states is to accept the Court’s jurisdiction for any and all crimes mentioned in the Rome Statute. That is exactly what Abbas has already done.

        The information in the Goldstone and Arab League fact funding reports is widely available and “in the public domain”. The illegal situations described in them, including crimes committed by settlers and the establishment of illegal Israeli settlements, were already addressed in the ICJ findings of facts and in the Secretary General’s 1000 page dossier that was submitted as evidence in the Wall case. All of those situations are actionable with or without a UN referral. The Arab League report was already turned over to the Prosecutor and it contained numerous references to the findings of illegalities in the 2004 ICJ advisory opinion. Among other things the ICJ publicly stated that Israeli settlements had been established in violation of Article 49(6) of the Geneva Convention. Many of the written statements submitted to the ICJ by interested states noted that the settlements also happen to be a specific violation of the Rome Statute’s prohibition against direct or indirect population transfer outlined in Article 8(2)(b)(viii). So the Prosecutor has already been advised about all the general illegal situations. It really isn’t up to the State of Palestine at this point to conduct an investigation or participate in the prosecution of the responsible Israeli officials.

        What Abbas agreed to do was refrain from making new referrals during a 9 month hiatus, but I can’t image any new types of illegal “situations” that aren’t already contained in the reports and communications the Prosecutor has in hand from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Arab League, the UN treaty bodies, and information published by reliable sources that is available from the public domain.

    • W.Jones on June 14, 2014, 9:29 pm

      I’ve been asking why the leadership of the international Palestinian solidarity movement have opposed the statehood bid at the UN and why they haven’t been demanding that the ICC Prosecutor take action using the existing declaration Abbas provided the ICC in 2009?
      Great question. My guess is that the movement is weak, disorganized, and disunited, due to the fact that it is a dissident, grassroots movement of an oppressed, conquered group. They do not have a strong leader out of prison leading them in unity who would command respect for the statehood attempt.

      The ISM does have reasons for weakly opposing the bid (I think that there was weak opposition, but I can be wrong), however I disagree with those reasons. For me, it is a bit like those who recommend that US Aid stop funding the Palestinian Authority or that the PA disband itself. There are valid reasons for wanting those things, but overall I don’t agree. I think that if the Solidarity movement was in general stronger and more united, there would be less uncertainty about those questions.

      As for the second question you ask here, I assume that the ISM has to some extent individually asked for it, but the other issue is that the ISM is relatively politically weak. How many well funded, well-staffed Solidarity organizations are there in your city? How about in other US cities? It is a bit like the Great Book Robbery’s director asking why the Palestinians haven’t taken more legal action to get their books back. These difficulties reflect the people’s conquered, weak, economically insecure, dissident/oppositional position.

      By the way, don’t get me wrote, the Solidarity movement does have incredible strengths despite its problems, like being on the right side and the impressive work of students. However you are pointing to a weakness, and it is worth considering what is the base cause of it.

      • W.Jones on June 14, 2014, 9:48 pm

        By the way, don’t get me wrote
        Don’t get me “wrong”.

        LOL.

    • W.Jones on June 14, 2014, 10:19 pm

      Hostage,

      Can you please tell me what you are implying:
      “I’ll give you a clue, Ali Abunimah and Omar Barghouti will recognize the existing occupied state of Palestine the day after the Likud Party recognizes the State of Palestine.”
      I am not really understanding what you are trying to say about what you see (perhaps correctly) as the Solidarity movement’s failure to advocate about the ICC.

      To “shrey” means to exaggerate the importance of something?

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 12:12 am

        Can you please tell me what you are implying:
        “I’ll give you a clue, Ali Abunimah and Omar Barghouti will recognize the existing occupied state of Palestine the day after the Likud Party recognizes the State of Palestine.”

        Only states can become parties to the Geneva Conventions or accept the jurisdiction of the Court under the terms of Articles 12 or 125 of the Rome Statute. Non-state actors have no legal standing in either the ICJ, ICC, or most national courts. Those two individuals opposed the UN statehood bid and claimed that Palestine was a non-existent state. See for example: Ali Abunimah, “Recognising Palestine? The efforts of the Palestinian Authority to push for statehood are nothing more than an elaborate farce, writer says.” http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/04/2011413152522296883.html

      • W.Jones on June 15, 2014, 1:40 am

        Hostage,

        Thanks for answering, and Yes, as I mentioned, I do think that it would be best for Solidarity activists to support the UN bid and to advocate for ICC oversight. But I am still having trouble seeing what you are implying about Ali Abunimah and O.Barghouti, particularly regarding their motivations.

        So for example, you write:

        I’ve been asking why the leadership of the international Palestinian solidarity movement have opposed the statehood bid at the UN and why they haven’t been demanding that the ICC Prosecutor take action using the existing declaration Abbas provided the ICC in 2009?

        My impression is that some of them were worried that the UN bid could entrench the position of a colloborationist authority and damage the Right of Return. However I don’t agree with them and think that the answer to your question is that the grassroots Solidarity movement is much weaker and less well funded and united than it should be. But what are you implying the answer is for your question?

        And when you say: “I’ll give you a clue, Ali Abunimah and Omar Barghouti will recognize the existing occupied state of Palestine the day after the Likud Party recognizes the State of Palestine.”
        Are you implying that Ali A. and O.Barghouti are just pawns or controlled opposition and that this is why their decision would depend so much on the Likud’s own recognition? I would be surprised if you are saying that they are pawns. I am just confused what you are implying with your comments here.

        In your first comment you said that you ask why Ali A. doesn’t support the PA’s UN statehood recognition, and most recently you pointed to an article giving Ali A’s reasons. So why would you ask the question if you knew the answer was what Ali A. said? Aren’t you implying that there is some other reason for Ali A’s views beyond what he put in the article you cited?

        Thanks.

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 5:25 am

        But I am still having trouble seeing what you are implying about Ali Abunimah and O.Barghouti, particularly regarding their motivations.

        It’s simple. They’ve signed-on to the one state manifesto and are unwilling to recognize the existence of the occupied State of Palestine, within the 1967 frontiers. They have actively worked to delegitimize the 2009 Palestinian Article 12(3) declaration that should have been employed long ago to prosecute those responsible for crimes committed in Palestine since July of 2002, including Operation Cast Lead.

      • W.Jones on June 15, 2014, 9:37 pm

        Hostage,
        OK, I can see someone deciding not to sign on to the recognition of the Palestinian State because they don’t want the land to be divided, even though I disagree with their judgment call on that. However I don’t know that the Palestinian State was defined officially on entering the UN as within the 1967 borders, so I don’t see that one who is in favor of one state need oppose the Palestinians’ entrance into the UN.

        Regarding your words that:

        They have actively worked to delegitimize the 2009 Palestinian Article 12(3) declaration that should have been employed long ago to prosecute those responsible for crimes committed in Palestine since July of 2002, including Operation Cast Lead.

        This sounds like you are implicitly blaming them for the failure to prosecute when you add on the second part. However, as you correctly said earlier, and correctly defended Abbas on the point, membership in the UN as a state is unnecessary for the ICC to prosecute Israeli crimes. You did a good job pointing out the Israeli quote about how membership in the UN was unnecessary for international bodies to protect Israelis.

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 11:21 pm

        This sounds like you are implicitly blaming them for the failure to prosecute when you add on the second part.

        Certainly, they have helped sustain the legal defenses employed by Israel to prevent criminal prosecutions of those responsible for the crimes they complain about. They’ve done that by claiming that the Palestinian state is non-existent as opposed to it merely being occupied. They’ve done that to avoid acceptance of the Arab Peace Initiative and the 1967 frontiers, because they want a one state solution. At the same time, they have continued to discuss or deliver lectures on the applicable “international law”. So they know perfectly well that they are helping Israel to thwart justice in the short term.

        However I don’t know that the Palestinian State was defined officially on entering the UN as within the 1967 borders,

        Yes, both the application for membership and the resolution on observer status explicitly cited the 1967 frontiers in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, General Assembly, and Arab Peace Initiative.

      • Shingo on June 16, 2014, 1:02 am

        Certainly, they have helped sustain the legal defenses employed by Israel to prevent criminal prosecutions of those responsible for the crimes they complain about.

        Employed where and when? BDS has never been recognized as any legitimate body, much less the representatives of the state of Palestine.

        They’ve done that by claiming that the Palestinian state is non-existent as opposed to it merely being occupied.

        Who’s they? If you’re going to cite Barghoutti or Abunimah, you’d be wrong.

        They’ve done that to avoid acceptance of the Arab Peace Initiative and the 1967 frontiers, because they want a one state solution

        Again, if you are claiming that Abunimah is opposed to the Arab Peace Initiative , you’d be wrong.

        At the same time, they have continued to discuss or deliver lectures on the applicable “international law”

        What amazes me is that you’re the one that sounds like the Israeli apologist when you maintain the line that Israel’s legitimacy and rights remain sacrosantct and unaffected by it’s violations of international law while insisting that the Palestinians and BDS be made to jump through hoops to the letter of the law in order to be recognized or have the right to merely have equal footing before the ICC and UN bodies.

        So they know perfectly well that they are helping Israel to thwart justice in the short term.

        Oh please, that’s about as credible as suggesting that 911 truthers helped legitimize the Iraq invasion by the Bush administration.

        Yes, both the application for membership and the resolution on observer status explicitly cited the 1967 frontiers in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, General Assembly, and Arab Peace Initiative.

        Isn’t it amazing how again, the Palestinian government and BDS are required to cite the 1967 frontiers in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, General Assembly, and Arab Peace Initiative, but Israel can flout and reject it without any consequence to it’s legitimacy?

      • Walid on June 16, 2014, 1:36 am

        “… Abbas and/or Erekat might have some recollection of having signed the relevant applications and done so after exhaustive consultation with their legal advisors.”

        Shingo, during the Oslo talks and signings, bright stars Abbas, Erekat, Arafat and the rest of the illustrious negotiating team did NOT have any legal advisors facing the Israeli team that of course had top notch Jewish lawyers there with them at all times. It isn’t any wonder that the Israeli team ate them alive. That in itself was criminal. Therefore there’s a good chance the Palestinians still don’t use lawyers because they have never stopped repeating the same mistakes.

      • Shingo on June 16, 2014, 3:20 am

        I take your point about Oslo Walid but on this case, the PA were not locked in a corner of a dark room with the Israelis.

        According to Hostage the Palestinians have not made the same mistake this time and have left nothing to chance with respect to the ICC.

      • Hostage on June 16, 2014, 3:15 am

        Employed where and when? BDS has never been recognized as any legitimate body, much less the representatives of the state of Palestine.

        Israel has employed legal defenses and arguments that “Palestine is not a state” for many decades. Ali Abunimah and Omar Barghouti have both written articles saying the same thing and have spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt regarding the UN statehood bid. They are constantly represented as leaders of both the BDS movement and representatives or spokesmen at large of Palestinian civil society.

        Hostage: They’ve done that by claiming that the Palestinian state is non-existent as opposed to it merely being occupied.

        Shingo: Who’s they? If you’re going to cite Barghoutti or Abunimah, you’d be wrong.

        Ali Abunimah:

        UN recognition of a Palestinian make-believe state would be no more meaningful than this fantasy “institution-building”, and could push Palestinians even further away from real liberation and self-determination.

        See Ali Abunimah “Recognising Palestine? The efforts of the Palestinian Authority to push for statehood are nothing more than an elaborate farce”, Al Jazeera http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/04/2011413152522296883.html

        Omar Barghouti:

        Still, the fact remains that the very application for membership undermines Palestinian interests and directly jeopardizes the representation of most Palestinians at the UN and their ability to politically assert their inalienable rights. While our inalienable rights cannot be voided or extinguished by this or any other “diplomatic” maneuver, our ability to struggle for these rights in international forums will be severely damaged if the PLO is replaced by this imaginary “State of Palestine” at the UN.

        — Omar Barghouti, The UN application for the State of Palestine and the future of the PLO, Mondoweiss, http://mondoweiss.net/2011/09/the-un-application-for-the-state-of-palestine-and-the-future-of-the-plo.html

        Again, if you are claiming that Abunimah is opposed to the Arab Peace Initiative , you’d be wrong.

        I’m not claiming it, he did in the text of the One State Manifesto that he signed in 2007:

        The two-state solution . . . is predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders . . . All the international efforts to implement a two-state solution cannot conceal the fact that a Palestinian state is not viable, and that Palestinian and Israeli Jewish independence in separate states cannot resolve fundamental injustices, the acknowledgment and redress of which are at the core of any just solution.

        — Ali Abunimah, Omar Barghouti, et al “The One State Declaration”, Madrid and London, 2007, Counterpunch, http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/11/29/the-one-state-declaration/

        What amazes me is that you’re the one that sounds like the Israeli apologist when you maintain the line that Israel’s legitimacy and rights remain sacrosantct and unaffected by it’s violations of international law while insisting that the Palestinians and BDS be made to jump through hoops to the letter of the law in order to be recognized or have the right to merely have equal footing before the ICC and UN bodies.

        I don’t believe that is a good faith effort on your part to summarize anything I’ve ever said.

        Oh please, that’s about as credible as suggesting that 911 truthers helped legitimize the Iraq invasion by the Bush administration.

        No, the fact is that while the ICC Prosecutor, the government of Israel, and the Israel Lobby were conducting a three-year long campaign to raise the issue of Palestinian statehood as a bar to the exercise of ICC jurisdiction, these two men were pouring gas on the fire and claiming that the State of Palestine was make believe and non-existent. At the same time, Abbas was writing Op-Eds which explained that he wanted to use the UN/UNESCO statehood bid to pave the way for claims against Israel in the courts and the internationalization of the conflict as “a legal matter”, not merely a political one. See Mahmood Abbas, “The Long Overdue Palestinian State” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/opinion/17abbas.html?_r=0

        Isn’t it amazing how again, the Palestinian government and BDS are required to cite the 1967 frontiers in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, General Assembly, and Arab Peace Initiative, but Israel can flout and reject it without any consequence to it’s legitimacy?

        Not at all. I’ve repeatedly cited experts, including John McHugo and W. Tom Mallison who say that Israel’s failure to implement or abide by the relevant UN resolutions call into question the validity of its own claims to the territory allocated to it. Here are two of many such examples, e.g.
        * http://mondoweiss.net/2014/05/rothkopfs-jailbreak-captivity.html#comment-666754
        * http://mondoweiss.net/2014/02/jerusalem-occupied-israel.html#comment-644808

        I’ve commented on countless occasions that Israel is legally bound by the provisional terms of the Chapter 7 resolutions and the armistice agreements and that it cannot claim that the status of some of the former territory of mandate Palestine is disputed, without admitting that its own territory’s status is still open to claims by others.

        I’ve also noted that territorial claims of both the states are still subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ under the terms of a minority protection treaty instrument contained in General Assembly resolution 181(II). I’ve noted that the doctrine of uti possidetis would undoubtedly be applied to the administrative boundaries the UN established during the transition period that began on 29 November 1947 if the question were ever put to the ICJ for an advisory opinion. In a number of cases, the ICJ has adopted the doctrine as a universally applicable rule, pursuant to which boundaries inherited upon decolonization must be respected in all cases.
        * http://mondoweiss.net/2014/04/apartheid-charge-stick.html#comment-663421

        I’ve also pointed out that the I-P boundary dispute is the only case I’ve ever heard of that “supposedly” can’t be settled by binding arbitration or adjudication, and that the US and Israel only adopted that proposition to prevent the Security Council from imposing a solution or keep the General Assembly from convening an international diplomatic conference to formulate and impose a solution of its own. e.g.
        * http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/features-zionists-palestinians.html#comment-652307
        * http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/features-zionists-palestinians.html#comment-652307

      • Hostage on June 16, 2014, 3:25 am

        Sorry, I missed the part about BDS either being the official representatives of the Palestinian government or a recognized legal entity at the UN or ICC.

        You’re engaging in pilpul that has nothing to do with the content of the 2005 BDS Call to Action or the outcome of propaganda efforts by leaders of the BDS movement to delegitimze and undermine the Palestinian government’s UN statehood bid in pursuit of legal sanctions.

      • Walid on June 16, 2014, 3:54 am

        “According to Hostage the Palestinians have not made the same mistake this time and have left nothing to chance with respect to the ICC.”

        Shingo, of what good are all these measures taken if Abbas continues running interference for Israel by refusing to pull the trigger? This is where I’m at a disagreement with Hostage that feels I’m too dense to grasp that Abbas has his hands tied behind his back and is being blackmailed by the US and Israel that if he ventures to do anything really serious about the ICC, the sky would fall on him and the Palestinians and that I should therefore not hold it against Abbas for having postponed the Goldstone hearing at the UNHRC and otherwise playing nice to Israel. He’s gotten me to feel sorry for the Abbas-Erekat tag team. We also disagree on Abunimah.

      • Shingo on June 16, 2014, 4:13 am

        Of what good are all these measures taken if Abbas continues running interference for Israel by refusing to pull the trigger?

        Ask Hostage. Apparently we are all to dense to grasp the genius of Abbas

      • Hostage on June 16, 2014, 4:39 am

        I take your point about Oslo Walid but on this case, . . . according to Hostage the Palestinians have not made the same mistake this time and have left nothing to chance with respect to the ICC.

        You don’t have to take my word for it. The legal validity of Palestine’s declaration was defended during a three year long campaign conducted against it by many of the legal experts who helped draft the Rome Statute in the first place. Those who have always supported it include former ICJ Justices; a former Chairman of the International Law Commission; and a list of co-signers who represent a veritable Who’s Who of the international legal community, e.g. See the submission by Alain Pellet et al http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/553F5F08-2A84-43E9-8197-6211B5636FEA/281927/PelletENGCLEAN1.pdf

        See also the submissions by Prof John Quigley, Prof. Errol Mendes, and Dr. Michael Kearney (on behalf of Al Haq) http://goo.gl/8rvCic

      • Hostage on June 16, 2014, 4:52 am

        Of what good are all these measures taken if Abbas continues running interference for Israel by refusing to pull the trigger?

        Abbas already “pulled the trigger” in 2009 when he accepted the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to Article 12 of the Rome Statute and provided a report to the Prosecutor from an international fact finding mission via the League of Arab States. The is no other role for a head of state or government to play in the investigation or prosecution of crimes by the ICC, other than accepting the Court’s jurisdiction under either Article 12 or 125 for crimes committed on the territory of the state or elsewhere by one of its nationals. Abbas has already done that.

        None of you have explained what you mean when you say he hasn’t gone to the Hague “yet” or what you think is barring the Court from taking action on the hundreds of communications and reports it already has in hand.

      • Hostage on June 16, 2014, 4:57 am

        Ask Hostage. Apparently we are all to dense to grasp the genius of Abbas

        I haven’t said that Abbas is a genius. From your comments in this thread, I’d hazard a guess that you are either dense or willfully feigning ignorance when it comes to this subject or summarizing my comments on it.

      • Walid on June 16, 2014, 5:41 am

        “I am sure Erekat is far from perfect but Abbas is a joke, though I am sure he will enjoy a very comfortable and luxurious retirement.”

        Shingo, we should have a pool on where we think the very comfortable and luxurious retirement is going to be. I’ll bet the bungalow in Connecticut is already bought.

      • Hostage on June 16, 2014, 7:07 am

        What Erakat says is obvious for anyone to read.

        Yes and it’s completely immaterial and irrelevant. Once a “situation” has been brought to the attention of the Prosecutor, states are not required to report on-going examples. In fact they are prohibited from trying to refer specific cases. Those are reported by the mainstream press, which the Office of the Prosecutor can readily consult. What new type of situation has occurred in the last 6 months or since the Goldstone report, the Arab League report, the ICRC reports, and the AI and HRW reports on the situation in Palestine were published?

      • Hostage on June 16, 2014, 7:44 am

        No he denied what ICC said, that its up to palestinians to go to the ICC again. Why would ICC say that, if we are to believe Hostage, that Palestinians have already done that?

        Correction: I never denied what the ICC Registrar said in the official notice about the Palestinian declaration and its continuing legal effects, “pending a judicial determination” or the official statements of the Prosecutor to the UN which admitted that “Article 12 establishes that a “State” can confer jurisdiction to the Court by becoming a Party to the Rome Statute (article 12(1)) or by making an ad hoc declaration accepting the Court’s jurisdiction (article 12(3)).” and the admission that his office didn’t have the statutory authority to make any such determination: “In interpreting and applying article 12 of the Rome Statute, the Office has assessed that it is for the relevant bodies at the United Nations or the Assembly of States Parties to make the legal determination whether Palestine qualifies as a State for the purpose of acceding to the Rome Statute and thereby enabling the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court under article 12(1). The Rome Statute provides no authority for the Office of the Prosecutor to adopt a method to define the term “State” under article 12(3) which would be at variance with that established for the purpose of article 12(1).

        * http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/74EEE201-0FED-4481-95D4-C8071087102C/279778/20090123404SALASS2.pdf
        * http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/206D43BAF726DD22852579D50050138B

        I’ve explained repeatedly that the “Vienna formula” contained in the UN Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties actually governs the method of determining the meaning of the term “state” for the purposes of both Article 12(1) and 12(3) of the Rome Statute and that neither the UN Secretary General nor the ICC Assembly of State Parties had any legal standing or discretion to adopt a different method after Palestine was admitted as a full member state of UNESCO in 2011, notwithstanding the suggestion of the former Prosecutor to the contrary in his 3 April 2012 status report.

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 6:22 am

        They have actively worked to delegitimize the 2009 Palestinian Article 12(3) declaration that should have been employed long ago to prosecute those responsible for crimes committed in Palestine since July of 2002, including Operation Cast Lead.

        Same with Abbas, who refused to endorse the Goldstone Report. Seriously Hostage, while we all realize the bind Abbas is in, trying to insist Abbas always plays by the book and is doing everything in his power doesn’t wash anymore.

      • Walid on June 15, 2014, 7:40 am

        Shingo, between Abbas and Erekat, one is not any better than the other; both have been major disappointments to their people. For as long as they have been there, which has been between 20 and 30 years, nothing changed for the Palestinians other than having had less and less land with each passing year. Their track record leaves much to be desired.

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 7:54 am

        I couldn’t agree more Walid. I am sure Erekat is far from perfect but Abbas is a joke, though I am sure he will enjoy a very comfortable and luxurious retirement.

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 7:46 am

        Same with Abbas, who refused to endorse the Goldstone Report.

        No, Palestine is one of the states that introduced the resolutions in the HRC and General Assembly which accepted the findings of the Goldstone mission and the follow-up reports of the UN HRC panel of experts, e.g. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/HRC/16/L.31

        Seriously Hostage, while we all realize the bind Abbas is in, trying to insist Abbas always plays by the book and is doing everything in his power doesn’t wash anymore.

        I never said any such thing. But concocting excuses to bitch about Abbas not “going to the ICC” is simply ludicrous. Abbas has done everything necessary to empower the ICC Prosecutor to take action. The problem is in the Hague, not in Ramallah. Joining the Rome Statute as a contracting state party won’t change the situation, since that has never been a requirement for the exercise of ICC jurisdiction.

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 7:51 am

        No, Palestine is one of the states that introduced the resolutions in the HRC and General Assembly which accepted the findings of the Goldstone mission and the follow-up reports of the UN HRC panel of experts, e.g.

        But the Abbas delegation to the United Nations in Geneva abandoned a resolution requesting the Human Rights Council to forward Judge Richard Goldstone’s report on war crimes in Gaza to the UN Security Council for further action.

        The problem is in the Hague, not in Ramallah.

        So are you telling us that the Hague is buckling to political pressure from the US?

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 8:21 am

        But the Abbas delegation to the United Nations in Geneva abandoned a resolution requesting the Human Rights Council to forward Judge Richard Goldstone’s report on war crimes in Gaza to the UN Security Council for further action.

        WTF are you smoking? I just provided you with a direct link to the UN HRC resolution that Palestine co-sponsored which did exactly that:

        10. Also recommends that the General Assembly reconsider the report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict at its sixty-sixth session, and urges the Assembly to submit that report to the Security Council for its consideration and appropriate action, including consideration of referral of the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, pursuant to article 13(b) of the Rome Statute;

        http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/HRC/16/L.31

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 7:47 pm

        WTF are you smoking? I just provided you with a direct link to the UN HRC resolution that Palestine co-sponsored which did exactly that:

        I don’t smoke, which might be the problem. This is a General Assembly Resolution which refers the matters to the UNSC where they are guaranteed to be vetoed.

        This really does strike me as a case of you citing one document and trying to argue that it means something it does not.

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 9:31 am

        So are you telling us that the Hague is buckling to political pressure from the US?

        No, the ICC is also bowing to pressure from the UK, France, and Germany. They actually help pay the bills at the ICC and have conditioned recognition of the State of Palestine on assurances that it won’t pursue prosecutions of Israeli officials. Remember that under customary international law, “The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition [of statehood] is unconditional and irrevocable.” See Article 6 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States http://www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/01/1-02/rights-duties-states.xml

        Nonetheless, “recognition” of Palestinian statehood is bogged down in terms and conditions and doesn’t appear to mean that other states accept its rights or juridical equality.

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 8:03 pm

        No, the ICC is also bowing to pressure from the UK, France, and Germany. They actually help pay the bills at the ICC and have conditioned recognition of the State of Palestine on assurances that it won’t pursue prosecutions of Israeli officials.

        In other words, the ICC is not going to do anything for Palestine because it is another corrupt and rotten institution.

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 8:57 pm

        I don’t smoke, which might be the problem. This is a General Assembly Resolution which refers the matters to the UNSC where they are guaranteed to be vetoed.

        This really does strike me as a case of you citing one document and trying to argue that it means something it does not.

        A/HRC/16/L.31 is the Human Rights Council resolution that endorses a request for a UN Security Council referral of the Goldstone report to the ICC. It was co-sponsored by Palestine and it does exactly the opposite of what you claimed:

        But the Abbas delegation to the United Nations in Geneva abandoned a resolution requesting the Human Rights Council to forward Judge Richard Goldstone’s report on war crimes in Gaza to the UN Security Council for further action.

        So you are the one making disingenuous claims. The fact that Ali Abunimah and Omar Barghouti opposed and delegitimized the UN statehood bid, knowing that the UNSC was going to veto the Goldstone referral to the ICC makes what they did even more egregious. People who blame Abbas, instead of the ICC Prosecutors, for the failure to act on the existing 2009 Palestinian declaration and the vast amount of documentary evidence of serious crimes committed in Palestine since July of 2002 couldn’t do a better job of thwarting justice for the victims if they were on the Netanyahu/Adelson/AIPAC payroll.

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 9:06 pm

        A/HRC/16/L.31 is the Human Rights Council resolution that endorses a request for a UN Security Council referral of the Goldstone report to the ICC. It was co-sponsored by Palestine and it does exactly the opposite of what you claimed:

        Fair enough.

        People who blame Abbas, instead of the ICC Prosecutors, for the failure to act on the existing 2009 Palestinian declaration and the vast amount of documentary evidence of serious crimes committed in Palestine since July of 2002 couldn’t do a better job of thwarting justice for the victims if they were on the Netanyahu/Adelson/AIPAC payroll.

        That’s hyperbole Hostage. Abbas himself has claimed that he is committed to an agreement not to o go to international bodies, so in spite of your insistence that it doesn’t matter, you still have the job of explaining why Abbas is pleading guilty to something you insist he is not guilty of.

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 9:20 pm

        In other words, the ICC is not going to do anything for Palestine because it is another corrupt and rotten institution.

        It is simply another international intergovernmental organization. The 2005 BDS call to action requires us to apply political pressure on our governments to adopt criminal sanctions against Israel. But the BDS movement has avoided the ICC like the plague, because it requires recognition of the occupied State of Palestine within the 1967 frontiers and some of its leaders are diametrically opposed to doing that. So they are stuck beating the dead horse issue that Abbas or the Security Council are somehow tying the hands of the ICC Prosecutor. That’s simply not the case.

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 9:47 pm

        But the BDS movement has avoided the ICC like the plague, because it requires recognition of the occupied State of Palestine within the 1967 frontiers and some of its leaders are diametrically opposed to doing that.

        What does BDS have to do with the ICC? Palestine has had to jump through hoops just to gain access to the ICC, so how is a political movement supposed to do act on Palestine’s behalf? Should BDS declare a state? You might be arguing that BDS is trying to tie Abbas’ hands, but that doesn’t hold water either seeing as Abbas has publicly denounced BDS altogether.

        The fact that Abbas and the Security Council are the problem (which even you conceded) is so obvious is not even worth debating. The simple fact is that if Abbas was not a Washington/Israeli stooge, he’d be sharing a prison cell with Marwan Barghouti if not, a coffin alongside Arafat.

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 10:54 pm

        That’s hyperbole Hostage. Abbas himself has claimed that he is committed to an agreement not to o go to international bodies, so in spite of your insistence that it doesn’t matter, you still have the job of explaining why Abbas is pleading guilty to something you insist he is not guilty of.

        No you are engaging in hyperbole and are trying to draw inferences from statements that have no bearing on the legal consequences of the Palestinian declaration. There is no adversarial role for Abbas to play in ICC proceedings:

        Declaration recognizing the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court

        In conformity with Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Government of Palestine hereby recognizes the jurisdiction of the Court for the purpose of identifying, prosecuting and judging the authors and accomplices of acts committed on the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002.

        As a consequence, the Government of Palestine will cooperate with the Court without delay or exception, in conformity with Chapter IX of the Statute.

        This declaration, made for an indeterminate duration, will enter into force upon its signature.

        Signed in The Hague, the Netherlands, 21 January 2009

        — Declaration of the Palestinian National Authority recognizing the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,  executed for the Government of Palestine by Ali Khashan, Minister of Justice, January 21, 2009. http://iccforum.com/media/background/gaza/2009-01-21_Palestinian_National_Authority_Declaration.pdf

        That agreement is not lapsed, revoked, or terminated by any of the relevant parties.

        The ICC is a criminal court where there are no plaintiffs bringing lawsuits. The Court has its own Prosecutor and it exercises its own jurisdiction over individuals accused of committing crimes listed in its own Statute. So I wish someone would explain what further role Abbas is supposed to play by “going to” this particular international body. All he promised to do was refrain from initiating any new actions in international bodies for nine months, but he already has given the ICC a blank check to take action and prosecute any crime committed in Palestine since July of 2002, right up to the present day, without the need for any further consultations. He has also assured the court that Palestine will cooperate without exception or delay. The UN has confirmed that Abbas is a head of state, with Justice and Foreign ministers who have full powers and are capable of concluding valid Article 12(3) agreements.

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 11:16 pm

        No you are engaging in hyperbole and are trying to draw inferences from statements that have no bearing on the legal consequences of the Palestinian declaration.

        So again what you are expecting us to believe is that Abbas and Erekat and both willing to pin the blame on Abbas for something he bears no responsibility for.

        Sounds plausible. NOT!!

        This declaration, made for an indeterminate duration, will enter into force upon its signature.

        Signed in The Hague, the Netherlands, 21 January 2009

        Knowing that this was being ignored by the ICC Prosecutor, why didn’t the Government of Palestine re-ssue it?

        That agreement is not lapsed, revoked, or terminated by any of the relevant parties.

        As you have pointed out, there was no agreement, because the ICC refused to accept it.

        The Court has its own Prosecutor and it exercises its own jurisdiction over individuals accused of committing crimes listed in its own Statute. So I wish someone would explain what further role Abbas is supposed to play by “going to” this particular international body.

        You might start by trying to explain your thesis to Moreno-Ocampo, Former ICC prosecutor who says Abbas can start by joining the court.

        “Joining the ICC might prevent crimes and open up new ways of thinking about the problem. The Palestinians understand that joining the ICC will expose them as well to prosecutions. If this, then, prevents the firing of rockets from Gaza, Israel’s citizens will benefit, will they not?

        And who also says that only now do Palestinians have the authorization to join the ICC:

        “The question is what Israel should do now that the Palestinians are authorized to join the court.”
        http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/05/luis-moreno-ocampo-international-criminal-court-palestine.html#ixzz34lge8GM6

        With all due respects, it looks to me that the one who’s been flogging the dead horse all this time has been you Hostage.

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 11:41 pm

        What does BDS have to do with the ICC?

        The “S” in BDS includes criminal “sanctions”. The inclusion of individual responsibility for the crime of apartheid in the Rome Statute was the direct result of the efforts initiated by activists in the South African BDS movement to make apartheid a crime against humanity with legal consequences. The Rome Statute is an agreement between state governments regarding, among other things, the application of criminal sanctions to the serious crimes cited in the findings of fact contained in the 2004 ICJ advisory opinion.

        The 2005 BDS call to action was initiated because no action had been taken by the international community of states in the year following the ICJ findings. One of the things the 2005 BDS Call to action explicitly requested was an appeal to apply pressure for legal sanctions like those contained in the Rome Statute: “We appeal to you to pressure your respective states to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel.” — http://www.bdsmovement.net/call

      • Shingo on June 16, 2014, 1:04 am

        The “S” in BDS includes criminal “sanctions”. The inclusion of individual responsibility for the crime of apartheid in the Rome Statute was the direct result of the efforts initiated by activists in the South African BDS movement to make apartheid a crime against humanity with legal consequences.

        Sorry, I missed the part about BDS either being the official representatives of the Palestinian government or a recognized legal entity at the UN or ICC.

        The 2005 BDS call to action was initiated because no action had been taken by the international community of states in the year following the ICJ findings.

        Just to clarify, this is after the state of Palestine agreed to the jurisdiction of the ICC correct?

        The Rome Statute is an agreement between state governments regarding, among other things, the application of criminal sanctions to the serious crimes cited in the findings of fact contained in the 2004 ICJ advisory opinion.

      • Shingo on June 16, 2014, 1:33 am

        The “S” in BDS includes criminal “sanctions”. The inclusion of individual responsibility for the crime of apartheid in the Rome Statute was the direct result of the efforts initiated by activists in the South African BDS movement to make apartheid a crime against humanity with legal consequences. The Rome Statute is an agreement between state governments regarding, among other things, the application of criminal sanctions to the serious crimes cited in the findings of fact contained in the 2004 ICJ advisory opinion.

        Come on Hostage. BDS could change it’s name to BDS2SSLLJSI1967(two state solution long live the Jewish State of Israel within 1967 borders) and it would not make one iota of difference. The Arab League has already made all these statements and qualifications – it even amended it’s stance to accommodate land swaps – and it made not one iota of difference.

        Thus to suggest that because a few individuals within the BDs movement refuse to sign on to a few qualifying statements, Israel is being given a loophole to exploit is beyond absurd. I might take your argument seriously if the ICJ expressed reservations because Barghouti refuses to endorse a 2ss and Abunimah is indifferent to it.

        What BDS has to say about the matter cannot be any more significant than Naftali Benneft’s frank opposition to a 2ss, yet you don’t hear anyone arguing that Israel’s legitimacy is up for consideration because of him.

      • Hostage on June 16, 2014, 12:28 am

        So again what you are expecting us to believe is that Abbas and Erekat and both willing to pin the blame on Abbas for something he bears no responsibility for.

        Sounds plausible. NOT!!

        Neither Abbas nor Erekat have any legal training or experience. So why are you are quoting them and ignoring the Palestinian and other legal experts I’ve cited on this issue?

        As you have pointed out, there was no agreement, because the ICC refused to accept it.

        No, I specifically cited and quoted the letter from the ICC Registrar which accepted the declaration, pending a judicial determination, and the notification that it had triggered obligations for the government of Palestine to comply with the terms of Part 9 of the Statute regarding the rights and duties of state parties.

        You might start by trying to explain your thesis to Moreno-Ocampo, Former ICC prosecutor who says Abbas can start by joining the court.

        Start? I’ve long since provided you and everyone else here with links to articles written by the experts that run the PhD Studies in Human Rights; European Journal of International Law; Opinio Juris; Al Haq; and other websites which explain that Moreno-Ocampo violated the content and intent of the Rome Statute and Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) in his last UN status report after the UNESCO vote. His comments about the Practice of the Secretary General acting as Depositary for Multilateral Treaties were incorrect and immaterial. He mentioned the rules that apply to “doubtful cases” and failed to apply the relevant “Vienna Formula” despite the UNESCO vote on Palestinian membership. That’s something that the Prosecutor, the Secretary General, the General Assembly, and the Security Council are not allowed to do, since the formula is codified in several UN multilateral treaties, including one that governs interpretations of the Rome Statute, i.e. the VCLT says that members of UNESCO are states capable of concluding treaties and that the Secretary General is obliged to accept their accessions without regard to their observer status. Full Stop.

      • Shingo on June 16, 2014, 1:16 am

        Neither Abbas nor Erekat have any legal training or experience. So why are you are quoting them and ignoring the Palestinian and other legal experts I’ve cited on this issue?

        Gee I dunno. I just assumed that such applications or motions on behalf of the state of Palestine might require the signature of the recognized political representatives and that as such, Abbas and/or Erekat might have some recollection of having signed the relevant applications and done so after exhaustive consultation with their legal advisors.

        Start? I’ve long since provided you and everyone else here with links to articles written by the experts that run the PhD Studies in Human Rights; European Journal of International Law; Opinio Juris; Al Haq; and other websites which explain that Moreno-Ocampo violated the content and intent of the Rome Statute and Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) in his last UN status report after the UNESCO vote.

        That’s all well and good Hostage, but in the absence of:

        a) a clarification that Moreno-Ocampo was wrong
        b) a mea culpa from Moreno-Ocampo
        c) a declaration that the state of Palestine has already joined the ICC and need not apply

        All those opinions are about as useful and 911 blogs written by unemployed 40 year old virgins living in the basement of their mothers house who spend their days at a computer smoking bongs when they are not downloading pirated movies, listening to Alex Jones or watching porn.

        If what these sources say is true, Moreno-Ocampo got away with it, and the ICC continues to violate the Rome Statutes without consequence.

        And while we all are indebted to you for the wealth of resources you provide and sharing your expertise on the matter, this discussion goes to highlight the sheer frustration many of us experience when people like yourself, Chomsky and Finkelstein insist that the only legitimate avenue the Palestinians are allowed to pursue are the official ones which are being shown to be corrupt, rotten to the core and completely owned by the powers that be.

      • Hostage on June 16, 2014, 3:37 am

        Gee I dunno.

        You certainly don’t in this instance. The rest of your comment is illogical nonsense that has nothing to do with our discussion about the continuing validity of the Palestinian Article 12(3) declaration.

      • Hostage on June 16, 2014, 4:13 am

        Thus to suggest that because a few individuals within the BDs movement refuse to sign on to a few qualifying statements, Israel is being given a loophole to exploit is beyond absurd.

        I didn’t say that. I said they have helped provide propaganda that supported the legal defenses and excuses employed by the Prosecutors, the government of Israel, and the Israel Lobby to prevent criminal investigations, prosecutions, and sanctions of those responsible for the crimes the BDS movement and the 2005 call to action complained about. Job one for every Israeli or Zionist lawyer has always been to prove that there is no Arab state or any such thing as the State of Palestine. Just read Yehuda Blum, Meir Shamgar, Eugene Rostow, Alan Baker, Howard Grief, Eli Hertz, Justice Edmund Levy, Eugene Kontorovich, et al and ask why Abunimah and Barghouti are saying the same thing?

        What BDS has to say about the matter cannot be any more significant than Naftali Benneft’s frank opposition to a 2ss, yet you don’t hear anyone arguing that Israel’s legitimacy is up for consideration because of him.

        I didn’t say it was more significant. In fact I compared the Likud rejection of a 2SS to the rejection of the same proposition by the Palestinians who signed the One State Manifesto in 2007. I don’t think that any of them support the proposition that Palestine is an existing occupied state that is capable of “going to” the ICC. That’s why it’s so absurd for anyone to still be assigning blame to Abbas, who has long since removed any impediment to the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC. Political activists should be pressuring their governments and the Hague to enforce criminal sanctions.

      • Shingo on June 16, 2014, 4:31 am

        I said they have helped provide propaganda that supported the legal defenses and excuses employed by the Prosecutors, the government of Israel, and the Israel Lobby to prevent criminal investigations, prosecutions, and sanctions of those responsible for the crimes the BDS movement and the 2005 call to action complained about. Job one for every Israeli or Zionist lawyer has always been to prove that there is no Arab state or any such thing as the State of Palestine.

        That linkage sounds like pretty weak to me. The Israelis have been using the same arguments going back long before 2005. And frankly, I see no evidence to back up your claims. The criminal investigations, prosecutions, and sanctions have been blocked pretty much every time by the US, Britain, Germany etc. and never have they cited BDS as the reason – most of the time they haven’t even offered one. The last time the US used their veto is was because, as they claimed, condemning Israeli settlements would force Israel to dig in and become more belligerent.

        The Goldstone report was killed by the US and by Goldstone folding under personal pressure. The Mazi Marmara massacre was whitewashed by The Palmer Report. BDS had nothing to do with either case.

        Just read Yehuda Blum, Meir Shamgar, Eugene Rostow, Alan Baker, Howard Grief, Eli Hertz, Justice Edmund Levy, Eugene Kontorovich, et al and ask why Abunimah and Barghouti are saying the same thing?

        Are you for real? Eugene Rostow died 3 years before BDS was launched. I can’t even find anything of substance Baker and Grief have written or said about BDS. Their arguments have been based on hasbara interpretations of the legal status of Palestine from pre 1967 and go back to San Remo, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make with regard to them.

        Political activists should be pressuring their governments and the Hague to enforce criminal sanctions.

        Oh yeah sure, like that’s going to happen. We might as well give up now and call it a day is that’s what you are suggesting the hopes and aspirations of the Palestinians are resting on.

        You’ve just made the case for Israel as well as those you listed above have – that international law is meaningless and the ICC is just another tool to be wielded by the powerful.

        I said it before and I’ll say it again Hostage. You’re an inspiration and without a doubt, the single greatest resource I have ever come across on this subject, but this discussion has left me more depressed and defeated than ever. I admire and respect your reverence for the law, but I cannot help but wonder if this devotion has not blinded you to the flaws and inadequacies of the institutions that administer it – or at the very least, incited you to excuse it.

      • Hostage on June 16, 2014, 5:09 am

        That linkage sounds like pretty weak to me. The Israelis have been using the same arguments going back long before 2005. And frankly, I see no evidence to back up your claims. The criminal investigations, prosecutions, and sanctions have been blocked pretty much every time by the US and never have they cited BDS as the reason – most of the time they haven’t even offered one.

        Again you are engaging in pilpul and trying to reframe what I said. FYI, if you want the unvarnished truth, Israel and Palestine both contend that there is an international armed conflict and that war crimes have been committed by the opposing side. Israel claims that Palestine is not a state, and that it is free to commit acts that would otherwise be prohibited if they were committed against the territory or people of another state. Palestine contends that it is a state, with the same rights, duties, and juridical status as any other. Under those circumstances, any Palestinian who conducts propaganda that gives aid and comfort to the enemy is guilty of an act treason, whether the attempt is successful or not.

      • Justpassingby on June 16, 2014, 5:14 am

        Shingo

        Ask Hostage. Apparently we are all to dense to grasp the genius of Abbas

        Hostage seems to be in deep denial.

        1 He denies Erakat statements, for example that Abbas is a puppet.
        2 He denies that Abbas froze going to the ICC.
        3 He denies that ICC themselves said that its up to palestinians to go to the ICC.
        4 He denies that the NGO’s (see Al jazeera link posted by me earlier) have urged Palestinians to go to the ICC.

      • Shingo on June 16, 2014, 5:37 am

        Hostage seems to be in deep denial.

        I don’t agree, I think it’s a matter of what he regards as credible or significant evidence.

        1 He denies Erakat statements, for example that Abbas is a puppet.

        No he has argued that it is not relevant based on his position that Abbas has done all he can with regards to the ICC.

        2 He denies that Abbas froze going to the ICC.

        What he denied

        3 He denies that ICC themselves said that its up to palestinians to go to the ICC.

        To be precise, he has pointed out that this was the argument made by the former ICC prosecutor who he has argued was wrong and falsely applied the Statute of Rome – which is pretty plausible given how easily these officials are corrupted.

        4 He denies that the NGO’s (see Al jazeera link posted by me earlier) have urged Palestinians to go to the ICC.

        He didn’t deny it, he argued that the Palestinians already joined the ICC and agreed to ICC jurisdiction. He has argued that there is nothing more they can do, and given my lack of expertise on the matter, I cannot argue he is wrong.

        The only gripes I have left, which does not contradict Hostage’s arguments, are that 1. it appears the ICC is a corrupt organization that is never going to do it’s job so long as it’s sponsors wield influence over it
        2. Hostage still maintains that this is the only legitimate avenue available to the Palestinians
        3. That the BDS movement has someone undermined these efforts

      • Justpassingby on June 16, 2014, 5:56 am

        Shingo

        I don’t agree, I think it’s a matter of what he regards as credible or significant evidence.

        What Erakat says is obvious for anyone to read. Trying to twist what Erakat say is denial.

        No he has argued that it is not relevant based on his position that Abbas has done all he can with regards to the ICC.

        Abbas has done everyhing? Really? So why did he freeze going to the ICC for the past 9 months? Why are NGO’s urging Abbas to go to the ICC if he “have done all he can”?

        To be precise, he has pointed out that this was the argument made by the former ICC prosecutor who he has argued was wrong and falsely applied the Statute of Rome – which is pretty plausible given how easily these officials are corrupted.

        No he denied what ICC said, that its up to palestinians to go to the ICC again. Why would ICC say that, if we are to believe Hostage, that Palestinians have already done that?
        Well obviously palestinians havent gone to the ICC which is obvious for anyone, heck, even Abbas himself said he would freeze going to the ICC.

        He didn’t deny it, he argued that the Palestinians already joined the ICC and agreed to ICC jurisdiction. He has argued that there is nothing more they can do, and given my lack of expertise on the matter, I cannot argue he is wrong.

        So why are ICC saying palestinians should come to them? Why are the NGO’s saying Abbas should use the ICC? Why are Erakat saying the same?
        Does Hostage know something that the world doesnt know? No. Again hes in denial.

      • Justpassingby on June 16, 2014, 9:31 am

        Hostage

        You said @June 15, 2014 at 7:57 am :

        You’re a clueless ignoramus. Abbas has already taken the situation in Palestine to the ICC

        As ICC said at my HRW from last month show (see link), Abbas havent gone to the ICC.
        http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/08/palestine-go-international-criminal-court

      • ziusudra on June 15, 2014, 12:28 am

        Greetings W.Jones,
        …I am not really understanding…….
        Pssst,
        To Understand cannot be used as a Present Continuous.
        P.C. verbs are used by a verb with a short action.
        Thank you for allowing me to exaggerate the importance
        of something.
        ziusudra
        PS wrote instead of write was but a blind moment, not a
        grammatical error as yours. Anyway – I’m not really
        understanding if you’ll be understanding this.-

    • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 6:08 am

      I’m still waiting on mental midgets, like yourself, to explain who was pulling the strings when this puppet collaborator Abbas filed the PA declaration on January 21, 2009 accepting the ICC’s jurisdiction in the first place?

      In which case, what is Erekat complaining about when he tells Abbas that he has the “ability to prevent Netanyahu from traveling anywhere in the world, except from Ben-Gurion airport to New York”

      And what is Abbas talking about when he says he made a “commitment” not to go to international bodies?

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 7:29 am

        In which case, what is Erekat complaining about when he tells Abbas that he has the “ability to prevent Netanyahu from traveling anywhere in the world, except from Ben-Gurion airport to New York”

        In connection with the ICC, only the Judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber have the power to issue arrest warrants. Palestine is recognized by more than 132 UN member states. So Abbas has the executive power to conclude agreements on arrest and extradition with other states, and already has treaty agreements in place with the Arab League and OIC member states.

        And what is Abbas talking about when he says he made a “commitment” not to go to international bodies?

        Almost nothing. In the Ivory Coast cases, the Security Council and Prosecutor employed the Article 12(3) declaration years after the fact, without consulting the wishes of the current regime.

        It only means that Abbas had accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC, but doesn’t currently have any “situations” under active preliminary examination or investigation. He agreed not to initiate any new criminal complaints during the talks, but we are discussing crimes for which no normal statutory limitation applies and for which no determination of inadmissibility has ever been made by the Judges. Nothing would prevent Abbas from referring additional situations to the Court in connection with acts committed by Israel during the talks. FYI, Article 19 of the Statute explains that “If the Court has decided that a case is inadmissible under article 17, the Prosecutor may submit a request for a review of the decision when he or she is fully satisfied that new facts have arisen which negate the basis on which the case had previously been found inadmissible under article 17.” The General Assembly resolution on the status of Palestine in the UN did not create the state in November of 2012, it simply recognized the November 1988 UDI and Palestine’s recognition by other international organizations and states commencing on that date.

    • Sycamores on June 15, 2014, 11:30 am

      @ Hostage,

      the Ejil link was very informative

      ICC urged to investigate ‘commission of crimes’ in Palestinian territories 4 October 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/04/icc-urged-investigate-commission-of-crimes-palestinian

      Al-Haq and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights have presented a legal opinion to the ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, at The Hague, arguing that the court can take action without Palestine formally signing up to the body. The two rights groups are calling for the court to begin an investigation based on “the mass of evidence and documentation attesting to the widespread commission of crimes in Palestine, and the environment of total impunity for the perpetrators”.

      Israel has not ratified the Rome statute, which established the ICC, and although the Palestinians have raised the prospect of signing the treaty, they have not yet taken concrete steps to do so.

      But the legal opinion said the ICC had grounds to extend its jurisdiction without ratification by Palestine. It could do this on the basis of a declaration submitted by the Palestinian leadership in 2009 (Mahmoud Abbas) , which accepted the jurisdiction of the court under article 12 (3) of the Rome statute.

      the UNSC members can veto the ICC.

      Russia, China veto UN Security Council bid to refer Syria to ICC May 22, 2014 http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.592315

      Russia and China on Thursday vetoed a UN Security Council resolution referring the Syrian crisis to the International Criminal Court for investigation of possible war crimes, prompting angry responses from the proposal’s supporters who said the two countries should be ashamed.

      this part is really rich coming for Samantha Power

      U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power had her speech ready for the promised veto. “Sadly, because of the decision by the Russian Federation to back the Syrian regime no matter what it does, the Syrian people will not see justice today. They will see crime, but not punishment.”

      even if Abbas or the rights groups brought Israeli war crime charges to the ICC won’t the US use it veto?

      • HarryLaw on June 15, 2014, 2:54 pm

        Sycamores @ “even if Abbas or the rights groups brought Israeli war crime charges to the ICC won’t the US use it veto?” good question here is my opinion.
        “The Court needs to look at the right of veto of the permanent members of the UNSC which can be an obstacle to the referral procedure. Indeed, if one of the “Big Five” decides to protect a country where serious crimes are taking place, the veto could make any referral impossible as it is witnessed in Syria. The UNSC may decide to pass a resolution to freeze the activities of the Court for a period of twelve months, renewable. Cases may be suspended by the UNSC regardless of the methods of referral. In addition, to function fully and effectively, the Court depends on the willingness of states resulting in confidence in this institution, signature and ratification of the Convention”.http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/transjust/89287/print It would appear that all 5 veto wielding members would need to agree suspension of a referral regardless of the method of referral, unlike a referral by the UNSC which can be vetoed by a single veto power.

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 8:05 pm

        @Sycamores The US can only veto a Security Council referral of the situation to the ICC. The Security Council cannot not veto an Article 12(3) declaration, which is one of the alternative ways the Court can exercise jurisdiction.

        Article 12 of the Rome Statute grants all third-party non-member states the right to accept the Court’s jurisdiction on an ad hoc basis. The Prosecutor is acting beyond her powers when she refuses to take action, unless Palestine also becomes a contracting state party to the Rome Statute. That violates both content and intent of the Statute. Rather than complain about that egregious situation, some people have pretended that Abbas has not already given the Court the necessary jurisdiction and that Palestine has to join the Court to overcome imaginary legal obstacles. That’s nonsense in light of more than a decade of stonewalling and sandbagging by the Prosecutors in connection with blatantly illegal situations involving member states, like Afghanistan. If the Prosecutors are going to play politics, we need to do the same thing and conduct protests that will get the attention of the President and the Judges of the ICC and the members of the Assembly of State Parties which exercise the oversight mechanisms. That sort of thing is part of the 2005 BDS call to action: “We appeal to you to pressure your respective states to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel.” The former prosecutor admitted that the ICC member states can overrule his determination in the Palestinian situation and that the Court is not debarred from taking action on crimes committed during Cast Lead & etc. in the future.

  14. Walid on June 15, 2014, 1:05 am

    The 3-minute audio tape appears to have been edited or spliced in many places, so I would consider it suspect. I also find it suspect that Erekat would lash out at Abbas after having worked with him faithfully all these years. It’s intended to make Erekat sound “presidential”, especially in the parts about Abbas now being too old at 79, that he’s turning into a combination of Assad and Saddam and that Palestine is not his private fiefdom but a land that belongs to every Muslim Palestinian and that Netanyahu’s ass should be kicked. I’m always at a loss to find a single thing that Erekat has succeeded in “negotiating” for the benefit of the Palestinians in the 20 years he has been chief negotiator for the Palestinians. Right off the bat, Oslo, that flung open the doors to massive new settlements, of which he was one of its chief architects doesn’t count.

  15. Nevada Ned on June 15, 2014, 1:49 am

    Some Mondoweiss readers ought to take a second look at the ICC. It’s a tool in the hands of the rich and powerful. They ICC has prosecuted some African dictators, and former Serb president Slobedon Milosevic. They have never thought about prosecuting any US president, no matter many countries the US invades or threatens. Or prosecuting Israeli leaders.
    Read the excellent essay by journalist Diana Johnstone on the ICC. It’s a real eye-opener!

    • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 5:33 am

      They ICC has prosecuted some African dictators, and former Serb president Slobedon Milosevic.

      Correction: The ICC did not prosecute Milosevic. It has never prosecuted any non-African cases so far. http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/cases/Pages/cases%20index.aspx

      Milosevic was tried by the ICTY, a subsidiary organ created by the UN Security Council. http://www.icty.org/

    • Walid on June 15, 2014, 8:34 am

      Nevada Ned, for kangaroo courts, you could look into the UN-initiated international court at the Hague set up to prosecute those involved in the 2005 assassination of Hariri. It’s a hybrid court made up of Lebanese, UK, French and any other laws that are improvised as the need arises and has a few deviations of its own such as trying suspects “in absentia”. It has no set limit and can last for years and years indefinitely, employing 11 judges and hundreds of other employees at The Hague.

      In the 6 years it has been in session, it still has to come up with one concrete bit of evidence and has cost to date $500 million, half of which is paid by Lebanon and the other half by the UN body. It’s currently busy trying to prosecute 2 members of the Lebanese press for having published information that had been leaked by the court itself and first published in Der Spiegel, Radio-Canada and Le Figaro before being published in Lebanon. But since the court has no jurisdiction in Germany, Canada and France, only the Lebanese press people are being prosecuted to spook the Lebanese press into shutting up about the court’s “irregular” proceedings.

      The court set up under the UN’s Chapter 7 is deemed illegitimate in Lebanon as it received neither Parliament’s ratification nor the Lebanese President’s assent that are both required by the Constitution but simply agreed to with the UN by the Council of Ministers in the dark of the night. It was set up after the failed 2006 war to take out Hizbullah, to fulfil the same objective. The 2 being prosecuted by the court are the editor of al-Akhbar and the News director of Jadeed TV.

      The opening statement to the court by the editor of al-Akbar that he was not allowed to complete. It gives an insight of what the court is about:

      http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/ibrahim-al-amins-full-speech-stl

      • Hostage on June 15, 2014, 9:10 am

        Nevada Ned, for kangaroo courts, you could look into the UN-initiated international court at the Hague set up to prosecute those involved in the 2005 assassination of Hariri.

        The ICC has refused to act on much more serious cases of mass killing, because they aren’t of sufficient “gravity”.

        In the case of corporations operating newspapers and television stations, it’s very doubtful that the special tribunal even has jurisdiction, since its statute explicitly limits it to dealing with cases involving “natural persons”. See for example: “Corporate criminal responsibility at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon” http://humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.com/2014/05/corporate-criminal-responsibility-at.html

      • Walid on June 15, 2014, 11:02 am

        The court had indicted both the principals and the corporations but the defence lawyers for both corporations raised that very point and the court will be ruling on that next month. The charge against them is “obstruction of justice” because they published the list of names of witnesses that the court intended calling. The Lebanese press had made a laughing stock of the tribunal because of its ineptness, blunders, erroneous jailing of suspects for 4 years and the exorbitant operating cost of the tribunal ($500 million over 5 or 6 years) for which it is not accountable to any scrutiny; it coughs up a bill each year without explanations which is paid by Lebanon and the UN. It’s a giant farce. The case against al-Akhbar and Jadeed-TV is a punishment for having exposed the tribunal for the joke it has become and to intimidate the Lebanese press. It failed miserably because everyone involved in media in Lebanon (except the pro-US TV station) joined a mass protest against the tribunal and for continued freedom of the press in Lebanon, which is the only free one in the ME. There is no military censure of the press like in Israel.

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 8:12 pm

        Walid,

        Why on earth is the Lebanese government paying for this farcical tribunal? It sound like just a boondoggle to pad the wallets of defence lawyers from Germany etc.

        Why not stop payment and order these crooks to get out?

      • Inanna on June 16, 2014, 12:25 am

        Thanks for that Hostage. I must admit to thinking ‘What would Hostage think of this?’ when I read the news about the STL charging the 2 media outlets.

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 7:56 pm

        Nevada Ned, for kangaroo courts, you could look into the UN-initiated international court at the Hague set up to prosecute those involved in the 2005 assassination of Hariri

        I am amazed that court is still going and even more amazed Lebanon is paying for it. I thought the new coalition had stopped supporting it and cut off funding.

      • Walid on June 15, 2014, 9:35 pm

        Most are aware that the tribunal is corrupt, but most also are anxious to know who killed Hariri and because they want to stay on the good side of the US that’s using the tribunal to pin something or other on Hizbullah after its failure in the 2006 war. Also, by opposing the tribunal at the start, the Lebanese ended up without a president and functioning parliament for over a year as well as a sit-in in downtown Beirut that lasted 18 months and nobody wants a return to that mess, so they grunt and bear it. So far, all it has come up with is an accusation against 4 Hizbullah members based on circumstantial evidence comprised of records of cell phone usage. It has already been proven elsewhere that Israeli spies tampered with the cell phone records but the court is refusing to consider this and is still going ahead with the indictment.

        The coalition refused to continue funding it as you said, but the pro-US Prime Minister bypassed the ministerial hurdle and cut a cheque from an emergency relief fund for disasters for which he did not need consent. The 11 judges are appointed by the UN for 4-year terms. It’s a cash cow that can keep going for decades to come.

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 10:35 pm

        Most are aware that the tribunal is corrupt, but most also are anxious to know who killed Hariri and because they want to stay on the good side of the US that’s using the tribunal to pin something or other on Hizbullah after its failure in the 2006

        I can’t claim to know what makes the Lebanese think as they do, but why they feel the need to remain in the good side of the US is a mystery to me. What’s more, if they realize the tribunal is corrupt, how can they expect it will solve the murder of Hariri?

        Seriously, based on your explanation, Lebanese sound like the Egyptians – their own worst enemy. How can the Arabs ever hope to get their shit together if they keep allowing the US to so easily and blatantly play divide and conquer? They just scored a massive own goal in Egypt and went back to Mubarak status quo and this. These idiots have to grow the f%ck up or their misery will never end.

        And how big is the emergency relief fund for disasters and how long will it last if the Prime Minister keeps looting it for this cause?

      • Walid on June 16, 2014, 12:08 am

        Your evaluation is quite close to accurate; they are their own worst enemy.

  16. MRW on June 15, 2014, 2:37 am

    Allison, good piece.

  17. just on June 15, 2014, 6:53 am

    According to Ma’an, Israel arrested 80 Palestinians overnight. Israel bombed and launched 8 ‘airstrikes’ overnight, injuring 2 women. And:

    “BETHLEHEM (Ma’an) — The Israeli military imposed an indefinite closure of checkpoints and crossings across the Hebron district of the southern West Bank beginning early Sunday morning, as Israeli forces expanded a search campaign for three settler youth who went missing Thursday evening.

    Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon issued a directive on Saturday imposing the closure beginning at midnight, in a move that has severely disrupted life across the region as thousands of Palestinian workers are unable to travel to work in Israel.
    …….
    On Saturday, the Gas Station Owners’ Union in the Gaza Strip said that 80 percent of gas stations in the besieged coastal enclave had run out of fuel, and that all would have shut down by the end of the day, due to the Israeli closure of the crossing since Friday.”

    http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=704791

    What was that about ‘collective punishment’?

    wrt to Netanyahu’s hysteria:

    “On Saturday, it was revealed that Palestinian security forces who arrived to help with the search were asked by the IDF to leave the area. How, then, does Netanyahu expect Abbas to fulfill his part of the security coordination? The missing teens reside in Area C, which is under full Israeli control, and were most likely kidnapped in that region. How can Abbas be held responsible for what happens in an area under Israeli control?
    …………
    Does Netanyahu assume that Abbas has different information, which he is not giving Israel? If so, he must also assume that the kidnapping serves Abbas or the Palestinian Authority. One wonders what Netanyahu bases this assumption on, especially in light of the accolades Abbas has received over the past several years regarding the extent of his security cooperation with Israel.

    Abbas is responsible for the well-being of the kidnapped teens as much as Belgian Prime Minister Elio Di Rupo is responsible for the well-being of Belgian Jews and the two Israeli tourists who were murdered in Brussels. With one exception: Di Rupo is the sovereign in his state; Abbas is not.

    Interestingly, Netanyahu, who spoke to Di Rupo, was careful not to hold him responsible. Nor did he hold the French prime minister responsible two years ago after the Toulouse shooting, or President Obama for the Jewish residents of the Kansas community center after a Klu-Klux Klan member murdered three people last April. Why? Because there is a world of difference between locating those responsible for terrorist attacks and laying absolute blame on a leader.
    ………..
    Abbas’ status is no different than that of Netanyahu. He did not carry out this kidnapping, and, in the eyes of the perpetrators, he is most likely perceived as a worse enemy than Netanyahu – a collaborator with the occupier. Abbas has instructed his forces to cooperate with the IDF on every level. He knows what such an attack does to the Palestinian Authority’s standing in the world, and he hears the dissatisfaction in the Palestinian public over his inaction regarding Palestinian prisoners. Yet Abbas, who is trapped between the Israeli rock and the Palestinian hard place, is Israel’s only strategic asset in this incident, and blaming him has no benefits except for the lip service that Netanyahu feels he should pay his followers.

    Thus, there is a creeping suspicion that framing Abbas as responsible for the recent events has another purpose: Justifying a collective punishment against the Palestinian Authority and its citizens. With that goal, Israel will try to construct a legitimate justification for labeling the PA as a terrorist organization, or one that supports terrorism, and demand it be boycotted, even by Arab states. It also presents Israel with a good opportunity to “prove” that it was not Israel that derailed the peace process – for how can you negotiate with an authority that has embraced Hamas into its ranks.

    Neither Abbas or Netanyahu are responsible for the kidnapping, but, given the current atmosphere of the attack on Abbas, it is not unwise to examine who it serves more.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.598698

    • wondering jew on June 15, 2014, 7:48 am

      Seems to me that if this was a Hamas operation it is a stream within Hamas that objects to the reconciliation. If Netanyahu were pursuing peace, his actions in pursuit of those who kidnapped these three youths and in reaction to their kidnapping, would be easier to put into a context of necessity rather than political expedience. I don’t trust Netanyahu so therefore I judge his rhetoric and actions through a negative lens.

    • Walid on June 15, 2014, 8:39 am

      just, live coverage of Israel’s house to house search on the West Bank close to Hebron on Mayadeeen TV:

      http://www.almayadeen.net/ar/Live

      • just on June 15, 2014, 9:05 am

        Thanks Walid… I think I need a translator. ;(

        I see chagrin and emotion– I hope the journalist is not targeted.

      • Walid on June 15, 2014, 10:30 am

        In a nutshell, Israeli forces going from house to house and being met at every street corner by stone-throwing kids and the IDF retaliating with stun grenades.

        There were also showing live coverage from the just-freed Syrian Armenian city of Kassab where the ISIS forces burned the church before fleeing across the border to Turkey. And there was also live coverage of thousands of clansmen that formed a militia on both sides of the Syria and Iraq border to prepare a front against an invasion by ISIS from Iraq.

      • just on June 15, 2014, 10:37 am

        “In a nutshell, Israeli forces going from house to house and being met at every street corner by stone-throwing kids and the IDF retaliating with stun grenades.”

        No live fire yet??? Wow, such “restraint”.

        Obviously, I hope that the clansmen’s militia will prevail. Neither Syrians nor Iraqis need more hell than they have had.

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 8:10 pm

        No live fire yet??? Wow, such “restraint”.

        Yes, it makes the claims that the 2 Palestinians shot the other week might have been killed by live rounds from Palestinian shooters. How is is that Palestinians are so willing to shoot at their own to make Israel look bad, but not willing to shoot at IDF thugs?

      • Walid on June 15, 2014, 11:09 am

        Ooops, correction to above post. The ISIS forces fleeing Syria did NOT cross into Turkey but east towards the Iraqi border. Today for a change, Turkey shut its borders in the face of the fleeing ISIS fighters although this is where they had come from a few months back and it had caused a big stir since the town that was occupied, Kassab, was an Armenian one and the Armenians were claiming a repeat of the Armenian genocide because the Turks had allowed the fundies into Syria.

      • Walid on June 15, 2014, 11:20 am

        Today in Iraq, thousands of Iraqi young Shia men heeded the call of Ayatollah al-Sistani to join up with the Iraqi army to help in the fight against ISIS.

        Muslim Brotherhood guru, Sunni Sheikh al-Qaradawi based in Doha has also put out a call to Sunni youth in Iraq to join the fight against ISIS. He’s also got a huge following; his weekly program on Jazeera Arabic that was all about fire and brimstone had a following of 40 million admirers.

      • just on June 15, 2014, 11:11 am

        That sounds better…..if anything is really “better” in this situation.

  18. NickJOCW on June 15, 2014, 7:36 am

    The fact that some actions are in contravention of international law, even flagrant and repeated contravention, does not of itself provide a means to bring them to an end. Any Palestinian appeal to the ICC could well get muddied up by Israel and become bogged down beyond the point of close international attention. In the end only pressure from the global community acting against the direct interests of Israeli citizens will bring the situation to a head. At this stage the implicit threat of the ICC is arguably just as or more useful to the PA. Meanwhile everything that comes out of the area is cumulatively arousing global opinion against Israel’s behaviour. Even this latest disappearance of three Israeli teenagers won’t create meaningful sympathy for Israel the nation, which is increasingly viewed as the author of the problems, including this one.

  19. Kay24 on June 15, 2014, 8:32 am

    “He isn’t worth the bullet … he’s ideologically corrupt, I’ve known him for 31 years.”

    He’s a despicable, filthy war criminal”.

    “Sarkozy: ‘Netanyahu, I can’t stand him. He’s a liar…’ Obama: ‘You’re sick of him, but I have to deal with him every day…”

    That sums up the character of a man who sleeps with our congress, gets standing ovations from them during his speech, who has shown disrespect to the President of the US, has interfered in our Presidential elections, and who has mastered the art of war mongering, and lying with a straight face (like others in his administration).

    He has been investigated for corruption, and lately for stealing furniture:
    “”Yediot Ahronot”: Attorney General is investigating if Netanyahu family bought furniture for its Caesarea private home.

    “Hebrew daily “Yediot Ahronot” reports that Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein is investigating whether the Netanyahu family bought garden furniture for its private house in Caesarea using public money intended for the prime minister’s residence in Jerusalem. This latest scandal, based on material that State Comptroller Joseph Shapira sent to Weinstein, follows embarrassing claims by former employees of the prime minister’s house.

    “Yediot Ahronot” says that a senior official at the Prime Minister’s Office ordered the purchase of new garden furniture, which was the same as the furniture at the Netanyahu family’s house. When the furniture arrived, the new garden furniture was sent from the prime minister’s residence in Jerusalem to the house in Caesarea, and the old furniture was taken to the prime minister’s residence. The newspaper said that the furniture cost NIS 30,000.”

    From world leaders to journalists, there is no need to guess exactly who is calling the shots for Israel, who makes the US Congress dance to his tune, and who we keep continuously supporting and protecting.

    A few home truths by Erekat should jolt Abbas out of his delusion that Bibi is sincere when he talks about peace, and that he is not stringing Abbas, the US, and the world along, with his oscar winning performance about wanting peace for Israel, all the while resorting to (in your face) land thefts and illegal settlements. Bibi deserves to be treated like a war criminal, blatant lies, and for the brutal crimes against those Israel has inhumanely treated during their violent occupation – and it seems as long as Bibi and Abbas are there, peace, even the slightest remote of it, is IMPOSSIBLE.

    Who thinks a man who deceives, lies, responsible for horrible human rights violations, murders of innocent civilians, breaking of international laws, who has been investigated a few times for misuse of Israeli funds, and stealing of furniture, is an honest and sincere man, when he speaks so loftily of only wanting peace for BOTH people?

    • NickJOCW on June 15, 2014, 9:48 am

      Abbas won’t be there forever. When there has been a proper Palestinian election I imagine he will be glad to hand over. Also, the more appalling and isolated Netanyahu is seen to be the better the chance of him being replaced by someone more amenable. The problem cannot be resolved militarily, and there isn’t any way to enforce international law, therefore the Israeli people have to be driven to resolve the issue; relentless, progressive BDS together with ostracization like exclusion from FIFA or the Eurovision Song fest are the sorts of pressure to give Israelis a wake up call.

      • DaBakr on June 15, 2014, 5:34 pm

        i would say both peoples have to be driven as well as the surrounding nations still in effective war with Israel. And I agree with you the problem can not be solved militarily. While it isn’t the Palestinians who are directly threatening Israel the fact that their allies (and I say “allies” with a grain of salt) have been using the ‘state of war’ card for many years to keep Israel not only on its toes-but to constantly remind it that there is a threat from without as well as within. The Saudi initiative was a start. As ‘shocking’ as the saud effort may have been to many-if there were elements of flexibility built into their initiative that allowed for some issues to be spread over a longer time frame it will gain more support from center-right Israelis. If you want to read an example of where I believe Palestinian thinking needs to meet Israeli thinking you can read the following, though it already seems the ‘thinker’ will be punished for his open minded stance( btw-anything agreed to in interim can be revisted after a period of, whatever one wants to call it, hudnah, trial period,etc) :

        Palestinian diplomat summoned to Ramallah over Jewish state recognition
        http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-diplomat-summoned-to-ramallah-over-jewish-state-recognition/

        and before anybody here yells ‘pie-in-the-sky’ or that the Palestinians would be ‘giving up everything’ keep in mind that an interim end to the conflict would be a much bigger milestone then any failed oslo and should theoretically open a channel to Gaza and end the blockade so the economy of both can continue to grow.

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 9:02 pm

        While it isn’t the Palestinians who are directly threatening Israel the fact that their allies (and I say “allies” with a grain of salt) have been using the ‘state of war’ card for many years to keep Israel not only on its toes-but to constantly remind it that there is a threat from without as well as within.

        It’s Israel that is in a state of war with them. 22 States have signed a peace initiative offering to not only recognize Israel, but normalize relations, which Israel has repeatedly rejected.

      • DaBakr on June 15, 2014, 10:15 pm

        Just wordplay. wordplay isn’t going to get the Palestinians anything more then they are already being offered.

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 10:58 pm

        Just wordplay. wordplay isn’t going to get the Palestinians anything more then they are already being offered.

        Rubbish. The Arab Peace Initiative offered Israel everything it had been demanding up to that point, but as is always the case, when the Arabs agree to Israel’s demands, they refuse to accept that agreement.

      • just on June 15, 2014, 10:31 pm

        What a monstrous comment.

        All that Israel has “offered” the Palestinians is hell on their own land and earth.

      • DaBakr on June 16, 2014, 3:26 am

        Offering “everything” is a stretch. The arab peace intitiative is not so unlike the bds movement. It claims to offer a ‘just’ solution but the fine print makes clear the only just solution is the eradication of the Zionist state.

      • Shingo on June 16, 2014, 5:39 am

        The arab peace intitiative is not so unlike the bds movement

        True. Both are legitimate, legal and based on international law.

        It claims to offer a ‘just’ solution but the fine print makes clear the only just solution is the eradication of the Zionist state.

        Of course, the fine print exists only in the minds of hasbarists who can’t actually point to it, so make it up.

      • Walid on June 16, 2014, 5:56 am

        DaBakr, which part in the Arab Peace Initiative implies the eradication of Israel?

      • NickJOCW on June 16, 2014, 3:42 am

        DaBakr, I am the other side of the world and I missed your reply. I think you make it more complicated than it is. Israel is in defiance of numerous international laws and the purpose of the BDS initiative is to bring her in line with them. There is nothing in the BDS objectives that requires anything of the Palestinians, just as there was nothing in the South African initiative that demanded anything of the coloured people. If the Palestinians agree to compromise on certain issues, boundaries for instance, and there may be good reasons for doing so, that is up to them, not BDS.

      • eljay on June 16, 2014, 7:58 am

        >> The arab peace intitiative is not so unlike the bds movement. It claims to offer a ‘just’ solution but the fine print makes clear the only just solution is the eradication of the Zionist state.

        Eradicating the supremacist “Zionist state” (a.k.a. supremacist “Jewish State”) and replacing it with a secular and democratic Israeli state – a state of and for all Israeli citizens, immigrants, ex-pats and refugees, equally – is a good thing.

        No state has a right to exist as a supremacist state.

  20. talknic on June 15, 2014, 9:18 pm

    @ DaBakr “While it isn’t the Palestinians who are directly threatening Israel the fact that their allies … have been using the ‘state of war’ card for many years to keep Israel not only on its toes-but to constantly remind it that there is a threat from without as well as within”

    If you illegally acquire other folks territory by war and illegally settle your citizens in it, expect a state of war to continue.

    When Israel withdrew from Egyptian territory, Israel got peace http://wp.me/pDB7k-ZZ . Quite simple really, except to moronic supporters of Israel’s moronic expansionist policies.

    Israel could for once begin to withdraw from ALL non-Israeli territories immediately, taking all its citizens back to Israel, something which has never been tried. Not that Israel can now afford the cost

    ” (and I say “allies” with a grain of salt) “

    Of course you do. It’s a part of a stupid Israeli propagandist’s stupid brief. However the facts don’t support your nonsense. The surrounding Arabs have for almost 100 years fought the legal battle on behalf of the people of Palestine, including up until 1948, Jewish Palestinians, offering equality, democracy, freedom of religion http://wp.me/pDB7k-ki#democracy-equal-rights and as it was under the Mandate http://wp.me/PDB7k-Q#Mandate , the right to immigrate achieve Palestinian citizenship, settle.

    The Arab States have also fought wars on behalf of the Palestinians and have for 66 years afforded refuge for Palestine refugees at enormous expense. Your nonsense propaganda mantra simply doesn’t make the grade

    The Zionist Federation ruined the dream of being able to settle anywhere in the Jewish People’s homeland by demanding a Jewish state. Now Israelis, Jewish and non-Jewish are prohibited from illegally settling in non-Israeli territories under Israeli military control. You should be bitching at those morons

    • DaBakr on June 15, 2014, 10:14 pm

      Its not my problem if you want to pretend your living in reality with all you 100s of links and 100s of ‘factoids’. There is a reason I don’t play the ‘link’ game because the subject can be linked-t0-death by both sides and it basically leads nowhere. But I suppose you can’t help yourself since you believe you have justice, righteousness and all that on your ‘side’. I have never seen a world as black and white.

      • Shingo on June 15, 2014, 11:01 pm

        Its not my problem if you want to pretend your living in reality with all you 100s of links and 100s of ‘factoids’.

        Translation: Don’t let facts and reality get in he way of hasbara.

        There is a reason I don’t play the ‘link’ game because the subject can be linked-t0-death by both sides and it basically leads nowhere.

        No, the reason you on’t play the ‘link’ game is because you have no hope in hell of winning it. We know what your links will be and none will be from the UN, or from official sources. They will be BS op-eds from Hasbarists who got their asses kicked out of the ICJ when they presented their case, so rather than presenting their arguments to official bodies, prefer to circulate their hasbara among the faithful echo chamber.

      • DaBakr on June 16, 2014, 3:38 am

        Actually, the reason I don’t engage in linking is it just leads to ad nauseam complaining that the ‘links’ are t more often then not to biased sources whereas on the one hand, links from MW often include sources like: Pappe, Atzmon, Levy, Haas, and very LARGE assumptions on what is considered ‘international law’ versus international opinion.
        It seems to me the credibility of such writers is lost on those they need to ‘convince’ and they reduce themselves to writing for their audience.
        And the same could be said, I suppose, for links you consider pro-Zionist. I could list examples (Commentary e.g.) but on this site if you don’t tow a certain line-your posts get nixed. I’m not often nixed so I am not crying censorship-I just think there are red-lines on this site that are biased towards MW’s natural take on this issue. As ‘annie’ says: if one wants to read pro-Zionist ‘hasbara’ this is not the place to come to read it.

      • talknic on June 16, 2014, 6:14 am

        DaBakr ” the reason I don’t engage in linking is it just leads to ad nauseam complaining that the ‘links’ are t more often then not to biased sources”

        As a matter of course when links ARE to biased, bullsh*t sources

        ” links from MW often include sources like: Pappe, Atzmon, Levy, Haas”

        I don’t use any of those sources.

        “and very LARGE assumptions on what is considered ‘international law’ versus international opinion”

        The wording of the Law doesn’t change. Opinion does. Israeli propagandists use ‘other words’ and opinions in preference to the ACTUAL wording of the law.

        “I could list examples (Commentary e.g.) but on this site if you don’t tow a certain line-your posts get nixed. “

        People are nixed for the reasons given in the Comments Policy.

        “As ‘annie’ says: if one wants to read pro-Zionist ‘hasbara’ this is not the place to come to read it”

        Care to quote her … thx

      • Shingo on June 16, 2014, 8:18 am

        Actually, the reason I don’t engage in linking is it just leads to ad nauseam complaining that the ‘links’ are t more often then not to biased sources

        No, there are factual sources (ie. UN documents) and there are biased sources (ie. those that try to spin their meaning).

        and very LARGE assumptions on what is considered ‘international law’ versus international opinion.

        Again there are factual sources (ie. UN documents) and there are biased sources (ie. those that try to spin their meaning).

        I could list examples (Commentary e.g.) but on this site if you don’t tow a certain line-your posts get nixed.

        That’s because Commentary is op ed and not a credible new reporting sight.

      • talknic on June 16, 2014, 6:02 am

        @ DaBakr “Its not my problem if you want to pretend your living in reality with all you 100s of links and 100s of ‘factoids’”

        They’re to ISRAELI GOVT statements and agreements and UNSC resolutions based on those ISRAELI GOVT statements and agreements

        “There is a reason I don’t play the ‘link’ game …”

        You, like all propagandists for Israel’s expansionism, have nothing substantial

Leave a Reply