![Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv on October 16, 2023. [State Department photo by Chuck Kennedy]](https://mondoweiss.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/53265936689_6648951447_h-1024x774.jpg "The Shift: Biden administration slams ICC move")
This week the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor filed arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and three Hamas leaders.
The move was immediately slammed by the administration. “The ICC prosecutor’s application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous,” said President Biden in a statement. “And let me be clear: whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.”
“What’s happening in Gaza is not genocide,” Biden told attendees of a Jewish American Heritage Month event. “We reject that.”
“We reject the Prosecutor’s equivalence of Israel with Hamas. It is shameful,” said Secretary of State Antony Blinken. “Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization that carried out the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and is still holding dozens of innocent people hostage, including Americans.”
At one of this week’s State Department briefings, the AP’s Matt Lee pressed spokesperson Matthew Miller on the issue.
Lee repeated a fundamental question that he’d asked many times before. If Palestinians can’t seek redress at the ICC, where are they supposed to go?
Here’s that exchange:
LEE: Okay. So who – who – all right, well, so let’s just focus on jurisdiction for a second. Who does have jurisdiction here?
Miller: So the Government of Israel has jurisdiction over —
LEE: Over the occupied —
MILLER: We have – we have jurisdiction —
LEE: Over Gaza, which is not entirely occupied.
MILLER: They have jurisdiction into looking at the actions by their military personnel.
LEE: Okay, but Palestinians that have a complaint, they have to bring it to Israeli courts?
Miller: We – we have jurisdiction and we —
Lee: You have jurisdiction?
Miller: With the use of our equipment —
Lee: I’m sorry, how do you have jurisdiction?
Miller: With the use of our military equipment that we have provided.
Lee: Matt, how do you have jurisdiction?
Miller: If you look at the Leahy Law, if you look at —
Lee: No, that’s – that’s not jurisdiction in a criminal process. That’s jurisdiction in a —
Miller: Not in a criminal process, but it has to do with the determinations that we make and the policies that flow from it.
Lee: Yeah, but that’s not jurisdiction.
Miller: So but Matt, long term, you are right that we want to see —
Lee: You used work for DOJ, Matt. Come on…There is no — the U.S. does not have jurisdiction here.
Miller: There are different – I wasn’t referring to criminal jurisdiction, Matt. There are different ways to look at this. Long term, we agree with you that the Palestinian people should be a state that has the – and have the ability to make these determinations. But that’s not where we are today. That’s what we’re trying to get to.
In other words, Palestinians can’t go anywhere to seek redress.
Blinken also said the administration would support bipartisan efforts to sanction the ICC.
Let’s recap here. Trump slapped sanctions on the ICC and the Biden administration lifted them. Now Blinken says The White House will collaborate with a bunch of Republicans to reinstate them.
Moves like this make it harder and harder for the Biden campaign to distinguish itself from Trump on the subject of foreign policy. The President insists that “Democracy is on the Ballot” in November, but how does that sentiment land if you’ve lost family members in Gaza?
Last week Blinken met with Arab and Palestinian-Americans, but they walked away disappointed because he wouldn’t commit to any kind of policy change.
In a story on the meeting, CNN quotes Ghada Elnajjar, a Palestinian American who has lost more than 80 members of her extended family in Gaza.
“I think the administration has ample chances to make real change … and I have not seen change, real change in policy. So that is why I think they’re checking the boxes at this moment,” she said. “They are risking the elections.”
A new poll conducted by YouGov, and commissioned by Americans for Justice in Palestine Action, confirms as much.
The group surveyed voters in five key battleground states and found that 20% of them are less likely to vote for Biden over his policy in Gaza. 40% say a permanent ceasefire and conditioning of weapons to Israel would make them more likely to vote for him.
Oregon Primary
This week state Rep. Maxine Dexter beat progressive Multnomah County commissioner Susheela Jayapal in Oregon’s 3rd Congressional District.
Dexter never said much about the issue, but she opposes conditioning military aid. In contrast, Jayapal criticized Israel and called for a suspension of weapons shipments. This was enough for a surge of donations to pour into the race from pro-Israel donors.
AIPAC never formally endorsed Dexter, but that didn’t stop the lobbying group from celebrating her victory.
“AIPAC members were proud to support Maxine Dexter in her race against an anti-Israel opponent endorsed by Bernie Sanders, AOC, and J Street,” the group wrote on Twitter. “Being pro-Israel is good policy and good politics!”
Is it though?
The reality is that AIPAC did intervene in the race; they just didn’t do it directly because their brand is toxic in certain areas of the country.
The group got creative this time around and funneled their money into a group called the 314 Action Fund. The group says they help, “Democrats with a background in science to public office.” That sounds inoffensive and vaguely liberal, so most voters probably didn’t think twice if they saw the endorsement.
However, a little digging quickly reveals exactly what’s going on. The 314 Action Fund doesn’t usually spend big in races, but they somehow dropped $1.7 million on Dexter’s campaign.
The Intercept’s Ryan Grim reported on the story earlier this month. “Some of the money directed to 314 Action — close to a million dollars by early April — had come from a single Los Angeles-based AIPAC donor, according to the members of Congress, who asked for anonymity to preserve professional and political relationships,” wrote Grim. “The plan was openly discussed at a recent AIPAC fundraiser in Los Angeles, as well as a fundraiser in the Pacific Northwest, said the members of Congress, who learned about it from colleagues in attendance or were themselves in attendance.”
So, AIPAC’s candidate barely mentions Israel on the campaign trail and the organization has to spend all its millions secretly, but we’re supposed to believe the victory demonstrates how being pro-Israel is good policy and good politics? Please.
AIPAC’s mode of intervention proves the exact opposite. The lobbying group can no longer run on the terrible things it believes in.
Odds & Ends
🪖 New bill seeks to extend U.S. military benefits to Americans serving in the IDF
🇺🇸 Boeing University: How the California State University became complicit in Palestinian genocide
🏫 ‘Do No Harm’: A week in the life of ‘democracy’ and the betrayal of the university student
🎓 Joe Biden’s attending Morehouse College’s commencement is an insult to the Black radical tradition
🇵🇸 ATL to GAZA: Free Palestine and Stop Cop Cities
🇸🇦 Biden refuses to abandon the normalization fantasy
🚔 Counterpunch: UMass Arrests: What Would Daniel Ellsberg Do?
😷 Truthout: Anti-Mask Laws Target Gaza Protests, But They Threaten All Progressive Movements
🇮🇱 Counterpunch: Friedman, Biden and US Weapons Sales to Israel
⚖️ Informed Comment: Washington Celebrates ICC ruling against Russia, Condemns Warrant Request for Israel
🚫 Courier & Press: Evansville City council president bans public comment on Gaza resolution at meetings
📊 In These Times: New Poll Shows Biden Risking 20% of Voters in Key Battleground States
📊 Reuters: Despite polls, Biden aides insist Gaza campus protests will not hurt reelection bid
💰 New York Times: Ocasio-Cortez Backs N.Y. Bill Limiting Donations to Israeli Settlements
📷 WBUR: A photography exhibit about the West Bank ignites tensions in Newton
🪧 The Nation: The Students Protesting the War in Gaza Are Continuing a Proud Tradition
🙄 Jewish Insider: NYC Mayor Eric Adams accuses WaPo of antisemitism over Jewish donor influence story
⛺ Truthout: From Strikes to Encampments, Faculty Join Campus Movement for a Free Palestine
✊ The Guardian: Academic workers at UC Santa Cruz strike over crackdown on Gaza protests
🙏 An amazing quote from US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “Hopefully, together, we will find a way to rest our displeasure with the ICC because if they do this to Israel, we’re next.” Imagine that!
Stay safe out there,
Blinken and Biden are blowing it. No chance of re-election for Biden given the way he is playing. I am hearing retired university Professors saying they would rather see the country fall apart under Trump that vote for the proven war hawk Biden. Add up students, older human rights activist, Muslims who will not be terrified into voting for Biden. We are in deep Netanyahu/Israel doo doo.
“And let me be clear: whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas.”, says Biden.
I think there’s a subtle point here that needs some attention: many people are now saying that the ICC is somehow comparing Israel and Hamas or drawing an equivalence between them. But this isn’t what the ICC is doing.
On Monday the PBS newshour interviewed lawyers specializing in international law. One of them pointed out that the ICC ruling isn’t a comparison between Israel and Hamas – rather, it’s a comparison between Israel and the law and a comparison between Hamas and the law. The actual comparison the ICC is drawing is between the behavior of these two parties and what international law says is acceptable behavior.
I guess that explains why Israel tried to give AP the Al Jazeera treatment this week.
“The situation in the OPT is primarily governed by two international legal regimes: international humanitarian law (including the rules of the law of occupation) and international human rights law. International criminal law is also relevant as some serious violations may constitute war crimes.”
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/01/chapter-3-israeli-settlements-and-international-law/
Many Israeli Jews ask “why do Palestinians hate us so much and what did we ever do to them.Allow me to provide some evidence.Let,s focus the illegal transfer of Hudreds of thousands illegal settlers to the West Bank in contradiction of International Law.
“Israel’s policy of settling its civilians in occupied Palestinian territory and displacing the local population contravenes fundamental rules of international humanitarian law.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory”.
At the birth of this bastard State 450 villages were destroyed by Israel,s forces (Terrorists)and some 700,000 indigenous Palestinians were forced from their homes ,Farms and businesses , at the point of a gun.
During this mass deportation rape and pillage and murder was carried out by members of Israel,s so called “Most Moral Army.
“The extensive appropriation of land and the appropriation and destruction of property required to build and expand settlements also breach other rules of international humanitarian law. Under the Hague Regulations of 1907, the public property of the occupied population (such as lands, forests and agricultural estates) is subject to the laws of usufruct. This means that an occupying state is only allowed a very limited use of this property. This limitation is derived from the notion that occupation is temporary, the core idea of the law of occupation. In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the occupying power “has a duty to ensure the protection, security, and welfare of the people living under occupation and to guarantee that they can live as normal a life as possible, in accordance with their own laws, culture, and traditions.”
The Hague Regulations prohibit the confiscation of private property. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the destruction of private or state property, “except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations”.
Part 1
Part Three.
SETTLEMENTS, DISCRIMINATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
“States have a duty to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of people under their jurisdiction, including people living in territory that is outside national borders but under the effective control of the state. The ICJ confirmed that Israel is obliged to extend the application of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and other treaties to which it is a state party to people in the OPT. Israel is a state party to numerous international human rights treaties and, as the occupying power, it has well defined obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of Palestinians.
However, as has been well documented for many years by the UN, Amnesty International and other NGOs, Israel’s settlement policy is one of the main driving forces behind the mass human rights violations resulting from the occupation. These include:
Violations of the right to life: Israeli soldiers, police and security guards have unlawfully killed and injured many Palestinian civilians in the OPT, including during protests against the confiscation of land and the construction of settlements. UN agencies and fact-finding missions have also expressed concern about violence perpetrated by a minority of Israeli settlers aimed at intimidating Palestinian populations.
Violations of the rights to liberty, security of the person and equal treatment before the law: Amnesty International has documented how Palestinians in the OPT are routinely subjected to arbitrary detention, including through administrative detention. Whereas settlers are subject to Israeli civil and criminal law, Palestinians are subject to a military court system which falls short of international standards for the fair conduct of trials and administration of justice.
Violations of the right to access an effective remedy for acts violating fundamental rights: Israel’s failure to adequately investigate and enforce the law for acts of violence against Palestinians, together with the multiple legal, financial and procedural barriers faced by Palestinians in accessing the court system, severely limit Palestinians’ ability to seek legal redress. The Israeli High Court of Justice has failed to rule on the legality of settlements, as it considered the settlements to be a political issue that that it is not competent to hear.
Violations of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly: Amnesty International has documented Israel’s use of military orders to prohibit peaceful protest and criminalize freedom of expression in the West Bank. Israeli forces have used tear gas, rubber bullets and occasionally live rounds to suppress peaceful protests.”