A counterPOV on Israel's crime language

[bamboo00]

I was reading posts here with great interest and would like to offer a counterpoint to utilizing the language that seems to be forbidden in other posts. For the purpose of respecting other posters, I will refrain from entering other threads to use words they have asked others not use but have started a new post where language will not be policed by those defending the state of Israel of its treatment of others. Many posters expressed that they are not well educated on the conflict and I would encourage you to educate yourself on the conflict and the United States involvement. If you have the time, read the whole Rome Statute of the ICC. Asking Jewish posters to do the research for you will not be fair to either of you. Allowing the oppressive state and oppressive state supporters of these specific acts to dictate the language and conversation is harmful and biased. It is oppressive state supporters that shut down conversation when language is not defined on their terms but the repeated idea that genocide has a specific definition is true and given the offenses, this should be tried by the ICC. Legal arguments may be made for each side without an automatic bias of anti-Semitism. In case it needs to be repeated again, it is very possible for people to have been oppressed historically and still wield power today to oppress others. There are layers of privilege.



From the Rome Statute of the ICC treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%202187/v2187.pdf

My notes are in parentheses.

(Please note that the United States was one of four to have voted against the Apartheid Convention, likely because we were concerned about application of these laws against US and Israeli interests. The other votes against include Portugal, South Africa, and the UK. 91 votes for).

Preamble excerpt:

Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation,

Determine to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes,

Recalling that it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes,

Reaffirming the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular that all States shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations,

Emphasizing in this connection that nothing in this Statute shall be taken as authorizing any State Party to intervene in an armed conflict or in the internal affairs of any State,

(The crimes Israel is committing are serious and refusing to identify or challenge the actions is effectively allowing the state to continue with impunity. It is a false equivalency to insist that labeling Israel as an Apartheid State or that Israel has committed genocide will effectively end the state. The UN restates unilateral action and not individual state action and any action by an enemy state against Israel cannot be attributed to allegations or enforcement of this statute. Further, to skit responsibility to the identification of the crimes, rather than the actual crimes themselves, does not absolve Israel from facing the consequences of these crimes. This infers that we must refrain from all allegations of crimes against Israel to ensure they are not held to ICC justice or the state will cease to exist and that notion assumes that it is somehow not possible to have Israel exist and NOT commit crimes against humanity. If the state and state supporters are worried about allegations, they should actively encourage all crimes to cease immediately.)

Article 5. Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court

1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:

(a) The crime of genocide;

(b) Crimes against humanity;

(c) War crimes;

(d) The crime of aggression.

2. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 6. Genocide

For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

(Though the issue of Israel committing genocide against the Palestinian people is much contested, Israel’s admitted acts of temporarily sterilizing Ethiopian Jews falls under (b) and (d) with the intent to destroy the specific racial and ethnic group of black Jews. It is important to note that the language includes “in part”, because genocide does not have a size restriction to be accurate. This act does not have to be strictly along racial lines and the Palestinian people may be protected by ethnic, religious, or national group, though the nation is not always recognized. In this way, it could be argued that Israel’s acts against Palestinians fall under (a), (b), and (c) by police killings, abuse at the borders and checkpoints, restriction of electricity and healthcare resources, for only a few of many examples.)

Article 7. Crimes against humanity

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack;

(The language here does require a widespread of systematic threshold to be passed. It is still a judgement call if the actions against Palestinians constitute widespread or systematic attacks but I would argue that is another question to be answered by the ICC. Defenders of Israel cannot be the only accurate voice. The language protecting any civilian population would include Palestinians without any additional protected class status.)

(a) Murder; (Happening with question of if widespread)

(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement; (Happening with question of if widespread)

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population; (Happening with evidence of being widespread)

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; (Happening with evidence of being widespread)

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(The language here expands protections to Palestinians by a number of ways: political, national, ethnic, cultural, religious.)

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:

(a) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;

(b) "Extermination" includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;

(c) "Enslavement" means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;

(d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;

(e) "Torture", means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;

(f) "Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;

(g) "Persecution" means the intentional arid severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;

(h) "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

(I would like to call attention here to the language of “inhumane acts of a character similar to those”. The specific restriction of being in the context of an institutionalized regime and by racial groups is questionable as racial groups can be comprised by perception so the inclusion can be fluid. Mistaken identity as a Palestinian has actually caused Jews great harm. www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/west-bank-checkpoint-jewish-settler-pisgat-zeev-knife-mistaken-palestinian-shot-dead-israel-a7719671.html for example.)

(i) "Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

3. For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term "gender" refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term "gender" does not indicate any meaning different from the above.

Excerpt from legal.un.org/avl/ha/cspca/cspca.html

That the Apartheid Convention is intended to apply to situations other than South Africa is confirmed by its endorsement in a wider context in instruments adopted before and after the fall of apartheid. In 1977, Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 recognized apartheid as a “grave breach” of the Protocol (art. 85, paragraph 4 (c)) without any geographical limitation. Apartheid features as a crime in the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind adopted by the International Law Commission on first reading in 1991 without any reference to South Africa and in 1996 the Draft Code adopted on second reading recognized institutionalized racial discrimination as species of crime against humanity in article 18 (f) and explained in its commentary that this “is in fact the crime of apartheid under a more general denomination”(Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session (A/51/10), p. 49). In 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court included the “crime of apartheid” as a form of crime against humanity (art. 7). It may be concluded that the Apartheid Convention is dead as far as the original cause for its creation – apartheid in South Africa – is concerned, but that it lives on as a species of the crime against humanity, under both customary international law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

(Apartheid doesn’t have to be all South African apartheid, all the time, to be applied accurately. When the main defense is that the definitions of racial groups are not met, this is another example of a good case for the UN to consider. It would not be the first crime to continue to be applied with different protections, as evolutions of what constitutes a protected class occurs. When the argument the words “apartheid” and “genocide” can’t be used, not because of a disagreement of the interpretation of the law, but because supporters of the state of Israel don’t want Israel to face the ramifications of the crimes, you should consider the bias in not wanting Israel to be held accountable and make your own decisions about appropriate language, which may change considering the company dictating the conversation. Balance that with the Palestinian victims identifying their oppressive experience.)

[AJL]

Tell us a little about yourself, bamboo00. Who are you?

[AJL]

How did you find us? Since you're a brand new member, my assumption is that you've been lurking awhile. I'm just curious.

[KateAggie]

Brand new. Totally brand new.

[wawa]

look, bamboo00, I find this whole "make a new name to come in and educate us all about how the jewish posters are hopelessly biased" thing distasteful - but still...I did read what you posted. Now could you point me in a direction you'd recommend as "non-biased" that explains more about what offenses you feel fall into these categories?

Talking about this section specifically -

a) Murder; (Happening with question of if widespread)

(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement; (Happening with question of if widespread)

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population; (Happening with evidence of being widespread)

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; (Happening with evidence of being widespread)

Read more: pandce.proboards.com/thread/579740/counterpov-on-israels-crime-language#ixzz4lDTRt8Xm

[bamboo00]

Jun 27, 2017 9:38:28 GMT -5 AJL said:

How did you find us? Since you're a brand new member, my assumption is that you've been lurking awhile. I'm just curious.

Spin-off conversations of pieces on Gal Gadot.
medium.com/@nerdypoc/gal-gadot-isnt-wonder-woman-23ce51d30859
And subsequent tweets sparked interest.

[aurora]

bamboo00, if you are new here you may not know that we expect non-biased citations. I appreciate your link to the Rome Statute of the ICC (and 2 subsequent links), but your parenthetical claims such as those noted in wawa's excerpt should also be linked to sources if your claim is really education.

[bamboo00]

Jun 27, 2017 10:20:35 GMT -5 wawa said:

look, bamboo00, I find this whole "make a new name to come in and educate us all about how the jewish posters are hopelessly biased" thing distasteful - but still...I did read what you posted. Now could you point me in a direction you'd recommend as "non-biased" that explains more about what offenses you feel fall into these categories?

Talking about this section specifically -

a) Murder; (Happening with question of if widespread)

(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement; (Happening with question of if widespread)

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population; (Happening with evidence of being widespread)

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; (Happening with evidence of being widespread)

Read more: pandce.proboards.com/thread/579740/counterpov-on-israels-crime-language#ixzz4lDTRt8Xm

I am encouraging people to do their own research. I do believe the UN is less biased than a country that didn't even ratify the convention.
www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm
www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/

[wawa]

Jun 27, 2017 10:32:00 GMT -5 bamboo00 said:

Jun 27, 2017 10:20:35 GMT -5 wawa said:

look, bamboo00 , I find this whole "make a new name to come in and educate us all about how the jewish posters are hopelessly biased" thing distasteful - but still...I did read what you posted. Now could you point me in a direction you'd recommend as "non-biased" that explains more about what offenses you feel fall into these categories?

Talking about this section specifically -

I am encouraging people to do their own research. I do believe the UN is less biased than a country that didn't even ratify the convention.
www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm
www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/

thanks for the links.  But look - you  made claims that there is evidence, that means you should provide the evidence you reference.  Why sit on information in the name of encouraging people do their own research?  You aren't a high school librarian helping kids write their first term paper here.  You reference evidence, you provide the evidence. 

[bamboo00]

Jun 27, 2017 10:39:43 GMT -5 wawa said:

Jun 27, 2017 10:32:00 GMT -5 bamboo00 said:

I am encouraging people to do their own research. I do believe the UN is less biased than a country that didn't even ratify the convention.
www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm
www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/

thanks for the links.  But look - you  made claims that there is evidence, that means you should provide the evidence you reference.  Why sit on information in the name of encouraging people do their own research?  You aren't a high school librarian helping kids write their first term paper here.  You reference evidence, you provide the evidence. 

The UN link supports extensive abuses of occupation and displacement.
Murder- www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/israel/palestine
www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28439404
Speaks to other allegations- www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/document/57c9ba91c36188800e8b469a/amp

[AJL]

Thanks for your references bamboo00.

It brings me to where I'd like to talk about military actions as acts of murder. So when a country retaliates in defense of itself against another party who was perpetrating acts of violence on its country and citizens, the deaths that occur from that retaliation is murder? Is that correct?

And murder is a crime against humanity. So all countries that undertake military action in defense of itself that results in the death of people are committing crimes against humanity and should be punished accordingly by the U.N. (to be honest, I'm not entirely sure who prosecutes these crimes, so fill in the appropriate governing body.)

I'm clearly jumping from A to Z with my question, but fill in the blanks for me so I know exactly where Israel hits the "crimes against humanity" threshold vs. where the U.S. or Afghanistan or Syria or Russia would hit that threshold.

[bamboo00]

Jun 27, 2017 11:05:11 GMT -5 rvan0905 said:

The UN as a body is absolutely biased against Israel. There have been more sanctions against Israel than all other countries combined, while other countries are engaging in genocide, use WMDs, and fostering environments that create significant human suffering. As I've said before and apparently have to say over and over and over again, when you hold the only Jewish state up to different standards than the rest of the world, you are being anti-Semitic.

This reminds me of when people were pissed that Betty Shelby was indicted that white women can't kill black people with the same impunity as white male cops. Don't worry, she still got off. The answer here is to lobby the UN to be more vigilant on the human rights abuses in other places, not to let Israel off the hook for theirs because other people are getting away with it.

[bamboo00]

Jun 27, 2017 11:08:45 GMT -5 AJL said:

Thanks for your references bamboo00.

It brings me to where I'd like to talk about military actions as acts of murder. So when a country retaliates in defense of itself against another party who was perpetrating acts of violence on its country and citizens, the deaths that occur from that retaliation is murder? Is that correct?

And murder is a crime against humanity. So all countries that undertake military action in defense of itself that results in the death of people are committing crimes against humanity and should be punished accordingly by the U.N. (to be honest, I'm not entirely sure who prosecutes these crimes, so fill in the appropriate governing body.)

I'm clearly jumping from A to Z with my question, but fill in the blanks for me so I know exactly where Israel hits the "crimes against humanity" threshold vs. where the U.S. or Afghanistan or Syria or Russia would hit that threshold.

I don't think any one person can accurately answer that question. I think it should be for the ICC to decide. When Palestine ratified the Rome Statute, they opened themselves up to investigation of crimes by the ICC and I'm looking forward to those ICC investigations. That's when questions can be definitively answered. Forbidding people from asking the questions or the investigation from happening is to enable more human rights abuses.

[bamboo00]

I will say, I think a clear case of murder occurs when you compare civilian numbers. The HRW coverage of Operation Cast Lead included charges of civilian murder, civilian murder while holding white flags, and white phosphorus use.

[berrysweet]

Jun 27, 2017 8:39:50 GMT -5 bamboo00 said:

I was reading posts here with great interest and would like to offer a counterpoint to utilizing the language that seems to be forbidden in other posts. For the purpose of respecting other posters, I will refrain from entering other threads to use words they have asked others not use but have started a new post where language will not be policed by those defending the state of Israel of its treatment of others. Many posters expressed that they are not well educated on the conflict and I would encourage you to educate yourself on the conflict and the United States involvement. If you have the time, read the whole Rome Statute of the ICC. Asking Jewish posters to do the research for you will not be fair to either of you. Allowing the oppressive state and oppressive state supporters of these specific acts to dictate the language and conversation is harmful and biased. It is oppressive state supporters that shut down conversation when language is not defined on their terms but the repeated idea that genocide has a specific definition is true and given the offenses, this should be tried by the ICC. Legal arguments may be made for each side without an automatic bias of anti-Semitism. In case it needs to be repeated again, it is very possible for people to have been oppressed historically and still wield power today to oppress others. There are layers of privilege....

You lost me here.

[pixy0stix]

Jun 27, 2017 11:19:30 GMT -5 berrysweet said:

Jun 27, 2017 8:39:50 GMT -5 bamboo00 said:

I was reading posts here with great interest and would like to offer a counterpoint to utilizing the language that seems to be forbidden in other posts. For the purpose of respecting other posters, I will refrain from entering other threads to use words they have asked others not use but have started a new post where language will not be policed by those defending the state of Israel of its treatment of others. Many posters expressed that they are not well educated on the conflict and I would encourage you to educate yourself on the conflict and the United States involvement. If you have the time, read the whole Rome Statute of the ICC. Asking Jewish posters to do the research for you will not be fair to either of you. Allowing the oppressive state and oppressive state supporters of these specific acts to dictate the language and conversation is harmful and biased. It is oppressive state supporters that shut down conversation when language is not defined on their terms but the repeated idea that genocide has a specific definition is true and given the offenses, this should be tried by the ICC. Legal arguments may be made for each side without an automatic bias of anti-Semitism. In case it needs to be repeated again, it is very possible for people to have been oppressed historically and still wield power today to oppress others. There are layers of privilege....

You lost me here.

Right? Like those same posters aren't going to read this post. LOL!

[wawa]

Jun 27, 2017 11:12:35 GMT -5 rvan0905 said:

Jun 27, 2017 11:09:21 GMT -5 bamboo00 said:

This reminds me of when people were pissed that Betty Shelby was indicted that can't kill black people with the same impunity as white cops. Don't worry, she still got off. The answer here is to lobby the UN to be more vigilant on the human rights abuses in other places, not to let Israel off the hook for theirs because other people are getting away with it.

Go get in the corner with barcelonagirl.

Wait...huh?  I mean, I'm looking all kinds of sideways at "newbie" here, but...what's wrong with what they said there?  Believing that the UN should be harsher on potential human rights violations seems like a pretty innocuous stance.  am I missing something?

[hopecounts]

Jun 27, 2017 11:27:57 GMT -5 wawa said:

Jun 27, 2017 11:12:35 GMT -5 rvan0905 said:

Go get in the corner with barcelonagirl.

Wait...huh?  I mean, I'm looking all kinds of sideways at "newbie" here, but...what's wrong with what they said there?  Believing that the UN should be harsher on potential human rights violations seems like a pretty innocuous stance.  am I missing something?

I think it's part 1 of the comment that is the issue.

[bamboo00]

I wish the UN could assist with all of the human rights abuses the US has committed. But the US isn't subject to the ICC and they have veto power in the UN and allies who would fight regardless so what the UN is able to accomplish isn't a correlative action against the most egregious offenders.

[cookiemdough]

Jun 27, 2017 11:30:12 GMT -5 hopecounts said:

Jun 27, 2017 11:27:57 GMT -5 wawa said:

Wait...huh?  I mean, I'm looking all kinds of sideways at "newbie" here, but...what's wrong with what they said there?  Believing that the UN should be harsher on potential human rights violations seems like a pretty innocuous stance.  am I missing something?

I think it's part 1 of the comment that is the issue.

Yes, that is inflammatory. But the actual substance of the argument is at the end is not way out in left field. Why wouldn't we hold others accountable accordingly?

[rjamz]

Jun 27, 2017 11:32:46 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Jun 27, 2017 11:30:12 GMT -5 hopecounts said:

I think it's part 1 of the comment that is the issue.

Yes, that is inflammatory. But the actual substance of the argument is at the end is not way out in left field. Why wouldn't we hold others accountable accordingly?

We absolutely should.

The current problem is that many supporters of Israel (myself included) don't view the UN as an unbiased source because at the moment they ARE specifically biased against Israel. They're constantly looking for things to criticize. It's not just the fact that they ignore the human rights abuses of other countries. They show their bias by continually targeting Israel PLUS ignoring the other countries.

I'm considered pretty "lefty" on the Israel/Palestine issue, but the UN bias is still fairly clear to me.

[pixy0stix]

Jun 27, 2017 11:32:46 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Jun 27, 2017 11:30:12 GMT -5 hopecounts said:

I think it's part 1 of the comment that is the issue.

Yes, that is inflammatory. But the actual substance of the argument is at the end is not way out in left field. Why wouldn't we hold others accountable accordingly?

I think the stance from the Jewish standpoint (and I'm more than willing to be corrected) is that Israel will never be treated fairly. To use the same analogy - we want POC to be treated fairly in our justice system, yet we know that will never happen because the system is always stacked against them.

[ESF]

Jun 27, 2017 11:39:17 GMT -5 rjamz said:

Jun 27, 2017 11:32:46 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Yes, that is inflammatory. But the actual substance of the argument is at the end is not way out in left field. Why wouldn't we hold others accountable accordingly?

We absolutely should.

The current problem is that many supporters of Israel (myself included) don't view the UN as an unbiased source because at the moment they ARE specifically biased against Israel. They're constantly looking for things to criticize. It's not just the fact that they ignore the human rights abuses of other countries. They show their bias by continually targeting Israel PLUS ignoring the other countries.

I'm considered pretty "lefty" on the Israel/Palestine issue, but the UN bias is still fairly clear to me.

What do you think drives this bias?   Is it as simple as anti-Semiticism and/or ignorance?  Or is it driven by geopolitical calculations, like the UN trying to be more of a counterweight to US involvement in the region, or is it not calling out other countries out of a need to cater to other large power players, say China or Russia, for whatever reason and not wanting to go after them and the countries they influence for fear of pissing them off?  All of the above?

[cookiemdough]

Jun 27, 2017 11:39:17 GMT -5 rjamz said:

Jun 27, 2017 11:32:46 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Yes, that is inflammatory. But the actual substance of the argument is at the end is not way out in left field. Why wouldn't we hold others accountable accordingly?

We absolutely should.

The current problem is that many supporters of Israel (myself included) don't view the UN as an unbiased source because at the moment they ARE specifically biased against Israel. They're constantly looking for things to criticize. It's not just the fact that they ignore the human rights abuses of other countries. They show their bias by continually targeting Israel PLUS ignoring the other countries.

I'm considered pretty "lefty" on the Israel/Palestine issue, but the UN bias is still fairly clear to me.

Thanks! You indicated at this moment the UN is specifically biased against Israel. Given the timing in which the UN was formed, I would have thought it would have been fairly protective of Israel's interest. What precipitated the shift? Is it when the PLO was invited?

[bamboo00]

Jun 27, 2017 11:38:00 GMT -5 rvan0905 said:

Jun 27, 2017 11:27:57 GMT -5 wawa said:

Wait...huh?  I mean, I'm looking all kinds of sideways at "newbie" here, but...what's wrong with what they said there?  Believing that the UN should be harsher on potential human rights violations seems like a pretty innocuous stance.  am I missing something?

That comment isn't happening in a vacuum here.  This poster specifically said "For the purpose of respecting other posters, I will refrain from entering other threads to use words they have asked others not use but have started a new post where language will not be policed by those defending the state of Israel of its treatment of others."  So, s/he is rejecting the premise that accusing Israel of genocide and/or apartheid when neither of those things are happening is patently false, and should be up for discussion.

Look, war is a crime against humanity, and Israel and Palestine, as well as Israel and many other countries in the Middle East, are at war with each other.  Israel has done things that are horrible but excusable in the name of defense, and to many (including me), things that are not excusable.  Palestinians are responsible for horrible conduct that is also both excusable and inexcusable.  They are at war.

When someone comes in here and wants to talk about how horrible Israel is and how evil its government is, and refuses to add any shade of grey to the discussion in regards to the fact that these actions are a reaction to the war Israel has been fighting with its neighbors (Palestinians included) since 1948, I will call that out for the anti-Semitism that it is.  

Yes, it is up for discussion. These discussions are happening in places where they arent policed. I never claimed that Palestine was innocent and I did say that by ratifying, they opened themselves up to investigation as well. This is still good! Israel should be open for investigation as well. So should the US. Yet, other factors influence ICC involvement.

[rjamz]

Jun 27, 2017 11:49:52 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Jun 27, 2017 11:39:17 GMT -5 rjamz said:

We absolutely should.

The current problem is that many supporters of Israel (myself included) don't view the UN as an unbiased source because at the moment they ARE specifically biased against Israel. They're constantly looking for things to criticize. It's not just the fact that they ignore the human rights abuses of other countries. They show their bias by continually targeting Israel PLUS ignoring the other countries.

I'm considered pretty "lefty" on the Israel/Palestine issue, but the UN bias is still fairly clear to me.

Thanks! You indicated at this moment the UN is specifically biased against Israel. Given the timing in which the UN was formed, I would have thought it would have been fairly protective of Israel's interest. What precipitated the shift? Is it when the PLO was invited?

To answer both you and ESF I don't think the UN has always been biased against Israel. I think around the 70s, something shifted and a very powerful Arab country coalition emerged. This was even before the PLO was invited (though, they were invited very soon after). In 1975, that same year, the General Assembly passed a resolution that equated Zionism with racism. It was repealed (not unanimously) but I think the damage was done.

Both Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon have admitted that there is bias against Israel at the UN, and Ban Ki Moon went even further to say that the bias is actually harmful to the Palestinian cause as well

ETA: and this isn't to say "all Arabs hate Israel" of course, but the 70s was an extremely contentious time for Israel and its Arab neighbors. Wars were fought in 67 and 73.

[hopecounts]

Jun 27, 2017 12:03:04 GMT -5 rjamz said:

Jun 27, 2017 11:49:52 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Thanks! You indicated at this moment the UN is specifically biased against Israel. Given the timing in which the UN was formed, I would have thought it would have been fairly protective of Israel's interest. What precipitated the shift? Is it when the PLO was invited?

To answer both you and ESF I don't think the UN has always been biased against Israel. I think around the 70s, something shifted and a very powerful Arab country coalition emerged. This was even before the PLO was invited (though, they were invited very soon after). In 1975, that same year, the General Assembly passed a resolution that equated Zionism with racism. It was repealed (not unanimously) but I think the damage was done.

Both Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon have admitted that there is bias against Israel at the UN, and Ban Ki Moon went even further to say that the bias is actually harmful to the Palestinian cause as well

ETA: and this isn't to say "all Arabs hate Israel" of course, but the 70s was an extremely contentious time for Israel and its Arab neighbors. Wars were fought in 67 and 73.

Cough: Oil :cough 
See: rise of OPEC in the 70s with their cutting of oil supplies they made their point about how much power that gave them and a lot of countries listened. 
So the power balance began to shift.

[wawa]

Jun 27, 2017 12:01:29 GMT -5 bamboo00 said:

Jun 27, 2017 11:38:00 GMT -5 rvan0905 said:

That comment isn't happening in a vacuum here.  This poster specifically said "For the purpose of respecting other posters, I will refrain from entering other threads to use words they have asked others not use but have started a new post where language will not be policed by those defending the state of Israel of its treatment of others."  So, s/he is rejecting the premise that accusing Israel of genocide and/or apartheid when neither of those things are happening is patently false, and should be up for discussion.

Look, war is a crime against humanity, and Israel and Palestine, as well as Israel and many other countries in the Middle East, are at war with each other.  Israel has done things that are horrible but excusable in the name of defense, and to many (including me), things that are not excusable.  Palestinians are responsible for horrible conduct that is also both excusable and inexcusable.  They are at war.

When someone comes in here and wants to talk about how horrible Israel is and how evil its government is, and refuses to add any shade of grey to the discussion in regards to the fact that these actions are a reaction to the war Israel has been fighting with its neighbors (Palestinians included) since 1948, I will call that out for the anti-Semitism that it is.  

Yes, it is up for discussion. These discussions are happening in places where they arent policed. I never claimed that Palestine was innocent and I did say that by ratifying, they opened themselves up to investigation as well. This is still good! Israel should be open for investigation as well. So should the US. Yet, other factors influence ICC involvement.

Nobody is policing shit here.  It's a message board - people post whatever the fuck they want and other people are free to disagree with that and call it out as being antisemitic if that's what they see.  Acting like we're being censored because our jewish posters are vocal about their views is some bullshit. 

[bamboo00]

Jun 27, 2017 12:16:28 GMT -5 rvan0905 said:

Jun 27, 2017 12:01:29 GMT -5 bamboo00 said:

Yes, it is up for discussion. These discussions are happening in places where they arent policed. I never claimed that Palestine was innocent and I did say that by ratifying, they opened themselves up to investigation as well. This is still good! Israel should be open for investigation as well. So should the US. Yet, other factors influence ICC involvement.

Using false and inflammatory terminology is not up for discussion on this board.  Israel is not committing the international crime of apartheid or genocide.  End stop.

Pardon me if I want to see an ICC investigation over taking your biased word for it.

[wawa]

Ok, I'm trying to understand the details of this and now I have some potentially stupid questions -

Whether Israel has committed crimes against humanity such that they'd fall under the definitions outlined in the OP is not something that has been considered by any legal body, correct? Because they aren't actually signatories to the ICC, so they aren't subject to it. Same as the U.S.

Or has this question/evidence been considered by some other official group and laid to rest? Or is it just...out there as a question? something debated by academics and politicians. If Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, then the only way that the ICC would open a case about this is if the UN security council said so - and that would only happen if the U.S. withdrew it's support. Yes?

(i'm in no way implying that i think this should happen. I'm just making sure I understand the mechanisms we're talking about)