Why is everyone so desperate to prevent Palestinians joining the ICC?

hatrickpatrick

Just read this, stating basically that Britain will back Palestine's UN bid on Thursday only if they pledge not to use the upgraded status to take Israel to court over alleged war crimes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/27/uk-ready-to-back-palestine-statehood

[/quotWhitehall officials said the Palestinians were now being asked to refrain from applying for membership of the international criminal court or the international court of justice, which could both be used to pursue war crimes charges or other legal claims against Israel.

I'm trying extremely hard to not be cynical and come up with a legitimate reason for these objections, but I'm coming up blank every time.
From my point of view, this is an admission that Israel has, in fact, broken international law - otherwise why should they worry about being taken to court and having a chance to argue their innocence?

What I don't understand is why Britain and so many other countries have a problem with this. If they have in fact committed crimes, war-crimes or otherwise, why shouldn't they be taken to court over it? What negative consequences would it have, exactly, unless of course one is suggesting that they should be allowed to get away with such crimes?

Are there side effects of such a court action which I'm failing to understand? Perhaps the risk of the US shunning the court, for example?

I'd love it if someone could offer an explanation here, because if my instincts are correct and this is all a very cynical exercise in shielding people from facing the justice they deserve, my faith in humanity will be massively dented. I'm seriously hoping there's an explanation apart from that.

EDIT: I would REALLY appreciate if we could keep this thread about the UN bid, the implications of joining the court, and other countries reasons for opposing this and potential double standards / conflicts of interest - in other words, I really, really don't want this to turn into another very generic Middle East conflict thread. Almost every thread on this subject degenerates into a general debate, with the specific aspect of it referenced in the OP being quickly forgotten about and never actually addressed... Just this once, please?

JustinDee

Take a step back and look at the quote you gave. The issue is that Hamas, not only Israel, would be brought within the jurisdiction and made answerable also.
Hamas are hardly going to like that now, are they?

As they say, context is everything.

Dirk Gently

JustinDee wrote: »

The issue is that Hamas, not only Israel, would be brought within the jurisdiction and made answerable also.
.

I don't think thats anyones primary concern now tbh. Useful to throw it out there alright though.

JustinDee

Dirk Gently wrote: »

I don't think thats anyones primary concern now tbh. Useful to throw it out there alright though.

I think it is absolutely pertinant to the issue.

There is a very real reason that Hamas will avoid being answerable to any international legislature. All the usual chit-chat on these forums is Israel this and Israel that, when what goes on in Gaza (no elections, no opposition, autocratic military rule etc) is conveniently lapped aside. There is far more to this conflict than settlements in West Bank and East Jerusalem. Hamas will not become a signatory to any such legislation without prior conditions and guarantees of admonishment. Otherwise, they'll treat it as equally with contempt as Netanyahu's government does.

wes

Well, firstly the US already shun the the ICC, as they won't don't recognize its jurisdiction in regards to themselves.

As for why people are against it, well its a way for the Palestinians to get some tiny amount of leverage against Israel. Perhaps they could even get a court decision against settlements, and it would even the playing field a tiny bit, and its a great avenue for another form of non-violent resistance.

Basically, imho as much as some countries say there against settlements etc, the simple fact is that they defacto support them, as they never do a single thing about them, and Israel incurs little or no cost in regard to her settlements. People in the West can easily send money to help out the settlement enterprise (tax deductible in the US, as a "charitable" contribution), regardless of them being illegal, regardless of the daily terror visited on the Palestinians from these settlements. The only conclusion imho is that countries who are against this bid, are essentially supporters of the Greater Israel project.

Rhys Essien

It a bit sad that Britain say they will vote Yes but only with all their conditions attached.Talk about fcuking blackmail.

Australia are abstaining from the vote.What the fcuk is that all about?.

Im hopeful that there will be enough Yes votes.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

As for why people are against it, well its a way for the Palestinians to get some tiny amount of leverage against Israel. Perhaps they could even get a court decision against settlements, and it would even the playing field a tiny bit, and its a great avenue for another form of non-violent resistance

Your broadbase term "Palestinians" wouldn't really apply here as the last thing Hamas needs is ICC jurisdiction over themselves. If taken to task for war crimes or how it maintains its grip over Gazans, they weaken, especially with Fatah waiting ahead.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

Your broadbase term "Palestinians" wouldn't really apply here as the last thing Hamas needs is ICC jurisdiction over themselves.

I wasn't talking about Hamas, the question asked by the OP, was why countries are against going to the UN, and not why Hamas would be against it. I was clearly referring to Abbas and PA in the West Bank btw, and anyone could easily get what I was talking about from the context of what I was saying. I was describing what they could gain, so that I could point out why some would oppose such a simple non-violent form of resistance.

Hamas are irrelevant to the point I was making. You seem obsessed in shoe horning them in at every opportunity.

JustinDee wrote: »

If taken to task for war crimes or how it maintains its grip over Gazans, they weaken, especially with Fatah waiting ahead.

Good riddance to them, then. I really doubt that any countries against this care about Hamas in way shape or form, so I really don't see how they figure into the question being asked in regards to why some countries would oppose this.

Rhys Essien

JustinDee wrote: »

Your broadbase term "Palestinians" wouldn't really apply here as the last thing Hamas needs is ICC jurisdiction over themselves. If taken to task for war crimes or how it maintains its grip over Gazans, they weaken, especially with Fatah waiting ahead.

Gladly the majority of the world has not got blinkers on and realises who the agressor is in this conflict and that aint Hamas.

Bring on what will be inevitable I say.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

I wasn't talking about Hamas, the question asked by the OP, was why countries are against going to the UN, and not why Hamas would be against it. I was clearly referring to Abbas and PA in the West Bank btw, and anyone could easily get what I was talking about from the context of what I was saying. I was describing what they could gain, so that I could point out why some would oppose such a simple non-violent form of resistance.

Hamas are irrelevant to the point I was making. You seem obsessed in shoe horning them in at every opportunity

You conveniently and repeatedly continue to omit Hamas and Gaza. They're "Palestinians" too. Nothing is obvious with reference to that term except what is actually encompasses ie. Palestinians in Israel, West Bank AND Gaza.
Gaza is a problem regardless of your continual airbrushing of Hamas' involvement when it suits you.

JustinDee

Rhys Essien wrote: »

Gladly the majority of the world has not got blinkers on and realises who the agressor is in this conflict and that aint Hamas

What was blinkered about what I said? Who the perceived "aggressor" is, actually has no bearing on the poster's question.

Rhys Essien wrote: »

Bring on what will be inevitable I say.

Won't happen if either or both Hamas and the current govt in Israel are in power.
Don't presume people are against the overall plan just because you don't like a post or even get its actual point.

Nodin

Rhys Essien wrote: »

It a bit sad that Britain say they will vote Yes but only with all their conditions attached.Talk about fcuking blackmail.

Australia are abstaining from the vote.What the fcuk is that all about?.

Im hopeful that there will be enough Yes votes.

It's about being not a big fan of Israel, but not being that ticked off with them that they want to annoy the US.

As regards the ICC - The US already shuns it, as does Israel.

Chuck Stone

JustinDee wrote: »

Won't happen if either or both Hamas and the current govt in Israel are in power.

Are you purposefully trying to foist a generous portion of the blame on a probable failed recognition bid to Hamas to divert attention from those who have the real power to scupper it?

What influence does Hamas have over whether the bid fails or not? Surely recognition would be seen as a victory for the non-violent Abbas/Fatah and delegitimize the Hamas turrurists?

JustinDee

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Are you purposefully trying to foist a generous portion of the blame on a probable failed recognition bid to Hamas to divert attention from those who have the real power to scupper it?

What influence does Hamas have over whether the bid fails or not? Surely recognition would be seen as a victory for the non-violent Abbas/Fatah and delegitimize the Hamas turrurists?

It won't happen if Hamas continue to control Gaza. That's all I'm saying. There is nothing democratic or peaceful about Hamas' existance or methods and this does not look like changing, despite claims otherwise in propagandic tales of agreements etc.

Nothing diversionary in what I say on this subject.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

You conveniently and repeatedly continue to omit Hamas and Gaza.

I notice you still haven't answered the question from the OP, and Hamas are irrelevant to the point I was making.

JustinDee wrote: »

They're "Palestinians" too. Nothing is obvious with reference to that term except what is actually encompasses ie. Palestinians in Israel, West Bank AND Gaza.
Gaza is a problem regardless of your continual airbrushing of Hamas' involvement when it suits you.

Your obsession with Hamas to the point of ignoring the question asked in the thread is I have to say rather funny. Hamas are irrelevant to the point I made. They are not going to the UN, and they are not able to vote against Abbas going to the UN either, so they are irrelevant to the point I made. IMHO, your trying very hard to derail things.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

I notice you still haven't answered the question from the OP, and Hamas are irrelevant to the point I was making.

Your obsession with Hamas to the point of ignoring the question asked in the thread is I have to say rather funny. Hamas are irrelevant to the point I made. They are not going to the UN, and they are not able to vote against Abbas going to the UN either, so they are irrelevant to the point I made. IMHO, your trying very hard to derail things.

Rubbish. Nothing being derailed so you can park the amateur psychology. The term 'Palestinians' is being subjectively bandied about. Hamas is quite pertinent to the subject and to the question and no, it isn't obvious as to whom 'Palestinians' is referring to, if not all in the region. I never said they were going to vote or had a vote.

There are numerous reasons that countries are backing or opposing any such measures and all, both sides, are self-serving. Hamas are an important factor because they are part of this Palestinian state-proposal as protagonists or issues, whether you like it or not.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

Rubbish. Nothing being derailed so you can park the amateur psychology.

You didn't answer the question that the OP asked. You also didn't address anything that I said. Your response boils down to saying Hamas over and over again, without detailing, how they are going to stop the vote exactly, or what effect they will have, just that there against it and nothing more.

JustinDee wrote: »

The term 'Palestinians' is being subjectively bandied about.

I already clarified what I meant, and I find it hard to believe, you do not know who people are referring to.

JustinDee wrote: »

Hamas is quite pertinent to the subject and to the question and no, it isn't obvious as to whom 'Palestinians' is referring to, if not all in the region. I never said they were going to vote or had a vote.

Ok, so there not going to vote, and there against the vote. So what exactly are they going to do about it, that would derail it then? A simple question was asked in the first post, and you finally address it now.

JustinDee wrote: »

There are numerous reasons that countries are backing or opposing any such measures and all, both sides, are self-serving.

So it what took you several posts to even address this at all.

JustinDee wrote: »

Hamas are an important factor because they are part of this Palestinian state-proposal as protagonists or issues, whether you like it or not.

There irrelevant to what I said, and insisting that they are does not change this. I was talking about why other countries may be against it, and what Abbas etc might gain out of it, which has nothing to do with Hamas. Hamas being against this doesn't change anything I said at all, nor does it address what I said at all.

KyussBishop

Considering the OP seemed to be aiming at the slightly wider perspective of western countries in general, Hamas might not be a great focus, as I somehow doubt Israel and many western countries are against ICC membership, because they ardently support Hamas on the matter

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

You didn't answer the question that the OP asked. You also didn't address anything that I said. Your response boils down to saying Hamas over and over again, without detailing, how they are going to stop the vote exactly, or what effect they will have, just that there against it and nothing more

They affect the vote by, as I said, controlling in their way, a part of Palestine. Or if by some exclusive link behind the scenes, Palestine now refers solely to West Bank and East Jerusalem, does it?

wes wrote: »

I already clarified what I meant, and I find it hard to believe, you do not know who people are referring to

You cannot refer to Palestine and exclude Gaza. This, however, appears to be what you're doing.

wes wrote: »

There irrelevant to what I said, and insisting that they are does not change this. I was talking about why other countries may be against it, and what Abbas etc might gain out of it, which has nothing to do with Hamas. Hamas being against this doesn't change anything I said at all, nor does it address what I said at all.

They're not irrelevant. You asked why certain countries were against it and I gave you a reason. The same reason some are for it. Hamas simply controlling Gaza alone affects some countries' stance or in the very least, excuses it.

Shea O'Meara

The west only like to support democratically elected governments who think like they do. The whole 'support democracy for all people everywhere' is a myth. It only pertains to countries who look like they'll take on the U.S./Europe world view.
Canada's current conservative leader Harper is against it too.

I believe the big fear is if they, (Palestinians and the democratically elected Hamas) are given a voice on the world stage, they will have to be recognised as an occupied country. So seeing that the UN helped set up Israel....kind of an embarrassment they'd like to avoid, also Muslim run governments won't bend over backwards to assist US business concerns.

It's a capitalist driven racist travesty.

JustinDee

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

I believe the big fear is if they, (Palestinians and the democratically elected Hamas) . . .

There hasn't been an election in Gaza since 2006. There is no opposition party in existance there as none are allowed to stand. Elections in Gaza, despite promises from Hamas, were abandoned yet again in August this year.

Nodin

It would appear the French have decided to vote "oui".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20514194

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

They affect the vote by, as I said, controlling in their way, a part of Palestine. Or if by some exclusive link behind the scenes, Palestine now refers solely to West Bank and East Jerusalem, does it?

How exactly does Hamas exclude Gaza from this vote? The vote will include Gaza, so again what are you talking about.

Also, there going for non-membership observer status, which isn't the same as you know a state.

JustinDee wrote: »

You cannot refer to Palestine and exclude Gaza. This, however, appears to be what you're doing.

How are they excluded? The UN vote doesn't stipulate that Gaza is separate.

JustinDee wrote: »

They're not irrelevant. You asked why certain countries were against it and I gave you a reason.

Really, you seem to detail that Hamas are against it, and thats about it.

JustinDee wrote: »

The same reason some are for it. Hamas simply controlling Gaza alone affects some countries' stance or in the very least, excuses it.

Ok, but that not there sole reason, right? Care to expand beyond Hamas, being the only reason....

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

How exactly does Hamas exclude Gaza from this vote? The vote will include Gaza, so again what are you talking about.

Also, there going for non-membership observer status, which isn't the same as you know a state.

How are they excluded? The UN vote doesn't stipulate that Gaza is separate.

Really, you seem to detail that Hamas are against it, and thats about it.

Ok, but that not there sole reason, right? Care to expand beyond Hamas, being the only reason....

It isn't me excluding Hamas or Gaza, its you who insists there is no problem by only referring to Fatah and West Bank when referring to Palestinians or Palestine.

Knock on the head the arguing with me as if I was against the two-state solution or was even a Zionist.
So you don't see Hamas's grip on Gaza being a problem to accept for some members? I do, and obviously so do others. Their inclusion in the process and region requires a lot more consideration. My point at the beginning before all the usual pap, was that Hamas' attitude to the ICC would be interesting as they would be just as culpable for charges in its jurisdiction. Hamas are part of the Palestine that is being talked about as is Gaza. That's why I answer as I do. Not diversionary. Not to derail. No underlying reasons. Nothing suss.
My opinion based on my experience of the region and what I keep in touch with.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

It isn't me excluding Hamas or Gaza, its you who insists there is no problem by only referring to Fatah and West Bank when referring to Palestinians or Palestine.

The vote would include the whole lot. I never said they Gaza was excluded.

JustinDee wrote: »

Knock on the head the arguing with me as if I was against the two-state solution or was even a Zionist.

I never said any such thing.

JustinDee wrote: »

So you don't see Hamas's grip on Gaza being a problem to accept for some members? I do, and obviously so do others.

I am sure those who are bothered wouldn't vote regardless of Hamas. There a convenient excuse by the usual suspects, who have always essentially supported a Greater Israel.

JustinDee wrote: »

Their inclusion in the process and region requires a lot more consideration.

Hamas is being blocked by the West and Israel, who don't really want to deal with them.

JustinDee wrote: »

My point at the beginning before all the usual pap, was that Hamas' attitude to the ICC would be interesting as they would be just as culpable for charges in its jurisdiction.

Why would they care? They can be killed anytime, or arrested without trial anytime by Israel. The ICC would be a huge step up from the current situation for them.

JustinDee wrote: »

Hamas are part of the Palestine that is being talked about as is Gaza. That's why I answer as I do. Not diversionary. Not to derail. No underlying reasons. Nothing suss.

Except that Hamas seems to be the only thing you mention at all in regard to this.

JustinDee wrote: »

My opinion based on my experience of the region and what I keep in touch with.

You entitled to it, and I disagree, that its all about Hamas. There just the latest excuse for some countries and nothing more.

Higher

Why would Hamas be a reason for people to block Palestine joining the ICC?

Lets just call a spade a spade here, Justindee doesn't want the Palestinians to have the same rights that most other people on this planet have. Hes happy for them to continue to live as second class citizens under an apartheid regime and for Israel to be completely unanswerable. The idea of Palestinians having equal rights to Israelis is apparently unfathomable to the mind of JustinDee. Sometimes I swear that some of the posters here read like Crow Law apologists from the 1950s when they discuss the Israeli issue :rolleyes:

Really pathetic, put politics aside for a moment and have some dignity for the human rights of all people. Hamas are irrelevant and are just being used for childish political point scoring by the local Israeli War Crime apologist, JustinDee.

Brown Bomber

wes wrote: »

As for why people are against it, well its a way for the Palestinians to get some tiny amount of leverage against Israel. Perhaps they could even get a court decision against settlements, and it would even the playing field a tiny bit, and its a great avenue for another form of non-violent resistance.

There is more to it than that. Observer status would give Palestine control of it's territorial waters (along with the billions of dollars worth of gas in offshore fields) and airspace, which theoretically ends the blockade.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323894704578115441774197344.html

Brown Bomber

JustinDee wrote: »

Take a step back and look at the quote you gave. The issue is that Hamas, not only Israel, would be brought within the jurisdiction and made answerable also.
Hamas are hardly going to like that now, are they?

As they say, context is everything.

Hamas backs Abbas UN move in rare show of Palestinian unity

http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/hamas-backs-abbas-un-move-in-rare-show-of-palestinian-unity/

JustinDee

Higher wrote: »

well there goes Justindee's only argument....

Ignoring that earlier tirade of name-calling of yours and on the contrary, I'll welcome Hamas being answerable to the ICC. As with Netanyahu's govt, they'll have plenty of explaining to do. Let's see if they're as enthusiastic then.

Higher

JustinDee wrote: »

Ignoring that earlier tirade of name-calling of yours and on the contrary, I'll welcome Hamas being answerable to the ICC. As with Netanyahu's govt, they'll have plenty of explaining to do. Let's see if they're as enthusiastic then.

So you support the Palestinian UN bid?

Memnoch

JustinDee wrote: »

Ignoring that earlier tirade of name-calling of yours and on the contrary, I'll welcome Hamas being answerable to the ICC. As with Netanyahu's govt, they'll have plenty of explaining to do. Let's see if they're as enthusiastic then.

You are applying a severe case of false equivalence here. And considering your posts I find it hard to think that this is not deliberate.

The problem with the status quo is that Hamas ARE answerable AND accountable. They are considered a terrorist organisation and their leaders and members are routinely assassinated by Israel. So to pretend that Hamas are somehow above the law or justice, or at the very least Israeli justice is a complete abdication of reality. When Hamas commit crimes or acts of terrorism they can be and are held to account by Israel. However, when Israel or its actors commit crimes there is no avenue of redress of the people of Palestine, whether they live in Gaza or the West Bank.

Israel have VERY MUCH acted with IMPUNITY and have been ABOVE the law. And that is what is the key issue at stake here. Israel and their supporters shudder at the idea of Israel having to face any kind of legal accountability for their continuing crimes against the Palestinian people.

While they may chose to excempt themselves from the jurisdiction of the ICC, it will still be hugely negative publicity for them if cases can be brought. As a poster earlier pointed out in this same thread, it is a fantastic opportunity for non-violent resistance by palestinians and it is an opportunity for the rest of the world to give a voice to the voiceless oppressed.

Hearing people make such spurious excuses when you know that in reality their only agenda is to allow Israel to continue with impunity makes me sick to my guts.

The state of Israel is an apartheid, terrorist regime and it is high time they are held to account for their crimes against humanity.

BlaasForRafa

Memnoch wrote: »

The state of Israel is an apartheid, terrorist regime and it is high time they are held to account for their crimes against humanity.

The use of extreme blanket statements like that just kill any chance of a reasonable debate. Also attitudes like that ensure that Israel will never submit to the ICC because they know they'll never get a fair hearing.

Nodin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The use of extreme blanket statements like that just kill any chance of a reasonable debate. Also attitudes like that ensure that Israel will never submit to the ICC because they know they'll never get a fair hearing.

This may come as a shock to you, but nobody here is on the ICC (to the best of my knowledge).

Memnoch

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The use of extreme blanket statements like that just kill any chance of a reasonable debate. Also attitudes like that ensure that Israel will never submit to the ICC because they know they'll never get a fair hearing.

I'm just telling it like it is. The idea that Israel 'won't get a fair hearing,' at the ICC is close to the most delusional thing I've read on this forum in a while and just goes to show how far out of touch with reality Israel's supporters are.

My statement is no more extreme than the terrorist, apartheid actions of the state of Israel.

Mr.Micro

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm just telling it like it is. The idea that Israel 'won't get a fair hearing,' at the ICC is close to the most delusional thing I've read on this forum in a while and just goes to show how far out of touch with reality Israel's supporters are.

My statement is no more extreme than the terrorist, apartheid actions of the state of Israel.

Israel would not get a fair hearing, sounds more like a lame cop out, if that is a real reason why Israel would be against the ICC. Could it be more to do with Israel could not get away with a lot of its actions, covert or otherwise, if it was signed up to the ICC?

Shea O'Meara

JustinDee wrote: »

There hasn't been an election in Gaza since 2006. There is no opposition party in existance there as none are allowed to stand. Elections in Gaza, despite promises from Hamas, were abandoned yet again in August this year.

So it would be great for all concerned if the Palestinians had a voice on the world stage.
Hamas being side lined and labeled as terrorists by the western world will not solve anything.

If the UN gave Texas to all the Buddhists displaced by the Chinese, would you expect any kind of hassle at all from the Texans? Would the Texas Rangers be then considered a terrorist group? Not really too far a stretch of an analogy, but I agree it does sound ridiculous that such a thing could happen, doesn't it?

hatrickpatrick

As I feared, we've drifted from the original question somewhat. Again, why specifically does Britain (and others, indeed) have an issue with the idea of the Palestinians taking Israel to court in the ICC? What harm could come of it, apart from holding people accountable for their crimes?
If no crime has been committed, they will not be penalized. If someone is a criminal, they should be penalized.

Are their legitimate reasons to oppose such a court case? What negative consequences are there that I'm overlooking? Or am I sadly correct in thinking that it's a very cynical "closet" support for Israel being allowed to continue its expansionism?

As I said in the OP, I'm trying very hard to come up with alternative explanations for the near panic at the prospect of Israel being taken to court, but I'm not having much success...

Mr.Micro

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I feared, we've drifted from the original question somewhat. Again, why specifically does Britain (and others, indeed) have an issue with the idea of the Palestinians taking Israel to court in the ICC? What harm could come of it, apart from holding people accountable for their crimes?
If no crime has been committed, they will not be penalized. If someone is a criminal, they should be penalized.

Are their legitimate reasons to oppose such a court case? What negative consequences are there that I'm overlooking? Or am I sadly correct in thinking that it's a very cynical "closet" support for Israel being allowed to continue its expansionism?

As I said in the OP, I'm trying very hard to come up with alternative explanations for the near panic at the prospect of Israel being taken to court, but I'm not having much success...

I may be completely wrong, but Britain may be trying use the promise of the "yes "vote to push the US and Israel to do something to sort the Palestinian situation. Alternatively, Britain may just be posturing playing the good guy, knowing that it may not have to vote "yes", as the conditions attached are exacting. If Israel was accountable to the ICC, it would not be able to continue as it is now IMO, without constant referral to the iCC, a permanent constraint to its programme.

JustinDee

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I feared, we've drifted from the original question somewhat. Again, why specifically does Britain (and others, indeed) have an issue with the idea of the Palestinians taking Israel to court in the ICC? What harm could come of it, apart from holding people accountable for their crimes?
If no crime has been committed, they will not be penalized. If someone is a criminal, they should be penalized.

Are their legitimate reasons to oppose such a court case? What negative consequences are there that I'm overlooking? Or am I sadly correct in thinking that it's a very cynical "closet" support for Israel being allowed to continue its expansionism?

As I said in the OP, I'm trying very hard to come up with alternative explanations for the near panic at the prospect of Israel being taken to court, but I'm not having much success...

There isn't a panic about Israel and the ICC though as there is no change. Syria could have charged them over border incursions around the Golanim or tit-for-tat potshots across a line as could Lebanon but Israel never gave a stuff. As said, if anyone has anything to fear, it would be Hamas, who would as Israel would do, treat sny judgement or inquiry with contempt. ICC interest will definitely affect the vote on any form of statehood or membership status. Apparently however if this viewpoint or assessment is taken on board, it means you're a pro- Zionist warmonger.
For the two-state solution to be any way successful, Hamas, Likud, Lieberman must all be outside any influential reach. This is why I think time is not right. They won't get another go for yonks if next effort fails.

cyberhog

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is everyone so desperate to prevent Palestinians joining the ICC?

Huh? I don't think that is true. Most observers are saying 130 to 150 of the UN's 193 member states will vote in favour of PA bid.

Memnoch

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Israel would not get a fair hearing, sounds more like a lame cop out, if that is a real reason why Israel would be against the ICC. Could it be more to do with Israel could not get away with a lot of its actions, covert or otherwise, if it was signed up to the ICC?

Yes, the great irony of that is that that is exactly what Israeli supporters can't fathom the idea of. A FAIR hearing, which they most definitely would get at the ICC. But when you're used to being able to investigate and pass judgement on your own crimes, then the idea of a neutral, impartial arbiter or judge must seem horrendously unfair.

JustinDee

Higher wrote: »

So you support the Palestinian UN bid?

With Hamas involved, whom I object to as I do the Likud or Beinetu, the jury is out for now, in my opinion anyway.

For the bid to be ratified, stability would be a requirement and not the repeated possibility civil war again between Hamas and Fatah (we've heard all this supportive talk between both factions before and know better). If Hamas are willing to go down the democratic route while in this current alleged accord with Fatah, they should allow free and contested elections to take place in Gaza. Also I would like to see the current Israeli govt as a non-Likud/Beinetu majority, rather than a right-wing coalition that requires centre-right to far-right MKs in order to keep a majority.

The timing is all wrong at the moment. At the very earliest, the UN bid should be post-Israeli election and preferably after elections in Gaza and West Bank.

Rhys Essien

What will happen with 'Observer Status' for Palestine.

Will Israel have to start pulling out of the West Bank?

Will airports be allowed in Gaza and West Bank?

Will the blockade of Gaza end?

Is FULL membership needed for the above?

stuar

138 countries voted in favour; Canada, 8 others voted against.

Canada, U.S. vocally oppose vote

In the General Assembly, 138 countries voted yes, including France, Turkey, Russia and China. Nine countries voted no, and 41 countries abstained.
Canada voted against the bid, along with the U.S. and Israel.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/11/29/un-palestinian-state-israel-vote.html

What is the problem with Palestinians getting a little more recognition, these people have suffered enough.

Anyway 2 victories in 2 weeks.

Viva La Palestinia

UDP

Ireland voted in favour. Well done for not being a pussy and abstaining.

spank_inferno

From a complete outsider this can only be a good thing.

After all, the US et al espouse this "two state solution"
Well, such a solution cannot happen unless Palestine becomes a state.

Plus they are losing land at a rate of knots.
From their perspective, the sooner & harder they push for full statehood and full UN membership, the better.

This username meets Guidelines

Because most people suppor the Zionists.

matty876

Why? Because life is tough.

There I said it

Dotsie~tmp

The UN elevates the Palastinians, part of who's goverments stated goal in their charter is the annihalation of the Jewish state in Palastine (another UN member). They see no conflict in this either it seems. Just another can of petrol on the eventual fire that probably going to consume the region.

The Israelis have no intention of allowing themselves to be voted out of existance or voluntarily marching into the sea. They see a large war coming in the future and are trying to get a layered ballistic shield in place in time while retarding nuclear progress in the region. The Palastinians would cease to exist in such a scenario. Those are the stakes. I dont think Europe want to believe it.

MrMister

When the Palestinians resort to violence, they're condemned by the US and Israel. When they take the peaceful route through the UN, they're condemned by the US and Israel. I guess they should just shut up, bow their heads and accept what Israel does to them. I find it curious that Israel constantly brings up Palestinian refusal to recognise Israel as a state as an impediment to peace talks while at the same time they refuse to reciprocate.

JustinDee

MrMister wrote: »

When the Palestinians resort to violence, they're condemned by the US and Israel. When they take the peaceful route through the UN, they're condemned by the US and Israel. I guess they should just shut up, bow their heads and accept what Israel does to them. I find it curious that Israel constantly brings up Palestinian refusal to recognise Israel as a state as an impediment to peace talks while at the same time they refuse to reciprocate.

The Palestinians includes Hamas and cohorts, who have definitely not pursued the peaceful route, regardless of claims of military leaders holding peace deals in their hands when killed going out for a pack of cigs.

Both sides claim the other refutes peace efforts. That hasn't changed in decades.

Some outcomes of UNGA decision vote could include:-

- Israeli coalition losing out in upcoming elections with minimal representation in Knesset as a result. Tough part to hope for is a majority winner not having to rely on right-wing minorities to form a coalition government. The Likud have already lost swing voters following the merger with Beitenu.

- Hamas' influence being lessened in Palestinian affairs, following the surge in popularity of Abbas and consequentially, Fatah. This could happen so much that they will finally call an election in Gaza. What would occur if Fatah were not only allowed to stand in Gaza but won an election there? Tensions in Hamas leadership could also see influential Hamas leaders move to Fatah.

- The ICC factor can take the Israeli settlement movement to task as well as Hamas for the methods of their regime's control in Gaza. This would be purely symbolic however as neither the Israeli govt or Hamas would respect the ICC, regardless of what is said in public.

Many sides to this conflict. Its not just a case of Israelis v Palestinians. Rather than across the lines, problems are right at the very doorstep of each protagonist. Involvement of sworn-enemy proxies using the region as a front will not help either (US, EU v Iran, Russia, Lebanon) with the difference being Syria's influence being now almost shorn.