Israeli forign minister intrviewed by Pat Kenny on NewsTalk today.

azul

Very disappointed with Kennys meek interview when he han an opportunity to hold the man to account for Israels recent war crimes in Gaza. No mention of the 500 children murdered. No mention of the hospitals and schools bombed. The minister even had the cheek to slip in a comment that Israel hoped to join the EU in the future. I ask the question . . . Did NewsTalk get a payment from the embassy to allow this individual to speak for so long with out being properly challenged. Absolutely shameful.

conorh91

azul wrote: »

he han an opportunity to hold the man to account for Israels recent war crimes in Gaza.

He was, if I remember correctly, a deputy of the Secretary of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, i.e. a civil servant.

It did strike me as not being a particularly searching interview when I heard it this morning, but PK did raise the issue of war crimes and the irrational nature of some Israeli strikes, as well as Israel's claim to the disputed territories.

Some people will never be happy unless the interviewer is shrieking at a suitably high pitch. Those kind of tactics really don't impress or help anyone.

azul

conorh91 wrote:

Some people will never be happy unless the interviewer is shrieking at a suitably high pitch. Those kind of tactics really don't impress or help anyone.

I didnt suggest he shriek at high pitch. Pat Kenny is well able to be very direct and ask very arkward questions. In this case he didn't. His approach was very tame in comparrison to other people he's interviewed in the past. Israeli has committed war crimes and should not be given lengthy air time on a national radio station to spread propaganda. "Ireland is a friend of Israel" Really?

Skrynesaver

azul wrote: »

"Ireland is a friend of Israel"

... In fairness telling someone they're out of order is an act of friendship, may not be interpreted that way at the time mind

conorh91

azul wrote: »

"Ireland is a friend of Israel" Really?

That was an assertion made by the Israeli representative, not PK.

Butting in and denying that this country has a friendly relationship with Israel would seem petty, pointless, and actually fundamentally untrue.

But I accept that's what a lot of people want, haughtiness and bluster.

Manach

Being technical no war crimes were committed. In that the International court that does not have jurisdiction. But that is not to say that Ireland officially or Rte should not raise this issue, but other attributes trump human rights in international relations; such as trade.

Lemming

Manach wrote: »

Being technical no war crimes were committed. In that the International court that does not have jurisdiction.

Israel is a signatory to articles I through IV of the Geneva Convention and has been since 1951. There is no case of "being technical" about it.

Manach

Lemming wrote: »

Israel is a signatory to articles I through IV of the Geneva Convention and has been since 1951. There is no case of "being technical" about it.

Offhand, my understanding is that the Palestinian side has to sign as well. This was taken from my browsing a while back on the official ICC site as I wondered why there was no investigations from that body. Hence, being technical, that is why that is so.

Lemming

Manach wrote: »

Offhand, my understanding is that the Palestinian side has to sign as well. This was taken from my browsing a while back on the official ICC site as I wondered why there was no investigations from that body. Hence, being technical, that is why that is so.

No, they don't. The Geneva convention - if you ever read any of it - covers just about any scenario you can think of regards mililtary action. The Palestinians not being signatories does not give the Israelis a free pass on observering it. I would go further to point out that the Palestinians are not a 'state', so saying that because they aren't signatories means the Geneva convention doesn't matter is a cynical and dishonest argument.

Manach

As I mentioned, it is the ICC that is the relevant authority here. It has the remit of the protection of prosecuting individuals for violation of international human rights, e.g. as happened in Liberia. This is based on the The Rome Statute (not Geneva convention).

This is the press release I was initially referring to, explaining why they have disclaimed jurisdiction over the conflict.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/otp-st-14-09-02.aspx

Thus the excessive attacks on civilians are a moralcrime but in international law there is a lack of jurisdiction for it to be prosecuted so technically there is no judging body (such as the ICC) to designate it a war crime.

Lemming

Interesting. And appalling to imply that because the Palestinians are effectively stateless and thus unable to apply to the treaty of Rome, that any other state - in this case the Israeli state - can do whatever it likes despite being signatories to the Geneva Convention.

Sort of calls into the question the whole point of being a signatory in the first place.

Nodin

Lemming wrote: »

Interesting. And appalling to imply that because the Palestinians are effectively stateless and thus unable to apply to the treaty of Rome, that any other state - in this case the Israeli state - can do whatever it likes despite being signatories to the Geneva Convention.

Sort of calls into the question the whole point of being a signatory in the first place.

Israel states that - through some legalese - the Geneva conventions do not apply to the Occupied Territories. Though this view has little credence elsewhere, no one is prepared to do anything about it.

DarkyHughes

azul wrote: »

Very disappointed with Kennys meek interview when he han an opportunity to hold the man to account for Israels recent war crimes in Gaza. No mention of the 500 children murdered. No mention of the hospitals and schools bombed. The minister even had the cheek to slip in a comment that Israel hoped to join the EU in the future. I ask the question . . . Did NewsTalk get a payment from the embassy to allow this individual to speak for so long with out being properly challenged. Absolutely shameful.

It's Pat Kenny, this guy treated the general in charge during Bloody Sunday as the second coming of Christ on the late show.

DarkyHughes

Manach wrote: »

Being technical no war crimes were committed. In that the International court that does not have jurisdiction. But that is not to say that Ireland officially or Rte should not raise this issue, but other attributes trump human rights in international relations; such as trade.

Killing civilians on purpose is not a war crime?

Guess those poor Nazi's shouldn't have been hung after all.

barneystinson

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Killing civilians on purpose is not a war crime?

Guess those poor Nazi's shouldn't have been hung after all.

A bit rich, coming from an IRA supporter - Pretty sure they killed a few civilians in their time, no? Were they not war crimes?

Black Swan

barneystinson wrote: »

A bit rich, coming from an IRA supporter -

MOD REMINDER:
Please focus on making contributions to the thread topic, and not each other.

Phoebas

azul wrote: »

I ask the question . . . Did NewsTalk get a payment from the embassy to allow this individual to speak for so long with out being properly challenged.

You think Newstalk might have been paid off and Pat Kenny was part of a conspiracy?
That's sounds pretty crazy!

CrabRevolution

To be fair, Israel do seem to throw money at things like that. On Facebook anyway I often see sponsored links and ads about "Support Israel" and "Show love for Israel". They aren't about tourism or attracting investment either, just seem to be general mouthpieces for how great Israel is and how hard it supposedly has it.

It was a strange contrast in June/July of my newsfeed being full of articles and photos of the latest atrocity in Gaza and friends making pro-Palestine statements etc. then to the right hand side would be an ad saying "Go Israel!"

I'm not a raving Gaza lover who changed my profile to a Palestinian flag either, so I'm not sure how these ads target me.

Phoebas

CrabRevolution wrote: »

To be fair, Israel do seem to throw money at things like that. On Facebook anyway I often see sponsored links and ads about "Support Israel" and "Show love for Israel". They aren't about tourism or attracting investment either, just seem to be general mouthpieces for how great Israel is and how hard it supposedly has it.

It was a strange contrast in June/July of my newsfeed being full of articles and photos of the latest atrocity in Gaza and friends making pro-Palestine statements etc. then to the right hand side would be an ad saying "Go Israel!"

I'm not a raving Gaza lover who changed my profile to a Palestinian flag either, so I'm not sure how these ads target me.

Are those ads paid for by the state of Israel or - more likely - by some sort of third-party Political Action Committee?

CrabRevolution

Phoebas wrote: »

Are those ads paid for by the state of Israel or - more likely - by some sort of third-party Political Action Committee?

I try not to give them the oxygen of attention by clicking on too many, but of the one or two I did look at they have names along the lines of "Israeli Support Commitee". I'd imagine if you dug deeper they'd have some connection to the Israeli embassy/government. That said, I have no evidence.

miss tickle

Manach wrote: »

Offhand, my understanding is that the Palestinian side has to sign as well. This was taken from my browsing a while back on the official ICC site as I wondered why there was no investigations from that body. Hence, being technical, that is why that is so.

They're still waiting on Abbas to sign up, Hamas have already agreed but he is stalling for some reason. According to this report Israel has already lodged a complaint with the ICC against Palestine, so maybe this is his reason for delay.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/resources/commentary-and-analysis/14002-why-is-abbas-refusing-to-sign-the-rome-statute

So, could it be that Mahmoud Abbas is himself afraid that he could be prosecuted? That may be so. This is a constant ploy used against him. In April of this year at the International Criminal Court (ICC), an Israeli lawyer, Mordechai Tzivin, lodged a complaint against Abbas and nine members of Hamas for war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression. This did not deter Hamas from signing the agreement. On 3 September, The Israel Law Centre announced that it had formally requested the ICC's prosecutor to open an investigation into war crimes committed by Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal during "Operation Protective Edge", Israel's brutal military attack against the civilians of the Gaza Strip.

Nodin

miss tickle wrote: »

They're still waiting on Abbas to sign up, Hamas have already agreed but he is stalling for some reason. According to this report Israel has already lodged a complaint with the ICC against Palestine, so maybe this is his reason for delay.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/resources/commentary-and-analysis/14002-why-is-abbas-refusing-to-sign-the-rome-statute

So, could it be that Mahmoud Abbas is himself afraid that he could be prosecuted? That may be so. This is a constant ploy used against him. In April of this year at the International Criminal Court (ICC), an Israeli lawyer, Mordechai Tzivin, lodged a complaint against Abbas and nine members of Hamas for war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression. This did not deter Hamas from signing the agreement. On 3 September, The Israel Law Centre announced that it had formally requested the ICC's prosecutor to open an investigation into war crimes committed by Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal during "Operation Protective Edge", Israel's brutal military attack against the civilians of the Gaza Strip.

Realistically, it could end up that all crimes on the Palestinian side are investigated and punished, while Israel is either left, or escapes sanction.

Gringo180

Manach wrote: »

Being technical no war crimes were committed. In that the International court that does not have jurisdiction. But that is not to say that Ireland officially or Rte should not raise this issue, but other attributes trump human rights in international relations; such as trade.

What a load of absolute nonsense.

Manach

Gringo180 wrote: »

What a load of absolute nonsense.

So please explain, in light of the subsequent links relating to the ICC which explained their position, why you believe this to be so in terms of normative International law?