Palestinians say they may have no choice but to take Israel to Hague court

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Palestinians say they may have no choice but to take Israel to Hague court

By Louis Charbonneau
UNITED NATIONS | Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:40pm EST

(Reuters) - The Palestinians declared Wednesday that they will have no choice but to complain about Israel to the International Criminal Court if the Jewish state proceeds with plans to build housing on land the Palestinians want for a future state.

Speaking to reporters after a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on the Middle East, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki said his government's decision will largely depend on what the Israelis do with the so-called "E1" area outside the Arab suburbs of East Jerusalem.

"If Israel would like to go further by implementing the E1 (settlement) plan and the other related plans around Jerusalem then yes, we will be going to the ICC," he said. "We have no other choice. It depends on the Israeli decision."

The Palestinians have previously suggested that bringing their various disputes with Israel to the Hague-based court was an option, but Malki's remarks on Wednesday were the most direct threat his government has made against the Jewish state to date.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/23/us-palestinians-israel-un-idUSBRE90M1EX20130123

[delrem]

1. Why "may"?

The world body has declared, year after year, that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are *illegal*.
These are settlements that *already exist*.
They didn't make this declaration out of empty puffery, they made it after each countries' best legal experts in international law concluded that the case against the Israeli settlement project was in fact prosecutable. Likewise UN resolution 194 isn't empty puffery, the member nations of the UN pass it year after year because the terms described in the resolution exactly mirror terms stated, and signed onto by signatories, in the Geneva conventions and other conventions of international law. In fact, the conditions under which Israel was admitted to the UN demand recognition of precisely these international humanitarian laws.

It's a rhetorical question: Why "may"?
The answer is dead obvious: Abu Mazen, the bought and paid for Abbas. The quisling traitor.
This man is so WRONG for the Palestinian situation it's blood curdling. At least, if one gives a shit about the future of the Palestinian people.

[shira]

2. The world body (UN) is a pile of crap, and against Palestinian human rights

They're the ones, through UNWRA, perpetuating a crisis for refugees in camps suffering under apartheid conditions in Arab regimes. Rather than close down and demand that refugees be settled throughout the mideast and world, they pander to Arab leadership that cynically uses them as political pawns.

That your lot plays along speaks volumes as well.

We're talking the same UN responsible for Rwanda, Srebrenica, and now Sudan. WRT Sudan, it's had the most difficult time acknowledging a genocide going on there. How racist can this "world body" get, considering its past with Rwanda and now the Sudanese?

It's so bad the UN has Sudan (Bashir's bozos) on the UN Human Rights Committee.

Do you ever see UN resolutions against Arab regimes for keeping Palestinian refugees penned up in apartheid conditions?

==============

So really, who cares what the non-democratic "world body" of criminals and scumbags say?

[Jefferson23]

3. If the PA ventures to take their case to the Hague, Israel will care, and worry, a lot.

If Israel continues to isolate itself, they may end up with an imposed peace agreement..one
people with your mindset would not be pleased with.

But you keep on singing that song that you don't care what anyone thinks.

[shira]

4. The question is why do you guys care what the UN rules?

Considering its inhumane and racist record with Rwanda, Srebrenica, Sudan, Oil for food, and the Nazi, Waldheim, as head of the institution, etc.?

FFS, it still has Syria and Sudan on its HR committee. And you take them seriously WRT the HR situation in Israel.

Why?

Are you a Palestine-Firster?

===============

Now WRT the Hague and major HR organizations (Amnesty, HRW) why are they silent WRT this wonderful "world body", the UN? And WRT their silence, why should we give a crap what they adjucate?

[delrem]

5. You are frightened witless by international humanitarian law.

That's it in a nutshell, the only interpretation that could explain your non sequiturs.

[shira]

7. No, I really don't care. And there's nothing the UN or Hague can or will do....

...to force Israel into putting Jews, once again, into the same situation they were in pre-WW2.

Those days are over.

You seriously underestimate Israel's very real security concerns when you expect Israel's majority Jewish population to just commit national suicide.

[delrem]

10. I think the whole world understands your kind of zealotry. n/t

[shira]

11. The same world in favor of a vile UNHR community composed of Sudan, Syria, Libya....

.....and slave-holding Mauritania, while Israel is the only nation on the planet incapable of being on that board - due to blatant bigotry that bars them from holding any position there?

That world?

Please. They have no business judging anyone.

Here's a list of their most despicable acts just from 2012:
http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1289203/apps/s/content.asp?ct=12741971

Why would any liberal or progressive take such a vile, racist, and ridiculously inhumane body like that seriously?

Why trust anything coming out of the UN?

--------------------------------------------

To answer you more clearly, I used to care. I don't anymore.

[delrem]

12. Your hatred for the world seems to know no bounds...

It's like trying to hold a discussion with Pamela Geller. Her repertoire of reasons to hate is endless, so who would try other than someone looking for reasons to expand their hatred of the same?

[holdencaufield]

13. Not hatred for the world at all ...

... the world is, in many respects, a really great place. I've visited most of it and can attest to its greatness (except for maybe France). What is being objected to here is a group of corrupt, cynical, opportunists out to live large and grab all they can IN THE NAME OF the world at large.

I've worked with the UN in two different countries and been a contractor to the UN in New York and I can attest to the corruption, bigotry and bureaucratic stupidity. If you look at all the damage and waste the UN is capable of now -- can you imagine how horrific it would be if they had any REAL power?

The UN might claim to speak for the world, but they don't speak for MY world.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

18. "a group of corrupt, cynical, opportunists out to live large and grab all they can"

You just described Israeli colonialism perfectly.

[shira]

21. And there you go again with the role reversal tactic. Any vile act others are guilty of....

...then Israel must be guilty of too. That way you can avoid having to defend the indefensible (UN) that you deem reliable, humane, and honorable.

I know it's hard for a humanist like yourself to even attempt to defend the ridiculously vile UN and its disgusting HR leadership.

That's why you're so desperate to deflect and stay on the offensive vs. Israel.

Good, disingenuous tactic if you can get away with it. Maybe on another board...

[delrem]

20. I suppose holdencaufield/shira, tweedledum/tweedledee

You play a tag team?
The fact that you/shira despise the UN makes no more difference than a fart in a windstorm. The international court refers to international humanitarian law, which, regardless of your contempt for it, is something that Israel signed onto.

Now, if you/shira have something intelligible to say beyond your reasons for despising the UN, despising Palestinians, despising Arabs, etc., go for it, but if all you're going to do is continue stating how much you despise X, Y, and Z, then you're only verifying my opinion that you/shira are a troll.

[shira]

22. delrem, it is you as a self-proclaimed humanist who sees the UN as a moral & responsible....

...world body that can be trusted with matters pertaining to Human Rights.

Here's a tip:

If you're going to invoke HR against Israel, don't do it via the UN. We're going to call you on that every single time and remind you how outrageously inhumane and racist the UNHRC is. Ergo, their extremely hostile view of the Jewish state. They simply have no credibility.

==========

Another thing: Israel did not sign on with the Hague. Nor should they be expected to.

==========

Lastly - with respect to UN resolutions and International Law, you really need to check out the San Remo Conference of 1920 WRT Balfour and the Palestine Mandate. Therein you will find that there is legal basis for a Jewish homeland in all the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan.

Remember that when you bring up laws WRT Israelis who cannot legally live outside the '67 borders.

IOW, stay consistent. If you want to go by UN resolutions, then you honor all of them. Especially the one that led to the very establishment of a Jewish homeland and Israel.

[delrem]

42. responses 1 and 2, and a question.

Thank you for providing some substance to respond to.

1a. The Geneva conventions and international human rights law is not anti-Semitic.
Israel did sign onto the Geneva conventions.
Israel is a member of the UN.
Israel did sign onto a commitment w.r.t. the indigenous population when it entered the U.N., to treat all in accordance with established norms, and this does include a commitment to war refugees.

1b. None of these facts has anything whatever to do with human rights problems in Mauritania, a country in which the UNHCR is indeed very active, and is very aware of the depth of systemic problem.
None of these facts have anything whatever to do with whether Israel now lives up to its commitments, its responsibility, or whether Israel now is willing to contest its case in a court of international law or not. "Look over there" red herrings, and "the whole world is anti-Semitic" whines don't really cut it when discussing facts directly concerning Palestine, Israeli settlements, Palestinian refugees, and the systematic annexation of Palestinian land.

2. I find it odd that you should reference the British Mandate of 1920, rather than UN resolutions 181 and 194 which outline the explicit *conditions* after which Israel was admitted as member of the UN. Perhaps your preference for an earlier time, before Israel was established and before a refugee problem existed, is because those days were a bit simpler. So much simpler that this could be written in all innocence:

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

That one sentence (Balfour declaration) pretty much summarizes the content of the British Mandate, and unlike your truncated reference, includes the rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine. These rights, which you implicitly recognize to exist *before* the wars that drove Palestinians to flee, *includes* the rights of those refugees to return. And this is in turn recognized by UN resolution 194, which you reject.

Question: In effect you have been and are trying to argue the case for the Bennett _Home Party_ program to annex the entirety of the West Bank (a very weird 'belongs to Jews by birthright' argument), allowing for a few small concentrated areas for the Palestinian population - who've been driven out. You argue to deny RoR for Palestinians (demographic threat to the true and by natural/supernatural right owners of the land, the Jews, because 'Arabs and the rest of them are all terrorists!') Considering that because of Israel's military power, total US support and continuous rightward shift, the Home Party type program that you advocate is (IMO) likely to win very quickly now, what *solution* do you have for the "Palestinian problem". That is, these people will still *exist*, in the ghettos that Israel devises. Do you propose to just leave them there, under your guns, to stew until they die? Or what?

[shira]

46. Would you honor verdicts by KKK judges against black people?

So long as blacks are found guilty, they're accountable. Right? No problem with that?

One thing at a time first.

And BTW, your last 2 paragraphs are wrong. But I'll get to that once you answer.

[delrem]

47. troll. n/t

[shira]

52. Oh yes, proof that you lost the argument. It's pretty hard defending a human rights body....

...composed of the world's worst, racist human rights abusers.

But rather than try defending it - and we all know you can't - you resort to ad hominem.

That you support such a racist, inhumane, regressive kangaroo court speaks volumes on your views WRT human rights.

Game.
Set.
Match.

[delrem]

57. Troll. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

58. Laughably this is the new shtick in I/P.

If you can't defend what Israel has done or is doing then try and deflect and accuse other countries or the UN of being just as bad or slightly more so.

Hey guys. This is I/P. Let's focus on I/P if you can.

[delrem]

60. but very badly done trolling ...

Actually, very *very* poorly executed hasbara.

On that topic, this (dated) hasbara primer
http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf
makes for an interesting read. But I don't think the techniques it teaches apply very well to forum/groups such as this. They're much better suited to e.g. swarming an online news comments section, or "working" the general student body at an university.

Although the wujshasbara.pdf document distinguishes the two techniques of "scoring points" vs "debate", it doesn't cover "debate" very well. It is *very* revealing how "scoring points" is explained. What appears to be stuff belonging to a "debate" section is just references to canned responses to a wide variety of arguments, or to online repositories of canned responses. That isn't "debate", that's lip syncing. To give the document its due, it does call a spade a spade, it does correctly label the hasbara program as propaganda.

So it's understandable why hasbara, esp. when poorly executed, is indistinguishable from trolling. It doesn't intend to cross-communicate or reach a common understanding on *anything*, it intends to impress a narrative, to impress a vocabulary "Israel and Israelis good, Palestine and Arabs bad". That's the whole of it. The wujshasbara.pdf isn't shy about saying so, either.

A problem with the document is that, implicitly, it treats the Israeli hasbarist with the same contempt it treats the intended object of the hasbara project (it employs hasbara techniques on the potential hasbara propagandist). I'm still reading it, but a quick forward skim doesn't show anywhere it explains how to consult primary sources and learn about the full, global, context of issues - to do the real research necessary for actual debate. It seems to concentrate entirely on impressing a history of favorable (to Israel) vocabulary/snippets along with unfavorable (to Palestine, the Arab world in general) vocabulary/snippets. It doesn't take into account the stunting effect such a limited and *manipulated* world view might have on the potential hasbarist, and how unprepared such a person would be for engaging in actual one-on-one discussion/debate (not all discussions re. I/P need be debate, need to of opposing points). Or how *off-putting* this might be.

Anyhow, I've done the post/reply routine with shira enough to know the full extent of it, and that the interaction isn't healthy.

[shira]

62. If you want to discuss I/P, history, and international law that's one thing.

But when you sell yourself as a humanist concerned for Palestinian rights, that's another thing entirely.

Expect to be outed for that sanctimonious bullcrap.

And now that you have been, I'd be delighted to focus only other issues - history, I/P politics, or International Law regarding I/P.

Ready?

[shira]

66. I'm assuming you're reading this reply to you even though you cannot respond

I'm not bringing up the inhumane composition of the UNHRC to deflect from anything. That's part of explaining WHY their resolutions against Israel are ridiculous. It's not that I won't discuss those resolutions and am desperate to deflect.

From my POV, it's impossible to move on in a discussion with someone like you when you refuse to answer the simplest preliminary questions (why you find it okay and reasonable for a UN court composed of the world's most racist, genocidal thugs to adjucate on humanitarian law).

This is not a "look over there" distraction. If you're interested in that, look no further than as to WHY these horrific regimes WISH to be on humanitarian councils (to blame the "other" and deflect from their own abominable crimes).

How you get that this kind of discussion is "troll" like is beyond me. Just answer a simple question or two. When you refuse to do so, that shows me you realize your argument is total horse-shit and you're only here to propagandize.

How's this? Why not just agree that the UNHRC has a major credibility issue. They do obsess on Israel to the detriment of 100's of millions worldwide. However, they do a good job ruling on I/P. How difficult would that be?

[shira]

61. Oh, actually I can defend. But you guys are mixing human rights with politics & law.....

Three different issues.

There is a method to the madness....

I'm focusing first and foremost on human rights and nothing else. When the sanctimonious anti-Israel contingent says they are for human rights, I can absolutely prove w/o any question they are not.

Now when it comes to law - and it appears you guys want to go there - we can do that too. In fact, now that you've all but conceded this isn't about human rights due to the fact you cannot defend your position WRT human rights, we can move on to that.

Ready?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

63. I am finished with you, Shira. You are not worth my time.

You have on three to four occasions now implied that I am some kind of agent of Hamas or sympathizer of them and other regimes.

Your shtick is old and I am finished with you.

I'll converse with the adults from now on.

[shira]

64. Fine. But when you converse with adults and bring up International Law....

...human rights, and political decisions, don't expect a free pass.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

17. If the Palestinians grievances are presented to the Hague, Shira,

I hope that Israel has a better defense than the one you are peddling WRT " They have no business judging anyone."

If any PA grievances are heard by the UN or Hague then Israel better get its shit together...unless it truly wants to be isolated. If that happens then the blame will lay solely at Israel's feet, and history will remember that moment: where Israel decided to be like every other nation that went against better judgement.

[shira]

23. Israel didn't sign up to be judged by the Hague. So Palestinian threats are irrelevant.

The UNHRC is a completely separate body.

That you respect it as a moral, humane, anti-racist body speaks volumes about your claims to be a humanist. It's impossible to defend a Human Rights apparatus that votes the most vile regimes into power. It's like putting an unrepentant, insane axe murderer in the home of their next would-be victims & giving said murderer the power to judge those victims.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

30. Israel apparently didn't sign up for common sense either.

Flail all they want, my friend, but the painful truth may bite Israel on the ass hard. What will Israel do then? Threaten the West?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

16. Now that is just shrill.

There has been absolutely no talk of ever doing what you have just described, my friend, by the UN or hague.

"...to force Israel into putting Jews, once again, into the same situation they were in pre-WW2."

Not only can you not prove that statement that the UN or Hague has any intention of ending the Israeli state, but it is both offensive and ludicrous that you would have the gall to write it. This kind of talk is what you find on the AM band on hate radio. This is the kind of thing that they crazies in the US believe about the UN: that it is going to take over and take all their guns away or make the USA part of a world government.

Shame on you for the false accusations.

Israel needs to live within its own borders, and if it can't then nuts.

[shira]

24. You realize who the nations are that are represented on every UN Human Rights Council?

They're trying their damndest to make every action Israel takes in defense against rockets or suicide attacks illegal.

There's nothing Israel can do that the UN doesn't find illegal in its defense against terror. Think about it. Now seriously, what can Israel do to defend itself legally? Think real hard on that one. Everything, and I mean everything they've tried is illegal by UNHR standards (which are much different for every other nation on the planet - including western ones like the USA, UK, NATO).

Think about the refugee camps and UNWRA. Why are they still there if not for the dream of RoR of all refugees into Israel, which would ignite a war? The UNWRA works in collaboration with inhumane, and deeply racist Arab regimes to keep the refugees in apartheid conditions so that RoR into Israel can someday be realized.

This isn't rocket science.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

31. Shira, Israel is in violation of how many UN resolutions,

and your stock answer is that, "There's nothing Israel can do that the UN doesn't find illegal..."

Wrong. What Israel has been doing WRT Palestine is illegal, and you just won't let that go. You have posted OPEDs suggesting that Israel is entitled to the WB, and that nonsense is just flat out wrong.

Stop accusing the whole world of victimizing Israel when Israel is creating a large part of the problem itself.

[shira]

37. Violations judged by whom? Syria? Sudan?

And based on what?

They ignore International Law (San Remo, Article 80) WRT the legality of a Jewish homeland west of Jordan.

Politically, they can do that all they want.

Legally, they don't have shit.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

39. Keep on clutching at those straws, Shira.

[shira]

40. So you have nothing in response. Typical.

I'll just have to keep reminding you of your reluctance to criticize the UN for putting serial human rights abusers (the absolute worst in the world) in charge of its UNHR committees?

And to think a humanist supports that...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

43. Keep on clutching.

You might just be able to grasp that straw if you are really lucky.

Have at it.

[shira]

44. How can you not be disturbed by the fact rogue regimes....

...that are serial abusers of human rights are elected to serve (and lead) UN human rights commissions, as well as the Security Council?

How is that possible?

The lunatics are running the asylum and you've got absolutely no problem whatsoever with that?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

48. Shira, with each passing day you become more shrill with regard to the UN.

"The lunatics are running the asylum and you've got absolutely no problem whatsoever with that?'

You have the audacity to write this yet Israel can, at will, Ignore UN resolutions, invade areas outside its borders, colonize these areas, shut in and demoralize the population there?

You are not a credible person to converse with.

[shira]

51. Anyone supporting and defending a court composed of the worst HR abusers on the planet....

...is supposed to believe he/she is a credible progressive humanist to converse with?

Really?

How do you justify the election of Mauritania, Libya, Syria, or Iran to UN human rights committees?

I promise to immediately answer your "Israel violating UN resolutions" once you respond to the question.

How about it?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

53. Shira, there is no credibility left to you in my opinion.

I believe that you should build a great wall around yourself and hide from the rest of the world.

Have a nice day.

[shira]

55. I'll make this very easy for you. Suppose Sudan wants in on a HR committee....

...and as it stands, most of the world's nations are fine with voting them in.

Western nations should oppose such an election...........why?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

56. Have a nice night.

[Jefferson23]

6. That's the question? Poor Israel. Anyone who is interested only needs to read the

record, all the human rights groups record. There exists no amount of disinfectant that will clean
the stench away..Israel's government owns the occupation.


So you don't need the UN shira if they so offend you.

[shira]

8. Yeah, it is. And you haven't answered it. n/t

[Jefferson23]

9. You understood the answer. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

15. It's a sad song. Indeed.

One cannot simultaneously argue that the UN is alright in one OP, in an attempt to serve a narrow argument that doesn't hold water, and then call it crap in another when their decisions are not what you want them to be.

These kinds of antics are neither constructive or reasonable. They are juvenile at best.

[shira]

25. It is sad. It's impossible for a humanist like yourself NOT to be offended & disgusted....

...by the UN's Human Rights bodies that have vile abusers like Libya, Mauritania, Syria, and Sudan running the show and judging others' human rights violations (while running enough interference to escape condemnation of themselves).

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

32. I am disgusted by all atrocities, and I don't excuse what my own country does when it iis wrong.

Do you?

One cannot simultaneously argue that the UN is alright in one OP, in an attempt to serve a narrow argument that doesn't hold water, and then call it crap in another when their decisions are not what you want them to be.

These kinds of antics are neither constructive or reasonable. They are juvenile at best.

[shira]

38. Now that's a cop-out. The UNHRC is composed of serial HR abusers....

...who are intent on being on HR councils. They are there b/c they want to be there. While there, countries like slave-holding Mauritania and genocidal Sudan run interference for their crimes by obsessing over Israel. The UNGA is no better as they're composed mostly of serial human rights abusers too. It's all a game that they play. Compare UN resolutions and special committees WRT Mauritania & Sudan vs. Israel. It's not even close.

I simply don't believe you when you say you're disgusted by all atrocities.

If you were disgusted, you wouldn't be an apologist defending the UN for what they continue to do. As it is, you're completely unwilling to call them out for what they're doing.

How can you not condemn a HR committee composed of serial abusers like Sudan, Mauritania, Syria, Libya, and Iran?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

41. No, Shira, obsessing over other counties, while Israel ignores UN resolutions...

time and time again, is what could be considered a smokescreen or interference and a cop-out. If you are an Israeli citizen then take some personal fu*king responsibility for what your country has done and stop passing the buck or wringing your hands before Israel finds itself on the outside for real.

"I simply don't believe you when you say you're disgusted by all atrocities."

To quote Rhett Butler, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

You can live in whatever fantasy world that you want and have all kinds of nasty thoughts about me. You, and others like you, are increasingly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and will find yourself on the wrong side of history one day.

[shira]

45. I'm "obsessing" over lunatics running the asylum, declaring themselves judges....

...over liberal democracies.

How can a decision from a council composed of serial rights abusers (the worst in the world actually) be considered credible?

It's like a KKK court convicting black people.

Are black people who are guilty in the eyes of KKK judges on the wrong side of history if they flip the bird at their racist judges?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

49. Yes, you at least admit that you are obsessing.

That's a start. You really shouldn't malign the UN by referring to it as the KKK court.

[shira]

50. So you believe a KKK court is superior to one that is run via dictators....

...from Sudan, Mauritania, Libya, Burma, China, Cuba, and Russia?

Why?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

54. Shira, there is no credibility left to you in my opinion.

I believe that you should build a great wall around yourself and hide from the rest of the world.

Have a nice day.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

14. "The world body (UN) is a pile of crap."

Your words, Shira, your words.

I find it especially funny that you would write that.

"The world body (UN) is a pile of crap." Yet you try and rationalize that the UN body gave everything to Israel in Palestine when you posted this OPED.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113429158

Add to this the legal rights granted to the Jewish people by the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1923 San Remo Declaration, the League of Nations Mandate instrument and the United Nations Charter.

So is the UN really a pile of crap, or are they not when it fits into your juvenile narrative of a greater Israel?

Your amateurish ways really show to the full extent how out of your depth you really are.

[shira]

26. The UN was much different then & not beholden to non-democratic, inhumane regimes

Eleanor Roosevelt did not have Sudan, Syria, Mauritania, and Libya in mind to stand up for and adjucate Human Rights throughout the world.

What do you think she would say now about that?

What do you think she'd have to say about UN role in Rwanda, Srebrenica, and Sudan?

I'm certain she'd go a LOT further than calling the UN a pile of crap. Do you disagree?

[Scootaloo]

28. Same freeper blather, different political forum.

[shira]

29. Freeper? You don't have a problem with serial rights abusers running HR forums at the UN?

Slave-holding Mauritania.

The evil, racist genocidaires of Sudan.

Gaddafi's Libya.

Syria?

=======================

What kind of non-racist, humanitarian leftist do you claim to be when you can't be bothered by that?

Only freepers would be apologists for that evil filth & utter vileness.

And this is why folks like yourself cannot expect to be taken seriously regarding I/P and HR's. You write about not wanting to negotiate with people in white hats, but damn! You support awfully vile, genocidal, slave-holding racists magnitudes worse than the KKK judging the world's Human Rights situation under UN auspices.

Damn!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

59. The UN is reviled by the wacky right in the USA as you surely know.

I don't usually wade into the cesspool that is FR, but there are plenty of hate spewed against the UN in other venues. Others hate it for various reasons, but it usually boils down to the same shit. Hatred fueled ulterior motive.

www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/5-dumbest-right-wing-conspiracy-theories-about-united-nations

[Scootaloo]

27. The article says "will," the title says "may"

Welcome to journalism WRT this situation. You could put this article into your dryer for fluffier towels, it's so softened.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

19. From the article.

Approximately 500,000 Israelis and 2.5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The United Nations deems all Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be illegal.

U.N. Special Coordinator of the Middle East Peace Process Robert Serry, told the 15-nation Security Council settlements were contrary to international law and "increasingly an obstacle to peace." But he also warned the Palestinians against pursuing international action.

[oberliner]

33. Good luck with that

I'm sure the results will be extremely positive for the Palestinian people, about whom their leader has said:

"Better they die in Syria than give up their right of return"

[Purveyor]

34. The PR value alone makes it well worth the effort, indeed. eom

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

35. Hamas and Abbas will not live forever, but the Palestinian people

deserve a homeland.

So yes, good luck to them.

[Scurrilous]

36. Good!

[Scurrilous]

67. Why Palestine Should Take Israel to Court in The Hague

<snip>

"LAST week, the Palestinian foreign minister, Riad Malki, declared that if Israel persisted in its plans to build settlements in the currently vacant area known as E-1, which lies between Palestinian East Jerusalem and the Israeli settlement of Maale Adumim, “we will be going to the I.C.C.,” referring to the International Criminal Court. “We have no choice,” he added.

The Palestinians’ first attempt to join the I.C.C. was thwarted last April when the court’s chief prosecutor at the time, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, declined the request on the grounds that Palestine was not a state. That ambiguity has since diminished with the United Nations’ conferral of nonmember state status on Palestine in November. Israel’s frantic opposition to the elevation of Palestine’s status at the United Nations was motivated precisely by the fear that it would soon lead to I.C.C. jurisdiction over Palestinian claims of war crimes.

Israeli leaders are unnerved for good reason. The I.C.C. could prosecute major international crimes committed on Palestinian soil anytime after the court’s founding on July 1, 2002.

Since the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada in 2000, the Israel Defense Forces, guided by its military lawyers, have attempted to remake the laws of war by consciously violating them and then creating new legal concepts to provide juridical cover for their misdeeds. For example, in 2002, an Israeli F-16 dropped a one-ton bomb on an apartment building in a densely populated Gaza neighborhood, killing a Hamas military leader, Salah Shehadeh, and 14 others, including his wife and seven children under the age of 15. In 2009, Israeli artillery killed more than 20 members of the Samouni family, who had sought shelter in a structure in the Zeitoun district of Gaza City at the bidding of Israeli soldiers. Last year, Israeli missiles killed two Palestinian cameramen working for Al Aksa television. Each of these acts, and many more, could lead to I.C.C. investigations.

The former head of the Israeli military’s international law division, Daniel Reisner, asserted in 2009: “International law progresses through violations. We invented the targeted assassination thesis and we had to push it. At first there were protrusions that made it hard to insert easily into the legal molds. Eight years later it is in the center of the bounds of legitimacy.”

Colonel Reisner is right that customary international law is formed by the actual practice of states that other states accept as lawful. But targeted assassinations are not widely accepted as legal. Nor are Israel’s other attempted legal innovations."

more