NYTimes Op-Ed: Take the Case

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"A request is pending before the International Criminal Court in the Hague into whether international crimes were committed during the Israeli operations in Gaza in December 2008.

Over 1,400 Palestinians were killed, including at least 900 civilians, and over 5,000 wounded in the offensive. Some 3,000 homes were destroyed, as were many government buildings, schools, universities, mosques, hospitals and factories.

Several investigations — including one by the Arab League Independent Fact Finding Committee (I.F.F.C.), which I chaired — have found considerable evidence that serious crimes were committed in Israel’s offensive.

The I.F.F.C. reached its conclusions on the basis of the facts above, the testimony of witnesses of cold-blooded killings by Israeli soldiers, the use of weapons designed to cause the maximum suffering and evidence that strongly suggested that Israel had made no serious attempt to distinguish between civilians and military targets.

Our investigation found that Palestinian militants also committed war crimes, but attributed responsibility for most of the serious international crimes in the conflict to Israel.

Israel is not a member of the International Criminal Court, and so the I.C.C. does not have jurisdiction on its territory. The U.N. Security Council could refer the situation to the I.C.C. as it did in the case of Darfur. This, however, is unlikely as such a move would certainly be vetoed by the United States.

This leaves only one avenue that offers any prospect of prosecution and that is the Palestinian request now before the prosecutor of the I.C.C., Luis Moreno-Ocampo, for an investigation into whether international crimes have been committed on Palestinian territory."

more

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Israel is not a signatory so the ICC has not standing

[Violet_Crumble]

2. You should really read the article because the there is an avenue open to be heard by the ICC...

From the article:

'This leaves only one avenue that offers any prospect of prosecution and that is the Palestinian request now before the prosecutor of the I.C.C., Luis Moreno-Ocampo, for an investigation into whether international crimes have been committed on Palestinian territory.

The Rome Statute, under which the I.C.C. was established, does allow a state not party to the statute to declare that it accepts the jurisdiction of the I.C.C. for international crimes committed within its territory. Significantly, the Palestine declaration would allow the I.C.C. to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed by both Palestinians and Israelis on Palestinian territory.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/opinion/23iht-eddugard.html?_r=3&scp=1&sq=John%20Dugard&st=Search

[azurnoir]

3. So there can be prosecution

of the war criminals on both sides, go for it. Hopefully under the circumstances and taking that factor into account the US would not block this at the UN

[Violet_Crumble]

4. Yeah, the 'the ICC has no standing' argument is wrong...

Like the article said, the Security Council referred Darfur to the ICC, though I share the writer's doubt that this avenue would work when it comes to an investigation of what happened in Gaza as the US would veto it. That's why the other avenue that can be taken is imo the best option to be taken...

[shaayecanaan]

5. He's a "world class pendantic academic at his worst"

Notwithstanding that it's not very pedantic to misspell the word "pedantic", what possible reason would you have to doubt him?

[Violet_Crumble]

7. I hadn't noticed that....

Anyway, not to be anal (I'm trying to work out how to throw an extra 'n' in there), but isn't he actually trying to call himself a *pendant* rather than *pendantic*?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. You really can't control those personal attacks, can you?

There's nothing fantasy based and there's no outrage, let alone manufactured, about me pointing out to you that you were wrong in what you claimed, and you would have known it if you'd read the article...

[shaayecanaan]

16. He seems to have corrected the spelling in his signature, anyway (nt)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. I did read it, perhaps you should read all of it as well.

This is an OpEd from a non-neutral source. Even he admits there are problems since there is no recognized state of Palestine. He then argues for the ICC to adopt an unprecedented expansive view thereby expanding its jurisdiction where none exists today. I would not hold my breath on this approach being supported any more than I would expect Israel to go along with the ICC.


There is an obstacle in this approach, however — the question whether Palestine is a “state.” The Rome Statute fails to define a state, and there is no international recognition board for aspirant states, leaving it to the I.C.C. itself to make such a determination.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. I read every last word. What you said in yr earlier post was incorrect n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. The ICC only has permissive jurisdiction. It is indeed a double standard of sorts

However, that is the real world

[Violet_Crumble]

12. You claimed the ICC had no standing. You were wrong. Deal with it.... n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Even the author admitted there were issues with jurisdiction and standing

[Violet_Crumble]

15. No, he explained two ways the ICC would be able to hear the case...

And that's not at all what you claimed....

[azurnoir]

14. At present about 100 countries recognize Palestine as a state

most of these countries are also UN members



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine