I think HRW is a flawed organization worthy of criticism.

I don't think its flaws have wholly discredited the organization.

On the other hand, I'm skeptical that the IDF internal investigations of incidents that may be "war crimes" can be said to offer a credible source to adjudge the actions of the IDF.

rickyp wrote:I think HRW is a flawed organization worthy of criticism.

I don't think its flaws have wholly discredited the organization.

On the other hand, I'm skeptical that the IDF internal investigations of incidents that may be "war crimes" can be said to offer a credible source to adjudge the actions of the IDF.

That's fair. Were you comfortable with the U.S. Department of Defense's investigating of Abu Ghraib torture?

ray

That's fair. Were you comfortable with the U.S. Department of Defense's investigating of Abu Ghraib torture

No.
I think Sanchez, Rumsfeld, Bybee and Chertoff all got away with crimes.

And Abu Ghrib is tied up with the general acceptance and use of torture that Obama chose to let become a bygone.

By thw way, Human Rights Watch played a role in the investigation and revelations of the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

Militaries are understandably uncomfortable having foreign entities review their operations because of the potential leak of confidential information. Would you be satisfied if some sort of independent U.S. organization reviewed claims of war crimes e.g. the AG, or a special prosecutor, or a Congressional or USSC commission?

RaY Jay

Would you be satisfied if some sort of independent U.S. organization reviewed claims of war crimes e.g. the AG, or a special prosecutor, or a Congressional or USSC commission?

I think that would have been the right thing for Obama to have done.
The Israelis judiciary has also demonstrated an independence and commitment that I think Israel could easily form a like minded commission that would have more credibility and perhaps provide greater political and pr cover to the IDF as well.

That's why the move to the ICC is interesting. If Palestinians are willing to submit to the ICC decisions, then they may also be forced to give up support for terrorist tactics. And although Israel would be constrained in behaviors it now regularly uses in in its security in the occupied territories, perhaps that would ultimately benefit their security.

Ricky:

If Palestinians are willing to submit to the ICC decisions, then they may also be forced to give up support for terrorist tactics.

What does it mean "If Palestinians are willing to submit ...". Abbas won't even submit to a democratic election by his own people.

ray

Abbas won't even submit to a democratic election by his own people

.
I take it you refer to the postponement of Palestinian elections this year and not the election that Abbas won with 62% of the vote?

I'm sure that democracy is not a necessity for membership in the ICC anyway. Only a willingness to abide by the courts decisions.
Some nations were opposed to the concept of an independent arbitrator on war crimes issues ...

Seven countries voted against the statute: China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen.China objected on grounds that "the statute is an attempt to interfere with the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation." Other non-members include India, Iran, Japan, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Turkey.

bed fellows?

Ricky:

ray

Abbas won't even submit to a democratic election by his own people

.
I take it you refer to the postponement of Palestinian elections this year and not the election that Abbas won with 62% of the vote?

Yes, he won 62% in 2005. It was for a 4 year term. Doesn't sound like George Washington to me. That means he's been an illegitimate ruler for many years. He's also become rich, and so have his 2 sons. Bedfellows indeed!

ray jay

Yes, he won 62% in 2005. It was for a 4 year term. Doesn't sound like George Washington to me. That means he's been an illegitimate ruler for many years. He's also become rich, and so have his 2 sons. Bedfellows indeed!

How does this invalidate the Palestinian request to join in the ICC?

The ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer investigations to the Court.

The United States resolved its unfortunate foray into government-sanctioned torture by an election whose winner was opposed to the practice. On the other hand, allowing an international body to punish the United States for what happened would have been, yes, an intrusion into our sovereignty. As long as our high-level officials are making discretionary decisions with regard to national security we are not going to allow an international body try them. Cheney et al were wrong but their conduct was not so outside the pale that they should go to jail. And, in any case, we'll make that decision.

With regard to Ghaza the problem is this: Israel does not have to equally weigh the harm done to its people by missile attacks versus the harm to Palestinian civilians by the invasion. An international court is not apt to see things that way. Certainly, Israel in doing its own investigation is doing to give a good of lee-way in military commanders making discretionary decisions in real-time and punishing people for discretionary decisions that were perhaps wrong or arguably wrong but within reason could hurt military readiness. Why would Israel allow another body investigate and make findings against it that the Palestinians could use politically to gain leverage against it?

And that's all the application to ICC is--a political move by the Palestinians. They expect it to be some one-sided thing. Israel will be embarrassed by the ICC while their own terrorist activities are ignored. Maybe that won't happen--the ICC will be more even-handed--but you have to think that the Palestinian leadership has thought through all of the implications of joining the ICC and I doubt they would join if they thought their own activities would be investigated.

rickyp wrote:ray jay

Yes, he won 62% in 2005. It was for a 4 year term. Doesn't sound like George Washington to me. That means he's been an illegitimate ruler for many years. He's also become rich, and so have his 2 sons. Bedfellows indeed!

How does this invalidate the Palestinian request to join in the ICC?

It doesn't. I was just reacting to your statement "If Palestinians are willing to submit to the ICC decisions" for 2 reasons:

1. It is not clear that Abbas speaks for the Palestinians since he has not stood for election for many years. So, it is not the "Palestinians" submitting to the ICC. It is their dictator. When I use phrases like "Palestinians" Danivon is all over me.

2. The notion that Abbas will submit to the ICC makes no sense. He won't submit to an election by his own people. He is using the ICC to advance his agenda and will go to plan b if it backfires on him. You need to see him as he really is.

freeman 3

With regard to Ghaza the problem is this: Israel does not have to equally weigh the harm done to its people by missile attacks versus the harm to Palestinian civilians by the invasion. An international court is not apt to see things that way

That's really the point of an independent international judiciary. A court that weighs the lives of people equally. And treats the basic rights of humans equally .
It becomes difficult for democracies who constitutionally guarantee protections for their own citizens, to ignore the times when their actions deny the same rights to another group of humans just because they are citizens of a different nation.

The ICC represents a tiny step towards the protection of human rights for everyone. Part of our evolution as humans. When nations aren't willing to accept the ICC they also proclaim that they can preach one thing, and do another. That's the huge problem with this...

freeman3

On the other hand, allowing an international body to punish the United States for what happened would have been, yes, an intrusion into our sovereignty

It proclaims that the sovereignty of the US (or say China, Saudi Arabia, Iran or other non-signatories) allows them to act with impunity.
In the case of torture, for instance, that has been the case. And that impunity is a large reason that the US credibility suffered as a result of the years of torture, extraordinary rendition and perhaps by the excessive use of Drone attacks.
Its hard to promote democracy, and the advancement of human rights, when there is no commitment demonstrated to the universal recognition of human rights.

freeman3

Cheney et al were wrong but their conduct was not so outside the pale that they should go to jail.

Why is it that certain soldiers did end up serving 10 years for torturing at Abu Ghraib then>?

rayjay

. It is not clear that Abbas speaks for the Palestinians since he has not stood for election for many years. So, it is not the "Palestinians" submitting to the ICC. It is their dictator. When I use phrases like "Palestinians" Danivon is all over me.

2. The notion that Abbas will submit to the ICC makes no sense. He won't submit to an election by his own people. He is using the ICC to advance his agenda and will go to plan b if it backfires on him. You need to see him as he really is.

There are ,a number of dictators who have signed onto the ICC... We have to recognize that whether or not they are democratic nations, they are the recognized governments.
Point 2 - of course he's trying to advance his agenda. And he's using an organization which has both wide support, and helps illustrate the nature of Israels occupation. Its a wily move, as it continues to gain Palestine support through non-violent means.
It may back fire, if the Palestinians are also charged. by who? ...At the same time, Israel is an occupying power, and as such has responsibilities under international law that it has often ignored.

Ricky, I appreciate your diligence in holding Israel to a high standard, but I wonder whether you are missing the big picture. All you have to do is witness events in Paris or Pakistan, Nairobi or Nigeria, Syria or Somalia, Arabia or Afghanistan, Iran or Islamic State, Egypt or Yemen and you should be able to understand that Palestine (and in particular whether Israel engages in excessive force to protect its civilians) is the least of our problems.

ray

All you have to do is witness events in Paris or Pakistan, Nairobi or Nigeria, Syria or Somalia, Arabia or Afghanistan, Iran or Islamic State, Egypt or Yemen and you should be able to understand that Palestine (and in particular whether Israel engages in excessive force to protect its civilians) is the least of our problems

I'm not sure how crimes against humanity in another part of the world justify Israel being given a pass on its conduct in the occupied territories or Gaza.
And for Palestinians, the excessive use of force, and certain tactics of the occupation are, and have been for some years, primary problems.
Should they not have the right to appeal to the ICC ?
Its a non-violent course of resistance. Deny them this and why should they not start rocketing again?

How sad that the first reference I see on here to the Charlie Hebdo murders is a bit of whataboutery.