Haaretz Editorial: Israel must stop boycotting International Criminal Court

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak has recommended that Israel join the International Criminal Court at The Hague that tries those indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Barak, who spoke on Monday at a legal conference in Jerusalem, says that Israel will benefit from its participation in the court despite the risk that IDF soldiers and officers, and even Israeli politicians, may be brought to trial.

Israel was one of the countries behind the ICC initiative, but changed its stance at the last minute, once settlements in the territories were included in the list of serious crimes under the court's jurisdiction. At the end of 2000, following an intense debate in the government, Israel signed the Rome Statute from which the International Criminal Court was established, but said it would not ratify its signature because of concerns that the institution would be used for political ends. Since then, Israel has stuck by its refusal to join the ICC and be answerable to its judgments.

Barak said that "Israel is part of the international community, and it must conduct itself in accordance with the interpretation that is common in international law." As president of the Supreme Court, Barak changed an entrenched approach that rejected court involvement in security considerations. In a ruling on the issue of the route of the separation fence, he established the formula of "reason and proportionality" in the exercise of security authority in the territories. His approach also guided the current court president, Justice Dorit Beinisch, in last week's ruling regarding the use of Route 443 by Palestinians.

Since the ICC began its work at The Hague, international law has received increased attention in Israel. Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip a year ago raised serious allegations against Israel for violating the rules of war and even carrying out crimes against humanity. Israel responded that the IDF is "the most moral army in the world," and that international law must take into consideration the exigencies of the war against terrorism, but refused to cooperate with the Goldstone Commission and denounced its report.

A country that believes in the morality of its actions and those of its soldiers should not behave like a permanent suspect and boycott institutions of international law. On the contrary: It must fight within those institutions for its positions and justice. Joining the International Criminal Court at The Hague will place Israel on the side of the enlightened nations, and will contribute to restraining forceful and harmful actions. Barak's recommendation deserves to be adopted."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1140300.html

[Ken Burch]

1. Kicked, would rec but this isn't allowed.

Can't have ANYTHING about the I/P issue ever making the Greatest Page. It could lead to truth breaking out.

[Jim Sagle]

9. Yeah, right.

[azurnoir]

2. Kicked

and must add the US must do the same

[Ken Burch]

3. Indeed

NO argument from me on that.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Agree on both points

[shira]

5. where has the ICC been WRT Hezbollah, Russia/Georgia, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Congo.......

Anyone with 2 brain cells knows the ICC would be just as hostile and biased as the farce that is called the UNHRC (a disaster run by champions of human rights like Libya, Somalia, etc.. that is only obsessed with one nation while ignoring HR abuses around the globe).

Is there a liberal here capable of defending either the ICC or the UNHRC?

If the ICC cleaned itself up and proved to be unbiased, Israel and the USA wouldn't have an excuse to avoid participating in the court.

[LeftishBrit]

6. It has certainly been acting with regard to Congo

Thomas Lubanga, Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui are all on trial there for war crimes.

The other countries that have people under indictment there are Uganda, Central African Republic and Sudan (over Darfur). So the people involved so far are too few, but deserving.

I believe that complaints have been lodged against all the groups/countries that you mention. We shall see if they come to anything.

[shira]

7. but you agree, that it's too much a political court and hardly better than the UNHRC?

[LeftishBrit]

8. Not really.

What is too political is the way in which many countries seem to protect their own and their allies from ever getting to court in the first place. I think that political and practical considerations prevent lots of people from ever coming to court. But I don't think that those trials that do take place are 'political'.

E.g. I think that it is absolutely disgusting that so many countries are trying to 'run interference' for Bashir of Sudan and prevent him from facing justice - but the ICC itself *is* prosecuting him.

On a different point, I think that it is a bad thing that Bush and Blair will probably never face justice for what they did in Iraq - either from the ICC or from their own countries.

There are very many all over the world who will probably never face trial, e.g. Mugabe though there have been complaints; the leaders of Burma; etc.

But I think that those who *are* facing trial deserve it!

[shira]

10. okay, so it's barely better than the UNHRC but still so political as to make certain war criminals

...like Mugabe go scot-free.

What makes you think once Israel or the USA joins, this court won't make decisions based largely on politics - going after Western leaders but leaving the Mugabes alone?

Let's at least agree that until the ICC is proven to be legitimate and not a kangaroo court, the USA and Israel have good reason to avoid it.