Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Israel withdraws support for first war crimes court
Ha'aretz ^ | 1 jul 02 | Aluf Benn

Posted on 07/01/2002 8:07:51 AM PDT by white trash redneck

Despite special assurances it would not be politically targeted by a new war crimes court, Israel has withdrawn its support and will not ratify its signature on the United Nations treaty creating the court, officials said Monday.

The world's first permanent war crimes court came into existence Monday in the Netherlands. The cabinet, following the United States' lead, decided Sunday not to join the court even though it had been among countries behind the drive to establish it.

Israel is concerned that an expanded list of war crimes put forward by the International Criminal Court could throw into question the international legality of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and leave IDF soldiers vulnerable.

"The moment the charter of the court took the shape of a political institution rather than a judicial institution, we could no longer be a part of it," said Justice Ministry spokesman Yonaton Baker.

Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Yehuda Lancry, signed the treaty in December 2000, but only after assurances that the court would not be used as a political tool to persecute Israelis. With memories of the Holocaust in mind, Israel had been among the countries pushing for a permanent war crimes court.

Israel's backing withered, however, after the treaty's framers expanded a list of war crimes to include the movement of populations into occupied territories. That could throw into question the future of 200,000 Jews living in more than 140 settlements built on land captured from Egypt and Jordan after the 1967 Six-Day War, which is now claimed by the Palestinians for a future state.

The court, located in The Hague, the Netherlands, will prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on or after July 1.

The United States is also demanding immunity because it fears American troops and citizens could be targets of frivolous and politically motivated prosecutions. The treaty, signed by 139 countries, was ratified by 74.

Israel originally agreed to sign the declaration after an amendment was added that said Israel was opposed to any attempt to use the treaty's provisions "in a politically motivated manner against Israel and its citizens."

Another Israeli concern over backing the court was that Syria, a party to the treaty, might then be able to file complaints over Israel's settlement of the Golan Heights, a strategic border area Israel captured from Syria in 1967 and annexed in 1981.

"Even though Syria has no authority there, Syria can still possibly press the law," said Irit Kohn, head of the international section of the state's attorney's office. "There are many questions. These things are very unclear."

Kohn, speaking on Army Radio, said that as long as Israel does not ratify the treaty, the court will not have jurisdiction over its territory and the court cannot force Israel to extradite any of its citizens to stand trial in The Hague.

She warned however that it remains to be seen if a wanted Israeli could be arrested when traveling to a country that has signed the treaty.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on Sunday rejected a proposal by Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein and Minister Dan Meridor to announce that Israel would not participate in the court "at the present time." Foreign Minister Shimon Peres also strongly opposed having Israel participate in the new court.

Prior to the government meeting, Rubinstein sent a letter to Cabinet Secretary Gideon Saar noting that Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit and other involved officials believe that Israel should not confirm its signature on the international tribunal's constitution.

The attorney general wrote that, "The reasons for this are connected to the danger of politicization that threatens the court, and the article that is largely directly against Israel on the matter of settlements." He also noted that, "The U.S., which Israel followed in signing the court's constitution, officially informed the UN recently that it has no intention of ratifying the covenant."

Meridor, the only one to abstain from the unanimous decision Sunday, said that "if this were a fair and apolitical institution, there would be reason to join it."


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Israel; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: icc
Looks like the Israelis share the US Congress' faith in the impartiality of the ICC!
1 posted on 07/01/2002 8:07:51 AM PDT by white trash redneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
The first step towards a Jihad World Government? Thanks but no thanks.
2 posted on 07/01/2002 8:10:36 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
Israel's backing withered, however, after the treaty's framers expanded a list of war crimes to include the movement of populations into occupied territories. That could throw into question the future of 200,000 Jews living in more than 140 settlements built on land captured from Egypt and Jordan after the 1967 Six-Day War, which is now claimed by the Palestinians for a future state.

These psychotic leftists who make up the ICC will declare it a war crime to become pioneers on your G-d given land.

If you agree with the ICC then you also believe that the American western pioneers did not have a G-d given right to live anywhere except in the 13 colonies. They were also 'war criminals'.

3 posted on 07/01/2002 8:46:57 AM PDT by majordivit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thud
ping
4 posted on 07/01/2002 8:50:57 AM PDT by Dark Wing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
Better late than never.
5 posted on 07/01/2002 9:07:39 AM PDT by alex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
With memories of the Holocaust in mind, Israel had been among the countries pushing for a permanent war crimes court.

Yes, well, we see now that a permanent "war crimes" court regards a Jewish family building a house on the West Bank as a far more heinous "crime against humanity" than the murder of millions.

6 posted on 07/01/2002 9:10:49 AM PDT by Alouette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
the treaty's framers expanded a list of war crimes to include the movement of populations into occupied territories

FUTURE NEWS: dateline Netherlands, 2010

In a move applauded by the entire world, the UN ICC found the US guilty of crimes against humanity for its illegal occupation of the moon during the early 1970's. Charges were not filed until recently when the US, as its first act under the leadership of its new progressive President and Congress, finally signed the treaty opposed by its earlier right wing extremist leaders. The move is expected to eliminate future illegal attacks by the US on Mars and its attempted occupation. In the proposed plea agreement, ongoing reparations will be paid to the rest of the world for the United States continuing to waste world resources on self promotion and aggrandizement. Earlier proposals for the US to relinquish the occupied territory in favor of habitation by the rest of the world was rejected since the US had to date failed to satisfactorily develop the occupied lands. Proposals for the US to transfer ownership of its own land likewise failed in favor of the reparation proposal that assures world leaders a steady source of funding. Israel, who continues to reject world opinion by refusing to sign the treaty, condemned the indictment, as expected.

7 posted on 07/01/2002 10:15:59 AM PDT by Optimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
Hate to bring this up, but if the Dems were in the White House today, the US would be signing off on the ICC. Kyoto, too. Afghanistan would still be Taliban. And a lot of other onerous things.
8 posted on 07/01/2002 10:20:38 AM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson