Many congratulations to Palestine on being recognised as a non-member state at the United Nations. There is a distinct irony that, apart from the unreconstructed climate change deniers in the United States, Canada and the Czech Republic, the supporters of Palestinian genocide could only muster votes from the tiniest island states threatened by climate change. Where is the much vaunted American Empire now?
Both the United States and Israel are incapable of introspection; instead they have reacted by saying the rest of the world is mad.
There was also a chilling admission of the United States support for extreme zionist land claims, from Hillary Clinton, who called for negotiation “Between Jerusalem and Ramallah”. Not Tel Aviv; Jerusalem.
I argued a year ago that Palestine could join the International Criminal Court without waiting for this vote. But this vote certainly removes all doubt on that score.
I was absolutely disgusted by William Hague’s offer of support form Palestine if Palestine agreed not to join, or take cases to, the International Criminal Court. It is yet another example of that theme to which my writing constantly returns, the abandonment by neo-con UK governments of the principle of international law in favour of a might is right approach. It was always UK policy to encourage dispute resolution by international courts. Now we are discouraging it.
There is a very important practical point here. As I also wrote a year ago:
There is an extremely crucial point here: if Palestine accedes to the Statute of Rome, under Article 12 of the Statute of Rome, the International Criminal Court would have jurisdiction over Israelis committing war crimes on Palestinian soil. Other states parties – including the UK – would be obliged by law to hand over indicted Israeli war criminals to the court at the Hague. This would be a massive blow to the Israeli propaganda and lobbying machine.
This explains why Hague was so keen to avert Palestinian membership of the ICC. Not only can Palestine indict Israeli war criminals (and they should start immediately with those behind Operation Cast Lead and the attack on the Mavi Marmara) but Britain will be obliged – as will all other European Union countries – to hand them over to the court.
Given that this disgraceful government had specifically enacted legislation to block other avenues for the indictment of Israeli war criminals in the United Kingdom, this is infuriating for our zionist sponsored politicians.
It also raises an interesting point. We have seen the entire political establishment enthusiastically promoting the automaticity of European arrest warrants in the case of Julian Assange. How will those same politicians react to the automaticity of arrest warrants for Israeli war criminals? I suspect that they will suddenly discover there is a need for political intervention in such cases.
“It wasn’t the French resistance movement ended up in the dock at Nuremberg now was it?”
Victor’s justice. Had they been on the losing side or had the Nuremberg Trials been directed by an independent body things would have been different and a number of allied leaders might’ve had to face charges.
The Palestinians have the right to defend their land but they’re still expected to abide by international law.
I thought you put that rather well Craig.
Herbie, if people begin actually to believe in what they do – that at some level, it is beneficent – they will do it all the more efficiently and will ease any smoulderings of conscience.
At that senior status, once someone is working for an imperium – any imperium – they will have come to believe that at some level, the imperium is benificent for the world, a ‘civilising influence’, perhaps, just as the many principled – and, say, liberal and/or Liberal – people who worked at senior levels in the British Empire managed to rationalise their country’s plundering of the colonies over a prolonged period: “We built the railways, we brought the Enlightenment, we educated the natives to be just like us and to engage with us in the ascent of man”.
Well okay, but Enlightenment ideas would have travelled there in any case, as they did to many other places, and ‘we’ also destroyed nascent industries so that, for example, Manchester could have no competition for its mills. In the early C18th, Bengali cotton mills were more efficent and more advanced than British mills and so, they had to be destroyed. Same thing with Kashmir. Same thing with mid-C19th Egypt’s attempt to industrialise. It had to be smashed. Then, and only then, could we have ‘free trade’.
So, people like Susan Rice emerge from a very long line of similar, good women and men who sublimate their consciences in the service of empire – in this case, in the service of global capital for which the US military machine is simply a vehicle. They eventually pen long and distinguished memoirs that win prizes and become points of reference for future generations. It’s been the same in all empires – Roman, Ottoman, whatever. This is why it is easier if a cadre is created which is brainwashed from the beginning, from childhood, into believing in the superiority of the mission. As with the Mafia don, mendacity comes then to be seen as simply a means to achieving and implementing a greater, underpinning truth. In essence, the psychological process is theological in nature. Thomas Aquinas, Ibn Rushd.
The problem can arise when people acsend to senior levels and are confronted by the utilitarian necessity fully to comprehend the reality of empire, to shed at least the most superficial protection of false consciousness which wholly embraces the bourgeois bureaucratic levels and to gaze steadfastly into the mirror and to see there, reflected in their own visage, nothing more than the face of empire.
Thanks for that, Suhayl. I agree. Most people, unless they’re psychopathic, need to believe they’re working to a greater good which alleviates any remorse for tactical suppression and violence in the service of that greater good.
It’s a bit like Chomsky and Herman’s Propaganda Model for media.
The problem I have with it is that whilst I can see the delusion working in the post WWII period up until say the 1980s, I just don’t believe that anyone working at her level can be so deluded today. Today we’re back in a time that more closely resembles those periods prior to the great awakening of western democracy in the post war period. I find it difficult to believe that today’s planners are any less clued up than they were in the 19th century.
I think the civilizing stuff was for the public.
Anyway, what’s your take on the whole Morsi business – the constitution and the secularists etc.
Michal,
I should be perfectly happy for any Palestinian war criminals to be put before the ICC. I should be even happier if Israel were to sign up to the ICC to initiate such action. I think you will find they are not keen on your bright wheeze. Now why could that be?
Maybe a bit late, but here are the results + background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_resolution_67/19#Result
“I just don’t believe that anyone working at her level can be so deluded today.” Herbie, 12:54pm, 30.11.12
Yes, I agree, Herbie. The leaders, the senior ranks, are fully aware. It is the middle class – the academics, professionals and managers of empire – who tend to (have to be) be the most deeply deluded. Most of these upper-middle classes (or those who identify thgemselves with those groupings) in the UK, for example, tend to treat one – if one is not one of them and if one questions their basic assumptions in any way (or indeed whatever one does or does not do) – as though one were definitively inferior, and the sad, the enraging, thing is, they don’t even realise they are doing it. Furthermore, while it is fine for them to argue strongly, it is not fine for the lower orders to take an active role in arguing for, or working towards, the same thing. We mere plebs have merely to choose a master, a side, to support and always stick to our role, to know our place. Chomsky and Herman, yes, that’s it.
This article starts off with the usual drivel about harming the peace process etc etc blah blah – what peace process.
Used to get all the same nonsense during the NI peace process, up to and including the Major period.
Only at the end do they get to the nuts of the matter:
“In the EU, the Czech Republic is widely considered one of the closest allies of Israel.”
Hey feckin ho
http://praguemonitor.com/2012/11/30/%C4%8Dr-opposes-palestines-bid-un-upgrade
“This article starts off with the usual drivel about harming the peace process etc etc blah blah – what peace process.”
That’s the process by which Israel steals Palestinian land peace by peace.
Thanks again, Suhayl. Very well explained re the priestly class.
I think the leaders, for the most part, take their cue from the aristocratic militaristic class. They of course believe that winning and overcoming is virtue in itself. It’s their duty. If they weren’t doing it someone else would be doing it etc.
This of course doesn’t sit very well with constructing a stable and civilsed state on the homefront, which is why it was important to have differing policies, domestic and foreign.
I think however what we’re seeing now in the US certainly, and Britain to a slightly lesser extent is a visting upon the domestic constituency, increasingly barbaric policies that were once reserved for the empire abroad.
This is probably indicative of decline and end, and of course we see that countries which are emergent, as in south America, are implementing policies that we would have taken for granted in the post war period up until Thatcher.
Right said Fred.
Agree with the gist, however 1st para is an odd non-sequitur ad hominem rolled into one. Is scepticism about AGW theory somehow logically linked with Zionism? (nice emotive language btw – ‘deniers’ no less). It is not relevant what these people think of the long term climate computer models, their justifications for voting the way they did should stand or fall on their own merits. True colours bleeding through again, comrade Murray?
Why not do some research into this anxiety industry which is able to attract enormous funding and is ideally suited to the aims of our sensationalist media and grasping politicians. I guarantee it will depress you even more.
Anecdotally I read somewhere that part of the UN agreement was that Palestinians would not seek war crimes prosecution. But there is this………
“So the Prosecutor has acceptable legal ways to avoid investigating Israelis even if the Palestinians demand it—but would she use those “outs?” And would the judges accept it? If the ICC’s first 10 years are any indication, the court would want to avoid such an investigation at all costs.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/28/who-s-afraid-of-the-icc.html
Looks like Canada’s leaders are getting their knickers in a twist, losing the plot and don’t really know what to do next.
This is what happens when you live in your own invented fantasy world, and global humanity shows you up 138 – 9.
That ain’t supposed to happen, is it Steve.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/30/ottawa-to-review-palestinian-aid-after-bairds-strong-rebuke-of-statehood-vote/
Thanks for your eloquent post Suhayl and Herbie, if Palestinians do use the ICC and the court is rebuffed making the ICC as irrelevant as the UN is, currently being brown nosed in Kongo, then maybe the EU will then turn around and question the value of its Association Trade agreement with Israel.
I agree with you Craig, lets see whether Israel has the guts to bring a case against… ehem, who could they possibly accuse?
@Herbie the Czechs always had a healthy, stealthy arms trade with Israel and that is what mainly makes up their relationship, imho, can’t see them being interested in Czech beer.
Just to make you jealou,s Craig, i shall be watching Sunderland loose against the Canaries this Sunday…from the directors box…, got invited by Mervyn L. to join him for a 2 course meal and soup at half time. See what Delia’s nosh is up to.
Any messages for anyone you might Know there?
@ Craig
Israel is unlikely to accede to ICC probably because it takes a hostile view of the possibility it is going to be smeared at the court. However, could not such a court action be initiated by other members of ICC, eg. Czech Republic or Great Britain?
Fred +1. Good summary.
Oh I see Michal, the judges and staff of the ICC are – what exactly? Anti-semites? Islamic fundamentalists?
Bibi has a Birthday Gift for Palestinians.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/israel-to-build-3000-settler-homes-to-retaliate-for-palestinian-un-bid/article5833128/
@ Craig
I am far from such extremist views. At the same time, international tribunals have many peculiarities. Take for example ICTY where Croats and Albanians walk away scott free while Serbs get heavy sentences, thereby unleashing passions in Serbia over the perceived injustice. I am not saying international tribunals can not work well, just that this sort of institution has its pitfalls.
Ben: “Retaliate”? Reprisals against the West Bank Pals? The ICC would love that, if it had the chance.
Remarkably good account of the state of play from a msm source.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/margin-u-n-defeat-disappoints-israel-143918225.html
Susan Rice says she needs to improve her Hebrew pronunciation!
Susan Rice Wins Over Israel Supporters
Jewish Groups Would Welcome Appointment at State Dept.
http://forward.com/articles/166816/susan-rice-wins-over-israel-supporters/
They’re doubling-down, ‘modo. Bibi has to do something to save his ‘creds’. You really think the ICC has balls?
Michal is a tad confused, clearly.
A very curious project with an even stranger name.
Why Is The US Building A Secret $100 Million Underground Facility Outside Tel Aviv?
Robert Johnson
Nov. 29, 2012, 11:29 AM
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-is-building-secret-site-911-in-israel-2012-11
site 9-11…..Pillar of Smoke….poof !
But it will have three picnic tables.
I am pleased that the Palestinians have been recognised by some 138 countries in the United Nations.
Sadly, there is a process of further confrontation evolving. I note that Israel has just approved another 3,000 settlements beyond the 1967 borders. This does not auger well for any peaceful resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Further, states such as the US and UK somehow find it impossible to state the obvious that such settlements are patently illegal.
I had observed earlier this year on this blog:-
“Two states will still lead back to one set of problems:-
1. An existing de jure state of Israel – with what – 20%, 25% Arab/Palestinian population – but – how do you operate and sustain an “ethnic Jewish sate” with that type of demographics? Well – you disenfranchise and discriminate – how else are you going to hold it all together for the “chosen people”? I don’t want to be perceived as “anti-Semitic”( the buzz word anytime issues are raised) – but – do I have a point here or don’t I? Come on with the answers.
2. A state that already exists de facto – with Apartheid walls surrounding it – Palestine. So – the majority of the UN does the right thing and the US and Israel are the odd ones out who do not want to accept that the Palestinians too have rights.
3. One state heavily subsidised by the US being a plague in the lives of the next state next to the “chosen people” and what do think will happen?
Let the debate begin.”
The core point is this. If one were to place the issue in neutral terms, it could be argued this way. Assume country “X”. It decrees that there will be a single unifying factor that determines citizenship, which we term factor “Y”. The “Y” factor might be “race”; ethnicity; religion – or some other identifying feature. But to maintain the “ Y-ness” of the state, the exclusive recognition of the “Y” factor gives rise to manifest problems of discrimination. In the legislature the minorities in the state cannot be afforded the same political recognition and political stature as those having the “Y-ness” in their citizenship. If that were to be done then the meaning assigned to the state of “X’s” existence would dissipate and eventually be lost. Therein rests the discriminatory “Y” factor in the state. And therein is the core problem of the “X” state.
Can anyone guess to which state I refer?
Israel’s announcement of 3,000 new settler homes in the West Bank as a response to the UN Palestine vote finally lays bare all those zionist arguments of Israel’s wish to have a ‘ two state solution ‘ and brings closer the realization that despite some Palestinians clinging on to the ‘ two state ‘ option the ‘ one state ‘ will inevitably become the discourse and ‘ struggle ‘ for the future . At least Israel is transparent in it’s ambitions and the obfuscation of zionist sophistry as to this being their destination [ two states ] is consigned to the ever growing ‘ trashcan ‘ of zionist myths .