Two developments this week have underscored the inability or unwillingness of governments and institutions to label things as they are. Unless you define things properly, it is almost impossible to deal with them effectively. And many governments and multilateral institutions are making the mistake of treating Hamas as a responsible government that respects international law and supports human rights and international borders.
Excellent, Eduardo. False Equivalency is so very true. I’m not so sure a two- state solution, is possible. Maybe in 100 years when the west goes in to reeducate the population- about how to behave, but that in itself will cause disputes. And omg the ICC, is as ridiculous as the UN. It reminds me of the Wizard of Oz. Lol! Love your articles!
Israel is not being accused (yet) of genocide, but of war crimes, including directing attacks on civilians and starvation.
The “false equivalence” argument is irrelevant. The world has watched with horror as Israel has failed to value Palestinian civilians’ lives sufficiently highly in its prosecution of its war against Hamas. There is certainly ample evidence to support charges being made and for the evidence to be tested in an ICC case.
In the UK, the Daily Telegraph has been a strong supporter of Israel and its retaliatory action, but even it noted re. the ICC that “Israel’s right to prosecute a war with Hamas does not absolve them of liability before the law”.
To much of the world, Biden’s and others’ turning on the ICC when it acts against an ally reeks of hypocrisy. Certainly, the US, Canada, the UK and western countries generally would be wiser to stand behind the international order…even at uncomfortable moments. After all, the demise of international law would harm us far more than our opponents.
Many thanks Steve, for your insightful comment. we agree to disagree. False equivalence is a moral stand that I reject in this case. War is war, and in war, innocents die. Two points: firstly, Hamas started this war on October 7th. They could have ended it right away had they simply released the hostages, rather than rape , torture, and murder these hostages throughout the past six months. Hamas preferred to let the war continue, and promised many more October 7ths in future. Secondly, false equivalences would have ensured that Roosevelt and Churchill were tried at Nuremberg along with the Nazis, since they too had millions of deaths on their hands. Thus my point. Let's hope beyond hope that some peace and sensibility comes to the region.
Thanks Eduardo…and I know we have different views on this situation. But there are really important international principles here.
Firstly, simply because an enemy started the war (leaving aside the issue of decades of Israeli occupation) and now won’t agree to your terms for ending hostilities is not, and cannot be, a justification for committing war crimes.
Secondly, the Nuremberg example is a false comparison. The definition of war crimes and the international institutional framework for holding people to account has evolved massively. So yes, if Churchill were to order the bombing of German cities in response to attacks on UK military targets today, he would be indictable for war crimes. But not in 1945.
Excellent, Eduardo. False Equivalency is so very true. I’m not so sure a two- state solution, is possible. Maybe in 100 years when the west goes in to reeducate the population- about how to behave, but that in itself will cause disputes. And omg the ICC, is as ridiculous as the UN. It reminds me of the Wizard of Oz. Lol! Love your articles!
I have to agree with you. Peace will come neither quickly nor soon. Glad you like my articles! Love your comments! Bon weekend and shabat shalom!
Israel is not being accused (yet) of genocide, but of war crimes, including directing attacks on civilians and starvation.
The “false equivalence” argument is irrelevant. The world has watched with horror as Israel has failed to value Palestinian civilians’ lives sufficiently highly in its prosecution of its war against Hamas. There is certainly ample evidence to support charges being made and for the evidence to be tested in an ICC case.
In the UK, the Daily Telegraph has been a strong supporter of Israel and its retaliatory action, but even it noted re. the ICC that “Israel’s right to prosecute a war with Hamas does not absolve them of liability before the law”.
To much of the world, Biden’s and others’ turning on the ICC when it acts against an ally reeks of hypocrisy. Certainly, the US, Canada, the UK and western countries generally would be wiser to stand behind the international order…even at uncomfortable moments. After all, the demise of international law would harm us far more than our opponents.
Many thanks Steve, for your insightful comment. we agree to disagree. False equivalence is a moral stand that I reject in this case. War is war, and in war, innocents die. Two points: firstly, Hamas started this war on October 7th. They could have ended it right away had they simply released the hostages, rather than rape , torture, and murder these hostages throughout the past six months. Hamas preferred to let the war continue, and promised many more October 7ths in future. Secondly, false equivalences would have ensured that Roosevelt and Churchill were tried at Nuremberg along with the Nazis, since they too had millions of deaths on their hands. Thus my point. Let's hope beyond hope that some peace and sensibility comes to the region.
Thanks Eduardo…and I know we have different views on this situation. But there are really important international principles here.
Firstly, simply because an enemy started the war (leaving aside the issue of decades of Israeli occupation) and now won’t agree to your terms for ending hostilities is not, and cannot be, a justification for committing war crimes.
Secondly, the Nuremberg example is a false comparison. The definition of war crimes and the international institutional framework for holding people to account has evolved massively. So yes, if Churchill were to order the bombing of German cities in response to attacks on UK military targets today, he would be indictable for war crimes. But not in 1945.
This needed to be said. Se shall see how many journalists pick up on this theme. So far the answer is none, to my knowledge
Many thanks Doug. Let's see if it rolls.