Sunday, January 4, 2015

A Double Standard?

Under normal circumstances, a court of last resort would be welcomed in the pursuit of justice, but it is apparently an entirely different story when it involves holding Israel to account


  1. So the "terrorists" are joining the ICC, placing themselves under their complete jurisdiction and thus subjecting themselves to the possibility of being charged for war crimes for the rockets they had fired into Israel.

    Meanwhile, the "good guys" refuse to join the ICC and put themselves under its jurisdiction while threatening (and it appears having taken action by refusing to pass over the taxes they had collected from Palestinians over to the Palestinian Authority) and criticizing the "terrorists" for joining the ICC.

    Meanwhile also the self righteous "friends" of the good guys (viz., U.S., Canada) have also supported the "good guys" and lambasted the "terrorists" for placing themselves under international rule of law as it regards to war crimes.

    Clearly, we need to redefine "terrorists" and "good guys". In fact, it is now clear that the "good guys" are in fact the real criminals and vice versa for the "terrorists".

    What does that make Canada and the U.S.? Friends of the real terrorists/criminals, quite clearly.

    1. I think, Anon, that while no one excuses the rocket attacks etc. directed against Israel, they expect the same critical criteria to be applied to Israel. Giving them a free pass for their acts of destruction against the Palestinians benefits no one, but merely ensures that the conflict between the two will continue far into the future.

    2. @Lorne. I actually do say that tongue in cheek about Hamas, who should of course suffer the consequences of the rule of law for firing rockets into Israel. Israel and is friends, however, should be held accountable for disregarding international law in regard to murdering of non combatants/civilians, especially children and babies and indiscriminate destruction of Palestinian properties and civilian infrastructure.

    3. I completely agree, Anon.