Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) - Non-Members

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Non-party, non-signatory states Signatories which have not ratified Of the 139 states that had signed the Rome Statute, 31 have not ratified. Azerbaijan Belarus Bhutan Brunei China Cuba El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia India Indonesia Iraq Kazakhstan Kiribati Korea, North Laos Lebanon Libya Malaysia Mauritania Micronesia Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Pakistan Palau Papua New Guinea Qatar Rwanda Saudi Arabia Singapore Somalia South Sudan Sri Lanka Swaziland Togo Tonga Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu Vatican City Vietnam SOURCE -  Wikipedia   Angola Armenia Bahamas Bahrain Cameroon Egypt Eritrea Guinea-Bissau Haiti Iran Israel*[J] Jamaica Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Monaco Mozambique Oman Russia São Toméan Algeria d Príncipe Solomon Islands Sudan*[K] Syria Thailand Ukraine[I] United Arab Emirates United States*[L] Uzbekistan Yemen Zimbabwe Israel Israel voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute but later signed it for a short period. In 2002, the United States and Israel "unsigned" the Rome Statute, indicating that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, they have no legal obligations arising from their signature of the statute. Israel states that it has "deep sympathy" with the goals of the Court. However, it has concerns that political pressure on the Court would lead it to reinterpret international law or to "invent new crimes". It cites the inclusion of "the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory" as a war crime as an example of this ... United States There is presently bipartisan consensus that the United States does not intend to ratify the Rome Statute.  Some US Senators have suggested that the treaty could not be ratified without a constitutional amendment.  Therefore, US opponents of the ICC argue that the US Constitution in its present form does not allow a cession of judicial authority to any body other than the Supreme Court. In the view of proponents of the ICC there is no inconsistency with the US Constitution, arguing that the role of the US Supreme Court as final arbiter of US law would not be disturbed. Before the Rome Statute, opposition to the ICC was largely headed by Republican Senator Jesse Helms.  Other objections to ratification have included that it violates international law, is a political court without appeal, denies fundamental American human rights, denies the authority of the United Nations, and would violate US national sovereignty. EXTRACTS ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE -  Wikipedia Israel understandably objects, as Israel is transferring civilian population as an occupying power into occupied territory (which is presumably what the illegal settlements drama is all about). USA hides behind the Constitution and a host of other arguments, for good measure.  Best one is 'violates US national sovereignty.' Senator Jesse Helms Southern Baptist Journalist WWII Navy Recruiter Democrat 1942-1970 Republican 1970-2008 [Wikipedia]

International Criminal Court - Israel & USA

JNS.ORG ARTICLE Israel launches campaign to discredit International Criminal Court inquiry Posted on January 19, 2015 by JNS.org By Shlomo Cesana/Israel Hayom/JNS.org The Israeli government has launched a public diplomacy campaign to discredit the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) recent decision to start an inquiry into what the Palestinians call Israeli “war crimes” in the disputed territories. According to ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, the inquiry—which was initiated after a request by the Palestinian Authority (PA)—is not a formal investigation, but rather “a process of examining the information available in order to reach a fully informed determination on whether there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation pursuant to the criteria established by the [ICC’s] Rome Statute.”  [So this isn't even a proper inquiry; it is merely an inquiry to see if there is BASIS to commence an ICC inquiry.] Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas recently signed the Rome Statute in order to join the ICC after failing to get a U.N. Security Council resolution passed that called for Israel’s withdrawal from the disputed territories by 2017. Israel’s campaign against the ICC inquiry will focus on the fact that the because the charges were filed by the PA, which is not a state, the court has no authority to act. In addition, the campaign will point out the court’s bias against Israel—a country on the frontline of the war against global terrorism that makes sure to abide by international law by way of an independent legal system. [Anybody that's ever broken international laws has had an 'independent legal system'.  As for 'court's bias against Israel', isn't it a bit too early for that?] The Israeli government decided to launch the public diplomacy campaign at an emergency meeting in response to the ICC decision that was convened by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The meeting, which took place at Netanyahu’s office, was attended by Israeli security, legal, and diplomatic officials. The ICC’s decision to launch the inquiry into Israeli actions is “the height of hypocrisy and the opposite of justice,” Netanyahu said Sunday at the start of his weekly cabinet meeting, two days after the court announced the inquiry. “During my years of public service, both as U.N. ambassador and as prime minister, I encountered these kinds of events, but this decision by the [ICC] prosecutor is in a league of its own,” Netanyahu said. “It gives international legitimacy to international terrorism.” [It's a war crimes inquiry.] The prime minister said Israel would fight the ICC’s decision with every means it has available, including the enlistment of its allies. Along those lines, Israel is lobbying member states of the ICC to cut funding for the tribunal, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Sunday. Israel, which like the United States does not belong to the ICC, hopes to dent funding for the court that is drawn from its 122 member states in accordance with the size of member states’ economies, said Lieberman.  [USA & Israel are not members of ICC.] “We will demand of our friends in Canada, in Australia, and in Germany simply to stop funding it,” Lieberman told Israel Radio. “This body (the ICC) represents no one. It is a political body,” he added. A loss of funding would exacerbate the ICC’s already serious financing problems. Last week, Reuters reported that the unexpected arrival of an indicted defector from Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda would put prosecutors under severe financial strain. The overwhelming bulk of the court’s funding comes from advanced economies of Europe and North Asia. Japan is the largest contributor, giving $23.7 million in 2014, followed by Germany, which gave $15.7 million. France, Britain, and Italy are also major contributors to the ICC’s budget, which will rise 7 percent to $164 million in 2015. Canada contributed $6.5 million. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird visited Israel this week, and the Israeli government planned to raise the ICC funding issue with both foreign leaders. “Israel is adamant that it will have the right to defend itself against all those who wish to propagate terror and other attacks against its citizens, against its territory,” Netanyahu said at the start of a meeting with Abe. “We will not have our hands ties by anyone, including the ICC. We will do what is necessary to defend ourselves wherever we need to do so.” Despite Israel’s lobbying efforts, even countries that are traditionally close to the Jewish state are unlikely to renege on their treaty commitments to fund the ICC, said Kevin Jon Heller, a professor of law at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. “Germany is probably the least likely country in the world to go against the ICC no matter how supportive of Israel it has traditionally been,” Heller said. “It was one of the very leading states in the creation of the ICC.” ICC prosecutors said Friday that they would examine “in full independence and impartiality” crimes that may have occurred in the disputed Palestinian territories since June 13, 2014. This allows the court to delve into alleged war crimes during Operation Protective Edge, which took place in July and August, but not into Hamas terrorists’ June 12 kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teens in Gush Etzion. Hamas on Saturday welcomed the ICC inquiry and said it was prepared to provide material for complaints against Israel.  [The kidnapping is a separate event, in the lead up to OPE - here.] http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/2015/1/19/israel-launches-campaign-to-discredit-international-criminal-court-inquiry#.VL5zrSyGOIQ= COMMENT It's hard to see why Israel is kicking up such a fuss when this isn't even a formal investigation.  It's just a preliminary inquiry and if Israel considers they've acted within the law, then what is the problem with such an inquiry? As Israel is not a member of ICC, the ability to conduct an inquiry into Israel's actions would, I assume, come from the fact that the Palestinian Authority recently signed up as a member of ICC. The 'frontline of global terrorism' and 'right to defend' are phrases repeated elsewhere, to create an impression of justification and common interest (with 'global terrorism' reference). It is interesting that USA and Israel are not members of the International Criminal Court. According to this AHA article: The ICC is a permanent court established by the Rome Statute to prosecute persons for the most serious international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The Rome Statute is an international treaty that has been ratified by 122 countries, and has been signed by an additional 31 countries that have not yet ratified it, with the United States being one of the few countries not to ratify or sign the statute. Unlike other international courts, the ICC can only prosecute individuals and not organizations or governments, which allows the court to focus on high-level government officials that are typically exempted from international prosecution for their government’s illegal actions.  Should be interesting to see who is on the list of 31 that have opted out. The ICC being able to prosecute only individuals is strange, I would think.  Why not also organisations and governments? Anyway, the article indicates that the ICC can therefore focus on high-level government officials which typically slip out of the reach of "prosecution for their government's illegal actions." USA's excuse for not being on-board the ICC sounds like a load of garbage.  The likelihood is that the USA is protecting its higher-ups from prosecution by not signing up, so it is in effect leaving the door wide open to Rome Statute abuses by its government and officials. Did the Senate just open the U.S. up to ICC prosecution? By Mark Kersten December 10, 2014 Dec. 9 saw the much anticipated release of the U.S. Senate’s “torture report,” outlining in harrowing and tragic detail the CIA’s program of “enhanced interrogation techniques” in its “global war on terror.” On Dec. 2, the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court also released a report in which it made clear that it was inching closer to opening an official investigation into crimes in Afghanistan – including U.S. interrogation techniques. These developments could very well expose U.S. officials to formal investigation – and potentially prosecution – by the ICC. But is the court truly prepared to confront Washington head-on? The international justice and human rights world is abuzz with the possibility that accountability for U.S.-sponsored and perpetrated torture and so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” may finally be at hand. In the span of just a few days, the once naive aspiration that U.S. officials would come under the judicial microscope of the ICC has been resuscitated. However, any move to investigate and prosecute alleged crimes by U.S. citizens in Afghanistan needs to be set within the context of the ICC’s interest in maintaining positive relations with the United States while pushing for accountability for crimes committed by even the most powerful of states. Despite the United States being a non-member state, no relationship has dominated the court’s first decade as much as that with Washington. The popular narrative, one that the court and its advocates regularly reiterate, is one of consistent struggle and resilient progress. The storyline goes something like this: Despite the United States voting against the creation of the ICC in 1998, in one of his last acts while in office, President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute. However, not long after the court became a functioning entity, then-U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton was dispatched to “unsign” the statute, an unprecedented political move. What followed was a series of hostile measures by the United States, including the passage of the American Service-Members Protection Act (or “The Hague Invasion Act”) which prohibited the United States from providing funds to the court and bestowed upon the president the right to use “all necessary measures” to repatriate any U.S. citizen detained by the court. At the same time, the administration successfully employed coercive diplomacy against over a hundred states to ensure that they signed “Bilateral Immunity Agreements,” guaranteeing that they would never surrender a U.S. official or soldier to the ICC. During President George W. Bush’s second term, relations began to thaw. In 2005, the United States allowed the passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution referring Darfur to the ICC. When President Obama arrived on the scene, relations continued to warm. The United States began actively participating in ICC conferences, identified areas in which it could cooperate with the court and spoke of its “positive engagement”with the ICC. In addition, the State Department expanded its Rewards for Justice Program to include ICC indictees and played an important role in the surrender of Bosco Ntaganda, charged with committing war crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo, to The Hague. As David Bosco cogently argues in his book, “Rough Justice,” the ICC has generally sought to accommodate U.S. interests. Seeking to improve its relationship with the world’s most powerful country – and the country with the best surveillance techniques and thus access to the kind of evidence the court needs – prosecutors avoided stepping on Washington’s toes, neither investigating alleged abuses by U.S. officials nor intervening in states where the United States had preexisting political interests. This avoidance of confrontation, however, may be about to change in dramatic fashion. That allegations of torture by U.S. officials in Afghanistan were mentioned in the ICC prosecutor’s report may seem, at first glance, to be window dressing to assuage the concerns of many that the court is toothless when it comes to confronting powerful states. But behind this unprecedented and explicit mention of potential U.S. culpability is a court that appears more willing than ever to finally push the United States over accountability for international crimes in Afghanistan. However, in the wake of some serious setbacks including the collapse of the case against Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, is the ICC in a position to do so? There are two lines of thought on whether the ICC should pursue a formal investigation of U.S. officials for their use of torture in Afghanistan. First, there is the argument that the court is in too weak of a position to pursue the prosecution of citizens from great powers. The fear here is that the positive relationship the court worked so hard to earn shouldn’t be sacrificed for a fight that the ICC can’t win. The second viewpoint is that the court is in too weak of a position and thus it must confront abuses from great powers. The weakness of the ICC, in this view, stems from its unwillingness to challenge powerful states and its propensity to focus on weaker states in Africa. Strength will only come when the ICC fulfills its promise to transcend, rather than accommodate, global powers. Unsurprisingly, U.S. officials aren’t thrilled with the prospect of an ICC investigation. Stephen Rapp, U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, responded to the ICC’s report by insisting that, because the United States isn’t a member-state, the court has no right to investigate alleged war crimes committed by its citizens. But this is unlikely to resonate with human rights and international justice advocates, many of whom view it as another reiteration of U.S. exceptionalism. With the release of the torture report, it will become increasingly difficult for the ICC not to press forward. Expectations that the court confront allegations of international crimes by Western states have never been higher and, as Eugene Kontorovich observes, the torture report “gives significant impetus and ammunition to the ICC’s investigation.” With the CIA’s dirty laundry now airing in the political winds, it will be nearly impossible for the court to reverse course and avoid confronting U.S. abuses in Afghanistan. [Eugene Kontorovich is a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, and an expert on constitutional and international law.] Still, advocates of accountability should not get too far ahead of themselves. The gears of justice at the ICC grind notoriously slowly. Moreover, the court’s endgame is not to prosecute U.S. officials. Instead, it is to galvanize domestic accountability for any alleged crimes committed by Western officials. Indeed, it is not within the ICC’s institutional interests to pick a fight it can’t win with the United States or incur the wrath of Washington’s resultant hostility. The prosecutor’s report on Afghanistan is thus not so much a threat to the United States as a signal to take justice for alleged torture seriously. Doing so would require going high up the political food chain, to those in the Bush administration “most responsible” for deploying torture as a means of war. The question is: Will the United States take the opportunity to finally pursue accountability for alleged international crimes committed by its citizens in Afghanistan or not? The world – and the ICC – is watching.  [As if USA ever plans on being held accountable.] Mark Kersten is a researcher based at the London School of Economics and the creator of the blog, Justice in Conflict. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/12/10/did-the-senate-just-open-the-u-s-up-to-icc-prosecution/ I can't even believe what I've read here.  USA did everything it could to avoid being liable to ICC investigations, and it even went that step further by passing some 'Hague Invasion Act' and bullying over a hundred sovereign nations into signing a guarantee that they will not hand over US citizens -- who happen to be accused war criminals. Compare what you've just read in the Washington Post article above to this AHA spin published in 2013: The main speaker at the event was Stephen Rapp, who currently serves as the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice. Rapp started his address by expounding on some of the reasons why the U.S. hasn’t been a more active participant in the ICC, while also taking time to describe some of the many ways that the U.S. currently works to protect the human rights of people across the world. [Hahaahahah] One of Rapp’s key points was that long-standing political and philosophical traditions in our country have prevented us from joining the ICC. The most important of these traditions, according to Rapp, is the belief by Americans that we can better help suffering people than the international community, and that our ability to help others without changing our national identity or culture will be threatened by joining an international institution that has its own laws and regulations which come from non-American societies. Additionally, Rapp felt that a certain degree of misinformation, such as the common but mistaken belief that the ICC is a part of the much-maligned UN, has prevented American policy makers from advancing the relationship between the U.S. and the ICC. [Long-standing traditions?  Ummm, like bombing the f*ck out of other nations?  'Help suffering people' ... with another round of water-boarding, coups, invasions, massacres, and arming dictators or extremists?] That guy's title should be Embassador-at-Large-for-Cr*p. Both USA and Israel are adept at getting their own way on the international stage and they work in tandem, so I highly doubt that anything will come of the preliminary ICC inquiry into Israel's Operation Protective Edge actions.   As for an inquiry into USA activities, I'm certain that any ICC mention etc, is 100% window-dressing and that the ICC is yet another organisation that serves USA's agenda. All of this ICC potential USA and Israel 'inquiry' stuff is probably a bit of entertainment cooked up for the sake of appearances.

Northern Israel, Syria, Sharon & History

JNS.ORG ARTICLE   Netanyahu: Iran behind Hezbollah attack on northern Israel Posted on January 29, 2015 by JNS.org. (JNS.org) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that Iran, the state sponsor of Hezbollah, “is the one behind yesterday’s attack” on northern Israel that killed two Israeli soldiers and wounded seven others. Speaking at a memorial service that marked the one-year anniversary of former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon’s death, Netanyahu said, “This radical power Ariel Sharon spoke about was, and still is, Iran. Today Iran is the one arming, organizing, funding, and sending its terrorist satellites to our borders, both north and south.” Dr. Ely Karmon, a senior research scholar at Israel’s International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, said that Hezbollah’s attack on Wednesday is part of “an attempt to change the strategic rules of the game.” According to Karmon, Iran and Hezbollah have been working for months to take advantage of instability in Syria in order to create a forward military position against Israel in Syria’s Quneitra region, close to the triple Syria-Lebanon-Israel border. “This is actually an Iranian project,” Karmon told JNS.org. “They have around 1,500 people on the ground in Syria, most of which are counseling or training Syrian militias, and they have Hezbollah providing military support.” http://www.jns.org/news-briefs/2015/1/29/netanyahu-iran-behind-hezbollah-attack-on-northern-israel COMMENT PM Netanyahu's blaming Iran "the state sponsor of Hezbollah", which is to be expected seeing his election campaign centres around exploiting the issue of Iran and national security. Meanwhile, Syrian government is blaming Israel for being on-side with those sponsoring opposition terrorism within Syria (Dec 2014): Syria: Terrorism Sponsors in Cahoots with Israel December 08, 2014 - 17:23 TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem took a swipe at Israel for aiding and abetting terrorism, stressing that Syria will emerge victorious in the face of terrorists that have invaded his country. “The countries sponsoring terrorism are in the same front with Israel. Syria will continue resisting and has no option but to overcome terrorism,” the Syrian foreign minister said in a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif in Tehran on Monday. His remarks came after Sunday’s reports of Israeli airstrikes on Syria, near the capital Damascus. Israeli planes bombed the area near Damascus international airport and the town of Dimas, the Syrian army said in a statement. Elsewhere in his comments, Muallem said he has visited Iran to expressed gratitude to the Islamic Republic for its continued support for the Syrian nation. Syria has been gripped by deadly violence since March 2011 with ISIL Takfiri terrorists currently controlling parts of it mostly in the east. The US and its regional allies have been supporting the militants operating inside Syria for more than three years. An estimated 200,000 people have been killed in over three years of fighting in the war-ridden country, according to the United Nations. http://www.tasnimnews.com/English/Home/Single/582368 Iran is obviously a supporter of the Syrian government. Looks like Israel's been an aggressor in Syria proper, bombing near the Damascus international airport. The Ariel Sharon info that caught my eye was: Sharon's stroke occurred a few months before he had been expected to win a new election and was widely interpreted as planning on "clearing Israel out of most of the West Bank", in a series of unilateral withdrawals. [Wikipedia] The first thing I thought was, wow, what a coincidence.  Now I'm probably seeing sinister causes in everything.  It probably was a coincidence. Heaps of information on Sharon.  The most startling find was this information regarding the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon: Complaint Against Ariel Sharon for his involvement in the massacres at Sabra and Shatila For the next 40 hours inside the "surrounded and sealed" camps, the Phalangist militia raped, killed and injured a large number of unarmed civilians, mostly children, women and old people. These actions were accompanied or followed by systematic roundups, backed or reinforced by the Israeli army, resulting in dozens of disappearances.  Until the morning of Saturday 18 September 1982, the Israeli army, which knew perfectly well what was going on in the camps, and whose leaders were in permanent contact with the militia leaders who perpetrated the massacre, did not intervene. Instead, they prevented civilians from escaping the camps and organised for the camps to be lit up throughout the night by flares sent into the sky from helicopters and mortars.  The count of victims varies between 700 (the official Israeli figure) and 3,500 (notably in the inquiry launched by the Israeli journalist Kapeliouk). The exact figure will never be determined because in addition to the approximately 1,000 people who were buried in communal graves by the ICRC or in the cemeteries of Beirut by members of their families, a large number of corpses were buried under bulldozed buildings by the militia themselves. Also, particularly on 17 and 18 September, hundreds of people were carried away alive in trucks towards unknown destinations, never to return.   [EXTRACT ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE - cabu.org] Israeli subsequent findings: After 400,000 Peace Now protesters rallied in Tel Aviv to demand an official government inquiry into the massacres, the official Israeli government investigation into the massacre at Sabra and Shatila, the Kahan Commission (1982), was conducted. The inquiry found that the Israeli Defense Forces were indirectly responsible for the massacre since IDF troops held the area.  The commission determined that the killings carried out by a Phalangist unit acting on its own, but its entry was known to Israel and approved by Sharon. Prime Minister Begin was also found responsible for not exercising greater involvement and awareness in the matter of introducing the Phalangists into the camps. The commission also concluded that Sharon bore personal responsibility "for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge [and] not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed". It said Sharon's negligence in protecting the civilian population of Beirut, which had come under Israeli control, amounted to a dereliction of duty of the minister. [Wikipedia] Only partially read that Complaint Against Ariel Sharon. Freaked out by this information.

Death of United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon ( UNIFIL) Peacekeeper

Haaretz Article Spain blames Israel for death of peacekeeper on Lebanon border The Spanish peacekeeper was killed when Israel retaliated against a Hezbollah strike; UN launches probe. By The Associated Press    and Gili Cohen | Jan. 28, 2015 | [ . . .  ] UINFIL observers reported seeing an anti-tank missile being fired from Lebanon toward an Israel Defense Forces vehicle on Wednesday morning – a Hezbollah strike that killed two soldiers and wounded seven others. Israel retaliated with artillery fire. “During the course of the developments, a UNIFIL peacekeeper deployed at a UN position near Ghajar sustained serious injuries that resulted in his death,” the statement said. Shortly after, around 1:30 P.M., five rockets were fired toward Israel. The IDF once again returned fire. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called his Spanish counterpart to convey Israel's condolences for Soria Toledo's death. UNFIL stated that the 10,000-strong UN peacekeeping operation has reinforced its presence and intensified patrols in its area of operations. According to messages relayed between Hezbollah and Israel through UNIFIL it appears that the two sides wish to avoid further escalation. Hezbollah's messages stated that the organization considers the attack an adequate retaliation to the airstrike in Syria last week, attributed to Israel, that killed seven Hezbollah operatives.  EXTRACT ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.639624 ............................................................... United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon ( UNIFIL) United Nations created on adoption of Security Council Resolution 425 and 426 on 19 March 1978 to confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon (which Israel had invaded five days prior) Mandate adjusted twice: > Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 > after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 Mandate enhanced: > after 2006 Lebanon War Source:  Wikipedia Not taking in much of the UNIFIL information. Looks like they've been there a total of almost 36 years now, and it looks like there's been a fair few UN fatalities over the years.

USA - Pro-Israel Lobbyists

Benjamin Netanyahu Stuns Israel Backers by Embracing Republicans on Iran Bipartisan Unity in Danger as Premier Sides With GOP Congress By Nathan Guttman Published January 28, 2015, issue of February 06, 2015. Washington — Within one week, the fundamentals of the mainstream pro-Israel community have been shaken like never before. Its centerpiece legislative effort — the drive to impose new sanctions on Iran — has been frozen in place and, more importantly, the notion that support for Israel is a bipartisan issue in American politics has suffered a serious blow. The source of the setbacks suffered by the organized Jewish community could be tracked down to one event: House Speaker John Boehner’s January 21 invitation to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak on Iran in front of a joint meeting of Congress — and Netanyahu’s acceptance of the invitation, by prearrangement — without consulting Boehner’s Democratic counterparts and without telling President Obama about his outreach to a head of state to visit. From that moment, events spiraled downward quickly, leaving the community with more questions than answers and with blame being assigned in all directions. When Rep. John Yarmuth, a Jewish Democrat from Kentucky, was asked about the latest entanglement, he pointed to the large American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby group, and to big donors as responsible for pushing Congress far to the right on issues relating to Israel. “Unfortunately,” Yarmuth told liberal radio host Stephanie Miller, “some of the demands made of [Congress] members by AIPAC and by some Jewish supporters are that we defer to Israel more than we defer to the United States.” Turning Israel into a partisan issue has long been the greatest fear of pro-Israel advocates who argue that in the long run, the Jewish state needs support from both parties in order to remain America’s closest ally. Events surrounding the GOP’s invitation to Netanyahu have raised concerns in the Jewish community that siding with Israel, and specifically adopting its view regarding the threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran, have now become a political football. “It is too important an issue to politicize it,” said Abraham Foxman national director of the Anti Defamation League, who argued against Netanyahu’s visit to Washington. For Democrats, such as Yarmuth, it was clear who was at fault for this politicization: the Republicans and those in the pro-Israel establishment who support their views. “Israel needs bipartisan support and I am worried that when you take an individual issue and try to drive a wedge, it weakens the long term foundations of this relationship,” said Greg Rosenbaum, chair of the National Jewish Democratic Council, who is also a top-level AIPAC member. A strong relationship between the United States and Israel has long been a cornerstone of the American Jewish community. Fears that it is now crumbling are overstated, argued Rabbi Steve Gutow, president and CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. “This does not rise to the ‘end of the relationship’ discussion that seems to be going on,” he said. “This is more of a ‘take a breath’ moment.” Gutow stressed that while there are clearly differences between the U.S. and Israel on how to deal with Iran, they are only tactical; the strategic goal of stopping Iran from becoming nuclear is shared by both nations. Events on Capitol Hill surrounding the Iran sanctions legislation demonstrated how polarized the debate had become. The bill, sponsored by Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois and Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey, faced many hurdles on its way to a vote in the Senate Banking Committee. First and foremost, there was the president’s vigorous threat to veto the legislation because of the destructive effect he argued it would have on the ongoing diplomatic negotiations with Iran. Supporters of the bill had hoped that with the help of Democratic senators, ten of whom had indicated their willingness to co-sponsor, they’d be able to reach a super majority of 67 needed to override a presidential veto. Netanyahu’s planned speech in Congress was expected to help crystallize this support. Three Jewish Democrats: New York’s Chuck Schumer, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Ben Cardin of Maryland were among the key backers of the bill. The Senate’s seven other Jewish lawmakers did not join the drive, with California’s Dianne Feinstein actively working to defeat it. But as the controversy over Netanyahu’s invitation to Congress took over Washington’s political agenda, Democratic support for the new sanctions legislation melted away. In a January 27 [letter] ](http://images.politico.com/global/2015/01/27/iranletter1.pdf) to Obama, all the original Democratic supporters of the bill promised they would not support the legislation on the Senate floor before March 24, the current deadline for reaching a diplomatic agreement with Iran. They said further that they would vote for new sanctions only if negotiations failed to reach an agreement. [Which is putting pressure to reach agreement, on the threat of sanctions.] The bottom line delivered by Senate Democrats was that new Iran sanctions — AIPAC’s central piece of legislation and a top goal for Republican supporters of Israel — has been put on freeze by Democrats, with all Jewish senators on board. [Hardly a freeze.] “Democrats are wary of the partisan agenda behind this push for sanctions on Iran,” said Dylan Williams, vice president of government affairs at the dovish lobby J Street, a group that opposes new sanctions on Iran. “This worry they had was confirmed by Speaker Boehner and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s gambit.” AIPAC did not respond to inquiries relating on this issue from the Forward. But the recast debate thrust the entire organized Jewish community into an uneasy position. Most major Jewish groups chose to avoid speaking out publicly on the controversy. An official with one of the big national organizations said that the recent events had caught the community by surprise and that “there is no good way to respond.” The official explained that Jewish groups have nothing to benefit from taking sides in a political dispute between Republicans and the White House, or, for that matter, between the president of the United States and the Israeli prime minister. At least one Jewish senator has expressed, in an off record conversation, his wish to try and broker some sort of an arrangement that would defuse tensions, though he noted that it is not clear if there are partners on the other side of the isle for a compromise. Short of finding such a middle road, Jewish communal activists now face two immediate questions: How to keep up the pressure on Iran now that the option of new sanctions is on hold? And how should they treat Netanyahu once he arrives in Washington? The first is a practical problem. New sanctions are still the main vehicle for the pro-Israel lobby to increase pressure on Iran and AIPAC will continue pushing for their approval. But this drive has become all the more difficult now that the sanctions legislation has turned into one of the most contentious partisan issues, making it harder to get Democrats on board. As for rolling out the welcome mat for Netanyahu – all Jewish officials reached by the Forward said they could not envision a situation in which Jewish groups would shun the Israeli leader. Staff members from congressional offices of Jewish lawmakers also stressed there is no intention to boycott Netanyahu’s speech. But this doesn’t mean partisanship will be off the table once Netanyahu arrives at Capitol Hill. The Emergency Committee on Israel, a heavily Republican organization known for its critical views of President Obama, has already announced it will be hosting a reception for the Israeli prime minister after he addresses Congress. The event, ECI said in a statement is meant to “make clear, in case there’s any doubt, that whatever the president does or says, Americans value our friendship with our ally Israel.” http://forward.com/articles/213645/benjamin-netanyahu-stuns-israel-backers-by-embraci/? COMMENT If you want to get things done in terms of political lobbying, it's best to have both sides on-side, rather than to turn issues into bipartisan partisan political issues, is what I got out of that. A lot of pro-Israel lobby groups appear to be involved. It's not to pro-Israel lobbyists advantage to get caught up in a Republicans vs the White House or USA versus Israel issues. Furthermore, Israel cannot afford to alienate either party.  For continued support, must straddle both sides of the House. But at the end of the day, it looks like it's important for pro-Israeli lobbyists to continue to show their support for Israel, so Israel's visiting PM will be hosted by a heavily republican 'Emergency Committee on Israel' after his Congress address.

Israel - Lebanon Clashes

WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE Deadly border clashes stoke fears of war in Israel, Lebanon By William Booth and Hugh Naylor January 28 at 9:15 PM JERUSALEM — Residents of Israel and Lebanon feared Wednesday that their countries were edging toward war after Israeli troops and the Lebanese Hezbollah militia exchanged deadly barrages across a fractious border earlier in the day. The clashes, which began with a Hezbollah attack that killed two Israeli soldiers, marked one of the most serious flare-ups of violence in the area since a month-long war in 2006 and raised tensions in a volatile tri-border zone close to positions held by Syrian rebels, including Islamist factions. A U.N. peacekeeper was also killed, although it was unclear how he died. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed that “whoever is behind today’s attack will pay the full price.” In addition to Hezbollah, Netanyahu said Israel would hold the governments of Lebanon and Syria — which Hezbollah is backing in its civil war— responsible for any attack originating from their territories. The Israeli leader, in the midst of a competitive election campaign, also blamed Iran, another ally of Hezbollah, for trying to open a new front against Israel. As anti-armor missiles and tank artillery flashed across the countries’ frontier, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, traveling in China, said Israel should retaliate “in a very harsh and disproportionate manner.” The Lebanese-based Shiite movement Hezbollah, which asserted responsibility for the attack on an Israeli convoy, also threatened more actions. The deadly exchange on the border came 10 days after an Israeli airstrike in the Syrian-controlled portion of the Golan Heights killed six Hezbollah fighters and a senior military commander from Iran. Hezbollah leaders had vowed to retaliate. The Lebanese Hezbollah group struck an Israeli military convoy on Wednesday, killing two Israeli soldiers. The attack was an apparent retaliation for an airstrike that killed six Hezbollah fighters in Syria earlier this month. The Israeli military said seven troops were wounded in Wednesday’s hostilities, and the United Nations said a Spanish member of its peacekeeping force was killed in the village of Ghajar, which straddles the Israel- Lebanon border. Andrea Tenenti, a spokesman for the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, said the circumstances of the “tragic incident” were being investigated. The clashes began when an anti­tank missile struck Israeli military and civilian vehicles traveling in a convoy along the border. The attack was followed by mortar rounds launched from Lebanon that landed near Israeli troops in the foothills of Mount Hermon, according to Israeli military officials. That barrage was answered by dozens of artillery shells fired into Lebanon. Israeli military officials said their forces launched “aerial and ground strikes at Hezbollah operational positions.” In a separate operation, Israeli jets hit Syrian army artillery positions near the Israel-occupied Golan Heights in response to two rockets fired from Syria the previous day. No casualties were reported. The triangle where Israel, Lebanon and Syria meet has been mostly quiet for years, but increasingly the nearly four-year-old conflict in Syria has spilled over. Hezbollah has backed the embattled government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which is also supported by Iran. The recent tensions began escalating Jan. 18, when a missile from an Israeli warplane struck a convoy traveling near the Syria-Israel demilitarized zone in the Golan Heights, killing the six Hezbollah members and the Iranian general. Israeli officials claimed Hezbollah had been planning a large-scale attack against Israel. Among the dead was Jihad Mughniyah, the son of Imad Mughniyah, a former top Hezbollah militant who was assassinated in a 2008 car bombing in the Syrian capital, Damascus. Israel is suspected of playing a role in the elder Mughniyah’s killing. The Israeli military had since been bracing for a retaliatory strike, moving additional soldiers, tanks and air-defense systems into the border zone. After Wednesday’s exchange, Israeli civilians were evacuated from some areas along the border. The exchange of fire took place in a contested area known as Shebaa Farms. Hezbollah says the area belongs to Lebanon, and the United Nations defines the area as part of Syria. The Israelis claim it is theirs. “The tension in the north is very tricky. It’s a very flammable situation,” said Maj. Gen. Israel Ziv, a reserve officer in the Israel army and former chief of operations. “Israel has to contain it, to defend our interests, but not get drawn in” to the Syrian battlefields, Ziv said. The fact that Hezbollah attacked Israeli troops, rather than Israeli population centers near the border, may make Israel less likely to respond harshly. But the death of two Israeli soldiers might also bring further Israeli action at a time when Hezbollah, distracted by its fight in Syria, could be weakened. Some analysts estimate that as many as 1,000 Hezbollah fighters have been killed in Syria, while others put that number in the hundreds. Hezbollah does not disclose such information, but its losses in Syria are widely believed to have been significant. “Hezbollah is stretched thin because of Syria. Even if it were not in Syria, that doesn’t mean that Hezbollah would want a major escalation with Israel,” said Hilal Khashan, a professor at the American University of Beirut. “The Israeli shelling in the south isn’t terribly intense,” he said. “So I don’t think this will lead to a major conflagration.” A Lebanese political analyst who has close ties with senior Hezbollah officials described the latest attack as “a trap set by Hezbollah.” “It’s important to note that Hezbollah’s first statement [on Wednesday’s attack] was called Communique No. 1, which means that it is signaling that it is ready to fight more,” said the analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the tense situation. Netanyahu warned Hezbollah not to escalate. “I suggest that all those who are challenging us on our northern border, look at what happened in Gaza,” he said, referring to last summer’s 50-day war between Israel and the Islamist group Hamas, which left more than 2,100 Palestinians dead and swathes of Gaza in ruins. He later sharpened his warnings, singling out Iran and saying those “behind the attack today will pay the full price.” Israel and Hezbollah fought a four-week war in 2006, which failed to dislodge key Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon and was interpreted in the Arab world as a victory for the militia group. On Wednesday, Israeli military officials said rumors that an Israeli soldier was abducted by Hezbollah forces were untrue. A kidnapping of Israeli soldiers was one of the events that led to the 2006 war. Naylor reported from Beirut. Suzan Haidamous in Beirut contributed to this report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-and-lebanons-hezbollah-trade-fire-across-border-casualties-reported/2015/01/28/dd9a6b68-a6e0-11e4-a2b2-776095f393b2_story.html COMMENT If this is a trap, it may be more likely to be an Israeli trap than a Hezbollah trap, if you consider the chain of events.  Hostilities were initiated by Israeli air-strike on Syrian controlled Golan Heights, killing 6 Hezbollah troops and an Iranian officer. As Israel initiated the round of hostilities, during a time Israel appears intent on lobbying for sanctions against Iran and disrupting the Iran nuclear talks, it is possible that any action here may be a means of either drawing Iran into conflict or perhaps steering opinion against Iran. However, I'm not sure what that Iranian officer was doing scouting around Israel's border. That seems odd.  But I've never observe military before, so I don't know. Shebaa farms, the location of the latest hostilities, is a region that belongs to either Lebanon (according to Hezbollah), to Syria (according to United Nations) or to Israel (according to Israel), so it's not even clear whose territory this took place on.

OFF TOPIC - Film - You Don't Mess with the Zohan

Super unmotivated ... didn't even get out of bed today.  Slept pretty much the whole time. On waking, I'd soon drifting off again.  Guess it was the medication. Any time I woke up, I was thinking about 'Zohar' and reminding myself to post about it. Thought it was a Ben Stiller or Adam Sandler movie about hairdressers and Mossad, but Zohar is some other movie I've never heard of. Found the one I was looking for: You Don't Mess with the Zohan http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0960144/?ref_=ttsnd_snd_tt It's an Adam Sandler movie.  No Ben Stiller in this.   Vaguely funny, I guess.  But it wasn't that funny. No idea why I felt I had to post about this. Don't think I'll be posting about anything else at the moment.  Feeling really queasy.