US Senate threatened Palestinian Authority over its decision to join ICC

[TheDemSocialist]

The US Senate has threatened the Palestinian Authority with a strong response over its decision to join the International Criminal Court. The United States, which has vetoed more than 40 UN Security Council Resolutions critical of Israel since 1972, opposes the Palestinian bid amid fears that it could bring war crime charges against Israeli officials.

Video @: US Senate threatened Palestinian Authority over its decision to join ICC

So what we are being told here is that Palestine exercising their right to go to the ICC is suddenly a bad thing?

 

[donsutherland1]

Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]US Senate threatened Palestinian Authority over its decision to join ICC

So what we are being told here is that Palestine exercising their right to go to the ICC is suddenly a bad thing?

The Palestinian move had little or nothing to do with justice. It had everything to do with seeking to evade diplomacy, avoid compromise, and to inflict harm on Israel. As Israel is a strategic U.S. ally, the U.S. is not obligated to fund the Palestinian Authority. Therefore, if the Senate feels it is appropriate and consistent with U.S. interests, it can and should end funding to the Palestinian Authority.


In the meantime, it will be interesting to see how the Palestinian Authority responds should it be held liable for terrorism-related damages in a civil lawsuit currently being heard in the U.S.

Palestine Liberation Organization on Trial in US Civil Case - ABC News

 

[PoS]

The Palestinian move had little or nothing to do with justice. It had everything to do with seeking to evade diplomacy, avoid compromise, and to inflict harm on Israel. As Israel is a strategic U.S. ally, the U.S. is not obligated to fund the Palestinian Authority.

The only possible way that the ICC could possibly harm Isreal is that some Isrealis will be found guilty of war crimes. If that is the case then its a good thing.

Sad that the US government has become lapdogs for the Isrealis.

 

[donsutherland1]

Sad that the US government has become lapdogs for the Isrealis.

Taking a policy course that is in the U.S. national interest, as support for a strategic ally is, does not make a nation a "lapdog."

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Taking a policy course that is in the U.S. national interest, as support for a strategic ally is, does not make a nation a "lapdog."

In other words "we are only for human rights and international justice only if it does not counteract our "national interests"".

 

[donsutherland1]

In other words "we are only for human rights and international justice only if it does not counteract our "national interests"".

Foreign policy deals with sustaining and advancing the national interest. Sometimes, the U.S. (and any other country) has to deal with others that don't have great human rights records. For example, the U.S. is currently involved in negotiations with Iran, which has an abysmal human rights record. If the U.S. and other parties to those talks can secure a verifiable and effective agreement that greatly mitigates the risk that Iran would develop nuclear weapons, that would be a positive outcome. That the P5+1 had to negotiate with a country with as terrible a human rights record as Iran has would be outweighed by the fact that the region and world would be a little more secure (and the risk of war somewhat lower) from such an agreement.

 

[CJ 2.0]

In other words "we are only for human rights and international justice only if it does not counteract our "national interests"".

Thank you for summarizing the Palestinian position.

Now if they would start using "justice" and other buzzwords to mean what they actually mean instead of what they want it to mean, we will have gotten somewhere.